Should atheism be illegal?

[Strevel]

God gave us freewill. You can’t force someone to believe in God. It’s different for other issues, though.

I think if we want to reduce athiesm we should live as a positive example of our lifestyle, faith and, if you don’t mind the openess, …not judge others. Be a friend, love others and do right hen wrong is better and quicker. People watch us and value out Churchs worth by what they percieve. I have met a few people that were I a pagan , oopps, I mean a non-Catholic I’d run out in the back yard and worship a flute playing goat rather than accept and digest internally the value / moral system they espouse.
We can all do well by living our life as well as we can, stay worthy of the Eucharist, going to confession, and well, just mastering the basics. Mastering the basics is so, I mean, so so so hard! That is a handful for me and I am sure a lot of us. And, we need to not judge others, like those damned Lutherans do! (humor well intended)
So many people in the world act as if they are Jesus himself and want to heal others woes and issues by telling them where they are wrong. Far worse, by telling everyone else where someone else is wrong (gossip). Half the time the problems and woes we have are a ““class from God”” that we can learn solutions and corrective behavioral patterns in, should we choose to do so. Example, I have sinned, I follow the path of correct and proper confession, and I lay down corrective behavioral habits so as to not re-commit the sins, the do the best I can. No one can do better than ther best. Or, my house caught on fore so I learned to keep matches away from grandpaw and the kids.
People are going to feel as they choose. there really is not a whole lot we can do to change that fact. All we can do is live our lives in a fashion that makes us happy, positive and succeeding. I am a convert to Catholic truths from the Mormon faith. I learned so much in my conversion process…which is daily.
God bless everyone, keep me in your prayers as i can always use them…BA-LIEVE ME!

Don in Vegas

 

[cynic]

God rarely exhibits power in that kind of way. But the Western world is already suffering negative consequences for its actions. STDs, negative medical consequences of abortions, demonic hauntings as a result of witchcraft, intense mass delusion as a result of idolatry, crime rates, rape rates, etc. I think the worst is still ahead of us, though, and we’re heading into it with a lot of coal in the engine.
.

It’s disturbing that your view something like aids as a punishment from God, considering all the innocent women and their children that get infected.

In this culture and society, that’s true. Interestingly, if you lived a few hundred years ago and still had the same beliefs you have now, you would be the maniac and I would be the norm.
.

The difference now is that I’m not trying to take away your sovereignty over your own mind and body.

I don’t think this is true. God’s nature is eternal, not arbitrary.
.

Not arbitrary in that everything is ‘ordered’ to glorify him (from a theological perspective). That doesn’t mean we will neccessarily benefit.

Why? That may be moral, but morality is all a human construction minus the supernatural, so you can make up your own morality and it’s as valid as anyone else’s.
.

So what if it’s a construction. It’s based on something we all have in common, the desire to live, so murderes still get punished.

I’m glad you see it that way. The liberal and secularist movements in general don’t seem to. In general, Christians are the ones fighting hardest against abortion.
.

Isn’t abortion as much the result of agressive feminism as secular atheism?

Nothing is immoral arbitrarily and then destructive as a side effect. Immoral actions are always destructive, and it’s because they are destructive that we call them immoral.
.

If you took away the possibility of psychotic behaviour, took away the effects of addiction, I’m guessing most Christians would still regard drug use as immoral, because of the artificial means of achieving euphoria. So its immorality need not be connected to the destructive side effects.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

It’s disturbing that your view something like aids as a punishment from God, considering all the innocent women and their children that get infected.

One thing I feel sure about, as regards AIDS, is this: God never wanted it to exist. Mankind created it by engaging in immoral behavior. If they had not broken God’s laws, this disease would never have come into being.

There are always negative consequences for sin, and those consesquences don’t always stay limited to the sinner. Sometimes they spread around. For instance, a murderer might commit murder. His sinful desire has created a destructive result that did not only affect him. It also affected somebody else. Destructive results for the murderer might be prison or the death penalty.

Sin often creates negative consequences that afflict innocent people. AIDS is no exception. AIDS is a consequence of this particular sin, and, I think, is part of the reason God didn’t want people to engage in homosexual behavior. Because it’s destructive.

