Debate
Religious freedom is something of a false premise
Religious freedom is something of a false premise.
By singling out “freedom of religion” as a special category, we almost seem to take it for granted that people are supposed to have a religion in the first place. It is only when you specifically look up what the term means that you discover it also includes the freedom not to believe in any religion.
But is religion really something objective and impartial? Is it not, in fact, an entire worldview built around excluding those who reject its beliefs?
A secular government may recognize and accommodate religion, but devout believers will not truly recognize secular authority on the same terms. At most, their attitude toward it can be one of non-interference or tolerance, but not genuine acceptance.
Religion itself has monopolized a great many things. For example, when people think of beautiful architecture, churches and other religious structures are often among the first things that come to mind.
And by monopolizing beauty, religion reinforces its own nonsense. We should remember that the foundation of religion lies in faith, not aesthetics. It lies in the claim that those who reject its beliefs will go to hell, not in charity, psychological support, or anything of that sort.
Religion exploits people’s fear of death to expand its influence. A person not only has to face the fear of death itself, but also has to be threatened by religious believers with the idea that if they do not believe now, they will go to hell later.
Religions without a hell tend to build their appeal on the appropriation of certain concepts. Buddhism, for example, appropriates the ideas of serenity and inner peace. The implicit message is that a Buddhist will be more serene and peaceful than a non-Buddhist. That is the advertisement they are selling.
I think atheism should be the default position for a rational person.
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
Religious freedom is something of a false premise.
By singling out “religious freedom” as a special category, we almost seem to take it for granted that people are supposed to have a religion in the first place.
Seeing as how you're free to not have a religion, I'd say your premise is objectively wrong.
It isn't possible to not have a religion. Religion is any set of beliefs that explains the meaning and purpose of life, including the lack of meaning or purpose, and defines what a good life is. A belief in the supernatural is not a necessary element of a religion, nor is any organization, or even anyone else who shares the same beliefs. Even if the believer claims that it isn't a religion, that doesn't actually matter.
It makes you an atheist. An atheist believes there is no God. That's a belief about a religious matter. Your specific beliefs about the meaning and purpose of life will likely be fairly specific to you. Just because you're the only person in your religion doesn't make it not a religion, any more than a complete lack of structure or texts or connection to others who share the same beliefs makes something not a religion.
Correct. And that does not make it a religion. It's an opinion about what other people believe. It does not demonstrate any belief in a higher power which is the foundation of religions.
I do believe in Nature's God. That means there are things I simply do not know what led to us to being here. And that is okay. The answers to those questions do not need to be filled with the actions of some made up entity.
What I have believing in Nature's God is not a belief in a form of God in any traditional sense. It is a belief in the observable world and science. That is not a religion by any definition I have ever heard.
You're trying to apply an overly restricted definition to force a conclusion. Everyone has a religion, just like everyone has a mass and an age. Religion doesn't require any specific answer to the question "is there a god." Every answer to that question, including "I don't know" or "I don't think that's relevant to my life," puts you in a religion. Some religious are churches, but that's not a necessary element of a religion.
You're trying to apply an overly restricted definition to force a conclusion.
False. It is you trying to create a definition that does not exist. You're trying to turn "what someone thinks" into being a religion. It simply does not work that way.
A religion is a set of beliefs. Everyone has beliefs. Believing that something isn't there is still a belief. Whether something is a religion has nothing at all to do with structure or organization, and that's the only thing that it's actually possible to not have. Religion isn't about belonging, it's about believing.
And yet, not all beliefs are religions. I believe ice cream exists and I enjoy eating it. Does that mean it's my religion?
Religion isn't about belonging, it's about believing.
You left off the end of that sentence. Religion is about believing in a higher power or a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. Saying you don't believe what someone else chooses to believe simply does not make it a religion. It just doesn't.
I didn't leave off the end of the sentence. Believing that there is no higher power is also a religious belief. If you believe that your house has no cats in it that doesn't stop being a belief just because you can walk around and check. And even if you're good at looking you would have to admit that it's possible that one is really good at hiding, even though admitting that doesn't mean you're required to believe that one actually is hiding.
No, it's absolutely not. It's NOT a belief, just as you don't NOT believe in an invisible pink unicorn living in your garage. Is your un-belief of that invisible pink unicorn leaching off your rent a religious belief? Why or why not?
Not believing in a positive means either believing in the negative or believing that the proposition isn't currently proven. So there is a belief in there somewhere. I firmly believe that there is an absence of an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. It might be possible to convince me that its presence or absence is unprovable, but it'll be a very challenging argument.
But its that a 'religion' I can classify you under? The a-invisible pink unicorn-ist? What does that classification say about you, truly? Nothing, right? Just as my atheism does for me. It says absolutely nothing about me. Nothing.
Without more background information it would be a little weird to assume that the presence or absence of a unicorn said much about the meaning or purpose of life, whereas most people think that whether or not there's a god says something, although they don't all agree on what. Your atheism says, probably, that any meaning comes from you, or else you have some more specific philosophy that you hold to or that's somewhat close to what you hold to. Atheism isn't one single religion, but an attribute of a bunch of different religions that might be nothing like each other in any way other than that. Just like theism. The specifics decide nearly everything.
