Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I dont personally feel there is anything wrong with the religions we have now. They all follow the same 10 basic rules.
Let's take - thou shalt not kill.
Where is the exception? Who is it okay to kill? Who is designated an acceptable killer? As I recall, vengeance belongs to God, and he's not sharing!
Civil laws allow for killing. Religion does not.
The world would be just as non-dramatic if we 'enforced' the religions we have now.
Man has always believed in a higher power, even when he lived in caves. I find it scary to think mankind overall would lose that humble quality. Can you really see progress coming from a world with no restrictions except those imposed by 1 despot? What if I think I can take him out? Now Im the despot, right? Sure, I'll do a great job...
I dont see why Science would see any more or less progress. Im not sure civilization can 'progress' a whole lot more. What is progressive about turning jungles into major cities at this point in the history of the Earth? We need trees and fresh water somewhere on the planet.
Its cool to say 'no religions'. Its nice to dream about, like John Lennon's song, "Imagine" - Nothing to kill or die for - and, no religion too.
Actually, the true words of the Torah are, thou shall not murder" Murder indicates an immoral intent. If you kill a person in self defense, that does not violate the commandment against murder.
Heck, I'd been happy if the US had kept true to its Constitution and kept church and state separate. This fight to win the right for same-sex marriage is an ugly reminder of the hold religion has had on this country. I can't imagine what this place would be like if we'd been a secular nation all along.
Hopefully we'll get there one of these days - it's not as bad as it used to be anyhow - thank goodness!
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Exactly, nowhere in the Constitution is there ANY reference to "separation of church and State"
Exactly, nowhere in the Constitution is there ANY reference to "separation of church and State"
Yes it does in the very first sentence.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
Do you know what that means?
It means government shall stay separate from any establishment of any religion.
That means Christianity or any other faith shall not be incorporated into any part of public or government. We are free to practice the religion of our choice but government will have no part of endorsing or establishing any particular religious order. Muslims are just as relevant as Christians as far as our constitution goes.
People would probably find other things to fight about. Though there would probably be more progress in science since you wouldn't have entire groups of people looking to suppress any field of inquiry that threatens any number of arbitrary statements from 1000+ years ago.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
Do you know what that means?
It means government shall stay separate from any establishment of any religion.
That means Christianity or any other faith shall not be incorporated into any part of public or government. We are free to practice the religion of our choice but government will have no part of endorsing or establishing any particular religious order. Muslims are just as relevant as Christians as far as our constitution goes.
Yes it means that the government can not favor one religion over another. That is a good thing. That doesn't mean religion plays no role.
We open Congress every day with a prayer and have since Congress first met. The problem would come in if only one religion was allowed to open prayer. That's not the case.
This is obviously a fantasy and would never happen (sigh!), but hypothetically if all countries agreed to mandate that people keep religion a private and personal matter, wouldn't there be a lot less drama in the world? Wouldn't there be more progress of science and civilization?
Of course, this would force people to be more honest about their real issues with others, but at least then it becomes a concrete, tangible matter that can be more easily negotiated, rather than a battle of subjective spiritual ideologies that are, nearly by definition, impossible or not intended to be proven.
I know it's a totalitarianish idea, but it might be the only way to bring about more peace in the world. People are still free to have their own religious beliefs, and houses of worship, but anything more public than that should be considered as inappropriate as advertising one's preferred sex positions.
It's just my fantasy, and I don't see any reasonable way for this to actually be implemented, but does anyone else feel this way from time to time?
No, I never feel that way. But I do feel that it would be better if America banned the Democratic party.
This is obviously a fantasy and would never happen (sigh!), but hypothetically if all states agreed to mandate that people keep left wing views a private and personal matter, wouldn't there be a lot less drama in the world? Wouldn't there be more progress of science and civilization?
Of course, this would force people to be more honest about their real issues with others, but at least then it becomes a concrete, tangible matter that can be more easily negotiated, rather than a battle of subjective political ideologies that are, nearly by definition, impossible or not intended to be proven.
I know it's a totalitarianish idea, but it might be the only way to bring about more peace in the nation. People are still free to have their own political beliefs, and private political discussions, but anything more public than that should be considered as inappropriate as advertising one's preferred sex positions.
Somehow I predict that when your wonderful idea to ban other peoples' religious beliefs is applied to your own political ideology, it suddenly becomes a lot less attractive of an idea to you, now doesn't it?
What astounds me is the longevity of these ancient traditions.
Hinduism dates back 5000 years.
Judaism, and by extension, Christianity and Islam, 4000 years.
Buddhism, 2600 years.
Obviously, people find value in religion. I don't, but I realize and accept that others do. I don't have to respect it (not that I don't), but I do have to accept it. There will always be people for whom religion is a part of life.
As to the OP, yeah, I agree, but like you said, it's a utopian fantasy. Good idea for a sci-fi book, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