That’s the big reason God doesn’t want people to engage in sins at all, and this is across the board. Sins are called sins because they are destructive and harmful to the people that engage in them, as well as, often, to innocent people along the side. They sever the relationships between a human and God, or a human and other people. They cause damage all around. Some cause damage mainly to oneself. Others to God. Others to one’s neighbor. They always are hurtful, harmful courses of action. That’s why God hates them.

The difference now is that I’m not trying to take away your sovereignty over your own mind and body.

That doesn’t refute anything I said. My point still stands that you’d have been seen as the maniac back then, just as I might be today.

In response to your new argument, I’d have to say that that’s not true. There is a certain degree of sovereignty that the government has taken away from my body. The draft, for instance, is one such force. The government’s regulations on the economy. Any law that the government passes, I am required to obey. So the government already makes countless decisions that claim some degree of sovereignty over my body.

There are also laws against certain words we might speak, in our society. For instance, laws against libel or false advertising.

It is clear that the mind can produce great harm through words. Hitler stirring up the Nazis to hatred against the Jews, for instance. Or me, if I convinced another person that using drugs is a good idea. Even if I don’t sell the person any drugs, my convincing the person that it’s a good idea is dangerous to the person.

People who create how-to-make-a-bomb websites on the Internet are likewise using their words as weapons. The most obvious people who use their words as weapons today are those radical Islamist Imams who attack the West with their words and radicalize people, creating violent action through their minds and words.

All negative actions and words can be traced back to the choices of the mind.

No human can control what other people think. Anyone can have influence on what others think, but no one can actually control their thoughts. No law against idolatry could force people to actually think the right thoughts. No human can normally see the idolatry in another person’s heart without seeing it first manifested through their body. Therefore your objection must be to the law’s legislating against idolatry seen through the actions of the body. Which amounts to the spreading of an ideology.

We already have laws against the spreading of some ideologies. Your contention must therefore be that these particular ideologies should be left alone.

We’re really not operating on such completely different rules as you might think. Each of us know that some words or actions are dangerous and should be judged by the law. Therefore no one has complete sovereignty over his or her body. We are simply disagreeing about which words or actions should be judged.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Not arbitrary in that everything is ‘ordered’ to glorify him (from a theological perspective). That doesn’t mean we will neccessarily benefit.

That doesn’t make sense. God’s nature, you see, is love. God is love. And he is also eternal, so his nature is eternally loving. Killing left-handed people could never be loving, so it could never glorify God’s nature.

Because God is Love, he will always act in a way that is loving. Which includes being loving to us.

So what if it’s a construction. It’s based on something we all have in common, the desire to live, so murderes still get punished.

It’s just as valid as the murderer’s desire to kill. The only reason the murderer’s choice is unacceptable is because most people presently reject it. If most people came to change their minds, as in the Aztec culture, or in our current cultural acceptance of abortion laws, then the old moral laws against murder become immoral. It all depends upon the flimsy human feelings of the moment. All are equally valid moral feelings, and therefore all invalid.

The common desire to live doesn’t mean everyone has the right to live. The thought that it does comes from the human mind as much as does the thought of a murderer that such and such deserves to die. There is no constant or absolute. All becomes relative. All becomes the will of the people. And the will of the people, as can be shown through countless examples of popular wickedness throughout history, is not to be trusted.

Isn’t abortion as much the result of agressive feminism as secular atheism?

Yes, I think so.

If you took away the possibility of psychotic behaviour, took away the effects of addiction, I’m guessing most Christians would still regard drug use as immoral, because of the artificial means of achieving euphoria.

I don’t know why that makes sense. The Church hasn’t made any sweeping condemnation of television.

It doesn’t create euphoria most of the time, it’s true, but pleasure coming from gadgets is all a matter of degrees. And non-artificial gadgets are the same.

The point is, everything that is “immoral” or “sinful” goes by those terms because it is harmful to people. “Sinful” = “Harmful.” As the scripture says, “the wages of sin is death.” And, “sin, that is full grown, gives birth to death.” It’s seen as harmful and destructive. It is counter to love.

The terms “sinful” and “immoral” are commonly misinterpreted by non-Christians as meaning that some book says that such and such is bad in God’s sight, even though there’s no reason to think of it as bad. And the things that are called bad are really often good and pleasurable.

That’s the common, condescending view of these words. However, it’s a complete misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. We call certain behaviors “sin” because of their destructive nature.

So its immorality need not be connected to the destructive side effects.

It always is. I challenge you to think of one occasion where it is not.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

True, should the government protect people from poverty?

In Sweden the government goes not function to control every facet of people’s lives.

Good .

I think we’re essentially in agreement, here.

 

[myndsplyntur]

I voted no, atheism should not be illegal; pretty much for the same reasons that everyone else has mentioned.

 

[myndsplyntur]

I think if we want to reduce athiesm we should live as a positive example of our lifestyle, faith and, if you don’t mind the openess, …not judge others. Be a friend, love others and do right hen wrong is better and quicker. People watch us and value out Churchs worth by what they percieve.

I love that response.

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

Atheism is quite possibly one of the worst sins in the eyes of the Church. It includes a complete rejection of Jesus, the authority of the Church, the love of God - almost every single Catholic doctrine about the divine. It most certianly is a mortal sin, if the other two conditions for a mortal sin are met.

Other grave sins are illegal, such as murder, rape, theft, etc. Atheism, which is just as bad (if not even worse) than those sins, ought to be illegal too. Also, it would be a deterrant to conversion to atheism and most likely result in significantly fewer atheists.

So, why shouldn’t atheism be illegal? Where is my logic wrong?

That’s one way to look at it.

Personally, I think, no, atheism should not be illegal. I do believe in the separation between Church and State. I don’t feel it contradicts my Catholic background at all. In fact, I feel this way because of my Catholic background. See, the US is a protestant country. I don’t want protestant beliefs invading my personal Catholic practise, so it’s just best to keep law and religious belief separate. When you mingle politics and religion too closely, the Church becomes too associated with political problems. If there’s a scandal because of a politician, the Church would be dragged through the mud along with him or her. The Church should be kept noble, above politics, but humble enough to be a true public servant.

Even then, laws fundamentally don’t really base themselves on religion. Rather, laws are based on whether or not the act hurts another person. Though atheism is horrible and it hurts God, in the eyes of the state, it isn’t a prosecutable offence.

Above all of that, others’ atheism won’t hurt the Church. The Church is eternal, a flame lit by Christ that will never, ever die. The Church has survived 300 years of Roman persecution. It continues to survive today in China despite persecution from Beijing. Governments have put themselves at odds with us, but we’re still here, as strong and as beautiful as ever.

I’m saying these things as someone who works in politics and government as well as a practising Catholic. Don’t make atheism illegal.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

That’s one way to look at it.

Personally, I think, no, atheism should not be illegal. I do believe in the separation between Church and State. I don’t feel it contradicts my Catholic background at all. In fact, I feel this way because of my Catholic background. See, the US is a protestant country. I don’t want protestant beliefs invading my personal Catholic practise, so it’s just best to keep law and religious belief separate.

That’s like saying because you don’t want to be put in prison, you don’t want thieves to be put in prison. True religion creates life- false religion kills it. True religion creates good morals- false religion, to the extent that it is false, destroys them.

I don’t want to be persecuted under Protestant anti-Catholic laws either. But the fact that a law blocking what’s good is bad doesn’t make a law blocking what’s bad bad . . . if you know what I mean.

When you mingle politics and religion too closely, the Church becomes too associated with political problems. If there’s a scandal because of a politician, the Church would be dragged through the mud along with him or her. The Church should be kept noble, above politics, but humble enough to be a true public servant.

On the contrary, Christ should fill every part of society, including politics! Separate politics from the Church, the source of God’s light on Earth, and dangerous, unholy laws and policies are the natural product.

Even then, laws fundamentally don’t really base themselves on religion. Rather, laws are based on whether or not the act hurts another person.

But views on whether or not actions hurt other people are deeply entwined with morality. Putting this power in the hands of the “will of the people” is relativistic and inherently dangerous, for human will fluctuates and is selfish. God’s law is eternal and revealed, though! That is what we should hold to.

Above all of that, others’ atheism won’t hurt the Church.

Unfortunately, secularism in modern society is infiltrating many Catholics. It is possible for people, once saved, to be tempted away from God. The Lord’s Prayer includes the phrase, “lead us not into temptation,” and the presence of atheism in society is a temptation from the devil that some true believers fall to.

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

That’s like saying because you don’t want to be put in prison, you don’t want thieves to be put in prison. True religion creates life- false religion kills it. True religion creates good morals- false religion, to the extent that it is false, destroys them.

I don’t want to be persecuted under Protestant anti-Catholic laws either. But the fact that a law blocking what’s good is bad doesn’t make a law blocking what’s bad bad . . . if you know what I mean.

On the contrary, Christ should fill every part of society, including politics! Separate politics from the Church, the source of God’s light on Earth, and dangerous, unholy laws and policies are the natural product.

But views on whether or not actions hurt other people are deeply entwined with morality. Putting this power in the hands of the “will of the people” is relativistic and inherently dangerous, for human will fluctuates and is selfish. God’s law is eternal and revealed, though! That is what we should hold to.

Unfortunately, secularism in modern society is infiltrating many Catholics. It is possible for people, once saved, to be tempted away from God. The Lord’s Prayer includes the phrase, “lead us not into temptation,” and the presence of atheism in society is a temptation from the devil that some true believers fall to.

Well, you’re free to your opinion, and I’d appreciate a little more respect for mine.

I still say that faith comes from the ground up. It is not to be imposed on people by the state, at least not in this society in which we live. It is up to each person to step up against it. I’m not afraid of atheism. Let it come. The Church always prevails. That’s my stance.

Now, I didn’t say religion should be completely kept out of the public sphere, which is sort of the way you’re implying that I meant it. Sure, Congress should have a chaplain. Sure, faith should be a part of their lives. But it is a personal part, something each human being must decide on his or her own. The State cannot mandate faith.

What I’m saying is that government involvement (read: force) in people’s beliefs should be minimal. Again, the Church doesn’t need the state to survive. Even in anarchy, saints will be produced.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Well, you’re free to your opinion, and I’d appreciate a little more respect for mine.

What in my post suggested to you that I disrespect your opinion? I apologize if I came across that way.

I still say that faith comes from the ground up. It is not to be imposed on people by the state, at least not in this society in which we live. It is up to each person to step up against it. I’m not afraid of atheism. Let it come. The Church always prevails. That’s my stance.

Why not let murder come too? The Church would prevail if anti-murder laws were rescinded. Murder destroys bodies, atheism destroys souls. Which is worse?

Now, I didn’t say religion should be completely kept out of the public sphere, which is sort of the way you’re implying that I meant it. Sure, Congress should have a chaplain. Sure, faith should be a part of their lives. But it is a personal part, something each human being must decide on his or her own. The State cannot mandate faith.

I agree that it can’t force people to love God or have faith. It can intimidate non-believers into not spreading their unbelief to others, though, thus pulling the teeth from the tiger’s mouth.

What I’m saying is that government involvement (read: force) in people’s beliefs should be minimal. Again, the Church doesn’t need the state to survive. Even in anarchy, saints will be produced.

True, but that doesn’t make anarchy the ideal situation . What I’m supporting is the use of the ideal law- God’s Law. The Lord revealed what morality means, and it behooves governments to fall into line with that morality- not with some idea of morality that they decide for themselves through the will of the people (like the current moral idea of equality that includes the “right” to homosexual marriage). The will of the people doesn’t make right. It has a duty to do right, but that means it has a duty to fall into line with the Vatican’s moral teachings. Not to invent the meaning of right through the will of the people. This is a deep perversion in the democratic system.

There is no right to invent right. There is a duty to do right. And the people have a duty to fall into line with God’s truth. In a good system, the people would be rightfully subordinate to God’s will. In our system, God’s will is wrongfully subordinate to them (legally).

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

I agree that it can’t force people to love God or have faith. It can intimidate non-believers into not spreading their unbelief to others, though, thus pulling the teeth from the tiger’s mouth.

Okay, that’s one way to approach it, but wouldn’t making atheism illegal be essentially forcing people to have faith?

 

[pathia]

Okay, that’s one way to approach it, but wouldn’t making atheism illegal be essentially forcing people to have faith?

Exactly, faith enforced by the sword, or the pen is not faith. In fact, this would completely backfire. Forcing someone to believe something automatically will instill a desire to rebel against it.

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

Exactly, faith enforced by the sword, or the pen is not faith. In fact, this would completely backfire. Forcing someone to believe something automatically will instill a desire to rebel against it.

And, I might add, it would only give atheists another reason to be atheists – religion would be taken as a form of oppression rather than what it really is: a beautiful liberator.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Okay, that’s one way to approach it, but wouldn’t making atheism illegal be essentially forcing people to have faith?

It would force them to behave like Catholics, but they wouldn’t be Catholics in their hearts. Surrounded by Catholic influence, though, with a Catholic culture and vast reductions in the number of unholy influences reaching them, perhaps a heart conversion might follow. Even if it didn’t, though, the unbelief in the culture at large would gradually fade as time passed, as it has in most Muslim cultures when they suppressed other religions, and as it did in Christendom when idolatry was suppressed.
"pathia:

Exactly, faith enforced by the sword, or the pen is not faith. In fact, this would completely backfire. Forcing someone to believe something automatically will instill a desire to rebel against it.

In today’s culture, I know that it would take a huge number of conversions for the possibility of removing freedom of religion safely to be even remotely realistic.

And, I might add, it would only give atheists another reason to be atheists – religion would be taken as a form of oppression rather than what it really is: a beautiful liberator.

Are governments oppressive of thieves, rapists and murderers? We put them in prison, after all, for attacking other people in various ways.

Atheism is no less an attack. It is a spiritual attack, though, before it becomes a physical attack. It does become a physical attack, for all forms of idolatry eventually manifest themselves in evil actions of various kinds. In fact, according to Romans 1 and Wisdom 14, idolatry is the root of all evil. That’s why atheists are often pushing pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage positions. It’s only in a post-Christian society that such ideas are possible.

I know this law would give atheists further ammunition to shoot at Christians with, verbally. It gives ammunition only if you accept a secular premise of morality. For God’s Law in the Old Testament clearly stated that idolaters were to be put to death. That is just, in God’s eyes. Jesus softened the Law through repeated messages of mercy, but he didn’t abolish it. Indeed, he said that he came to “fulfill it.” And the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy repeated the just commands of the Law that the government should use it to punish the irreligious, the unholy, and anyone who deviates from the glorious gospel the Lord gave him.

From a secular point of view, religious freedom is good, because diversity and the interchange of ideas is always a good thing for humans, broadening their perspectives and giving them access to a broader pool of resources from which to develop.

We know, as Catholics, that false religions destroy souls, though. So the spread of any false ideology is always terrible. Yet we permit it. There are various arguments upon which we base religious freedom and support it, arguments we’ve grown up with or have come up with as time goes on. But at the root, the fundamental three reasons that we approve of religious freedom are:

1. We’re born where we are.
2. We’re born when we are.
3. Vatican II reversed the Church’s age-old opposition to religious freedom.

Each of these three reasons should give us pause. The first two, which are absolutely crucial to why we think what we do, why we’ve grown up coming up with the arguments we have, instead of opposite arguments, are clearly logically spurious. They are NOT a sound base for coming to a viewpoint. And Vatican II changed a position that was held in the Church throughout Church history before it. As soon as Constantine I came into power, he began the process of suppressing false religions, and the Church approved of his actions. Ever since, the Church always approved of suppressing false religions until the mid-20th century, a time when it was surrounded by secularism and liberalism and just couldn’t resist the sweep of the times any more, on this issue.

Sighs. I suspect religious freedom is necessary in this environment. It has proven a disastrous defeat, if the vast increase of immorality and idolatry throughout the West is anything to go by, but it may be necessary for the time being because if it ceased to exist, we’d be persecuted. Religious freedom is NOT legitimate. It is morally perverse and has allowed our cultures to foster all kinds of evil that old Christian countries universally banned. But our society is so far gone at this point that removing religious freedom would probably only harm Christians. Perhaps for now, it’s the best that can be hoped for.



I don’t know what can be done for this world. I don’t know what to do . . .

I’ll just have to try to save one soul at a time and pray to God with all my heart for each person. But the current Western system is a monster that’s biting down on hundreds of millions of human bodies and souls, chewing them up and spitting their bloody corpses out. I want the whole monster struck dead, but I feel like I have to content myself with chiseling at one of its toe nails.

WHY? My heart aches for the Church. Dear love of God, why is this happening to your people? Oh Lord, my Lord, please restore your grace to the land. Let a sigh of hope touch our ears, a comforting whisper that your hand will save us. Bring us your peace and your hope, dear one.

 

[Starwynd]

but wouldn’t making atheism illegal be essentially forcing people to have faith?

No, it would simply force people to give lip service to those in power. That is, they really won’t believe but will have to say they do in order to avoid going to jail.

 

[Mirdath]

But at the root, the fundamental three reasons that we approve of religious freedom are:

1. We’re born where we are.
2. We’re born when we are.
3. Vatican II reversed the Church’s age-old opposition to religious freedom.

I would add a couple more:

1. You’re smart enough to realize you’d be some of the first up against the wall.
2. ‘Love thy neighbor’ does not and has never meant ‘railroad the sucker’. You believe that humans have free will to worship God one way or another, or not at all, and to even attempt to restrict that choice is tantamount to denying the humanity not only of those who would take a different path, but also of yourself. You would take away something you say is given us by God… in an attempt to better serve God?

 

[Pier]

Haven’t read all the posts - but will say that although it would be wonderful if everyone believed in and obeyed God, God Himself doesn’t make anybody believe in Him. Jesus didn’t force anybody to follow Him…

Free will is one of God’s gifts to us - unfortunately, we don’t always make the right choices.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I would add a couple more:

First of all, I’ll mention that the two additional reasons you’ve given are the product of where and when you grew up, as well as Vatican II. They come after, not first, so they can’t be included in the basic reasons why people believe what they do.

Even St. Francis of Assisi wrote in his Testament that non-Catholics or Catholics who wanted to change the rule of his order should be seized and put into the hands of the bishop for judgment. They thought of “love they neighbor” as including justice as well as mercy.

1. You’re smart enough to realize you’d be some of the first up against the wall.

True . . . that’s the only valid reason I can presently see for supporting freedom of religion.

1. ‘Love thy neighbor’ does not and has never meant ‘railroad the sucker’.

We punish rapists because we love our neighbors. We punish murderers and thieves for the same reasons. We should punish idolaters for the same reasons. For while murderers only kill human bodies, idolaters often kill souls.

You believe that humans have free will to worship God one way or another, or not at all, and to even attempt to restrict that choice is tantamount to denying the humanity not only of those who would take a different path, but also of yourself. You would take away something you say is given us by God… in an attempt to better serve God?

That doesn’t make sense. Is preventing a rapist from committing rape an act that defies his humanity by preventing him from acting in accordance with his free will? No it’s not, because he’s harming other people. An idolater does the same, only toward souls rather than toward bodies. Though idolatry usually ends up resulting in immoral physical actions too. As Romans 1 and Wisdom 14 say, it is the root of all evil.

Besides, on an evidence level, if denying someone free choice of religious values is tantamount to denying their humanity and yours, God would never have ordered Israel to do so in the OT.

Haven’t read all the posts - but will say that although it would be wonderful if everyone believed in and obeyed God, God Himself doesn’t make anybody believe in Him. Jesus didn’t force anybody to follow Him…

The Lord bless you!

Jesus wasn’t in the government and he wasn’t a member of the justice department. He was a private citizen. He never punished rapists or thieves either, but that doesn’t mean he felt it was wrong to do so. And he repeatedly gave full approval of the Law, approving of every stroke of it. The Law he approved of condemns idolaters.

Pier:

Free will is one of God’s gifts to us - unfortunately, we don’t always make the right choices.

Yes, and the government has a duty to prevent some of those choices for the benefit of society.

 

[Pier]

It would force them to behave like Catholics, but they



I don’t know what can be done for this world. I don’t know what to do…

Pray: Jesus, Mary and Joseph - I love you - Save souls.

And too, pray the rosary.