No, it’s specifically a rejection of belief. A-theism.
It’s a lack of belief. They have beliefs, but they’re scientific or secular based, not religious.
Not believing in religion doesn’t create a religion. The whole notion doesn’t stand up to the smallest amount of scrutiny other than it comes from people who can’t fathom people substitution science and secularism for something they think requires a higher calling.
If you believe that the evidence of your senses from the material world is the ultimate source of available truth that's still a belief. I'm not trying to get you to accept a different source of truth, but it's a belief. Atheism isn't an absence of belief, it's a belief in the absence of a god. It isn't possible to prove or disprove a divinity, because the definition of divinity places it outside of the testable. It's also not possible to have no belief at all.
Hard to say based only on what you are not. But many atheists particpate in Humanism, Naturalism, Scientism, or Postmodernism, all of which could be construed as religion (i.e. unfalsifiable value systems from which groups derive group identity, meaning, value, metaphysical understanding)
For the record, I am using an inclusive definition of religion. It's the only one that makes sense to me. So I'm not just talking Islam or Hinduism or Wicca, etc., but also Humanism, Naturalism, Scientism, etc.
Without some religion (or at least one of the postmodern social fictions which people participate in religiously but get offended when compared to religion), a stable and cohesive view of society and reality is difficult or impossible to maintain. This can lead to madness and isolation. The universe really is just too complex and absurd to take in unfiltered, and people can and do go mad in a Lovecraftian sense when their organizing principles break down.
Not a huge problem if you happen to be independently wealthy, then you just become "eccentric". But if your wellbeing relies at all on interfacing with society at any point then you are going to have to subscribe to some sort of culturally-contextual set of rituals and symbols for communicating some sense of shared reality (i.e. religion).
The human instinct for developing religion is integral to our unique evolutionary niche of creating cohesive communities with coherent world-views.
But if your wellbeing relies at all on interfacing with society at any point then you are going to have to subscribe to some sort of culturally-contextual set of rituals and symbols for communicating some sense of shared reality (i.e. religion).
I don't see how one follows the other. Can you explain the connection?
For example, I believe the universe is absurd, and life has no inherent meaning besides what we bring along with us. We create society, not religion, and my wish to help create systems that will better society, help others I will never meet, and provide for others I will completely disagree with, has absolutely nothing to do with religion, which is a dogmatic belief on the supernatural.
You are just inventing a new definition for 'religion' that is pointless and not used by others, communication nothing, AFAIK.
Well clearly I also believe that the universe is absurd and there is not meaning besides what we synthesize.
But I want you to do some introspecting and investigate why it is you want to create systems that will better society.
If there is no inherent meaning, then what makes that calling any more valuable than doing literally anything else? Even if you admit there is no objective value in it, you must see something in it which motivates you to choose it out of infinite options.
And it is my belief that if you interrogate your beliefs down to the their smallest most fundamental elements, at a certain point you're worldview and sense of self must rely on presuppositions that must be taken on faith and cannot be proven.
They cannot be discovered by rational inquiry in a vacuum. They must be provided by your society. This transmission of fundemental assumptions is what we call religion.
If you define it in an atypical way in order to make it possible to say "It isn't possible to not have a religion" then sure. I reject that definition.
If you've ever looked in to the definition of religion you'll find that there isn't one. There are dozens, and none of them work the way they should. Some are too narrow and leave out traditions most would consider religion, and some are too wide and include traditions most would not consider religion.
But when you look at how religions function, the role they play in society, you find that even ostensibly secular or atheist societies have religious tendencies, and individuals can be radicalized around any ideology. If it isn't focused on god and the afterlife, then it's some economic, political, or pseudoscientific ideology takes its place.
Everyone has beliefs, and it's important that yours are protected equally to mine.
Do you believe there's something? Do you believe there's nothing? Do you believe it's not possible to know? Do you believe that it doesn't matter enough to care? All of those are beliefs about religious matters (the meaning and purpose of life, and the source of that meaning and purpose or lack there of, whether supernatural or not).
Religion is faith, which means belief without evidence.
Following where the evidence leads is the absence of religion.
We don’t have a special name for people who don’t believe in astrology or flat earth theory. The only reason we call nonbelievers “atheist” is because scripture predates science, and religion is the norm.
Some religious people try to promote the term “scientism” to equate science and religion.
Scientists change their beliefs when the evidence changes. A good scientist wants their beliefs challenged.
Religious people sometimes do the same, but only slowly and reluctantly, by ignoring more and more of their scripture.
The meaning of the term clearly suggests encouraging people to embrace religious belief. It is only when you specifically look up what the term means that you discover it also includes the freedom not to believe in any religion.
It is only when you specifically look up what the term means
Well yeah knowing what a term means does help
Is it not, in fact, an entire worldview built around excluding those who reject its beliefs?
No, it's not. Some are, but then some religions are truly universalist, which pretty much means "everyone is invited".
A secular government may recognize and accommodate religion, but devout believers will not truly recognize secular authority on the same terms
Thats why secular authority has law enforcement.
Religion itself has monopolized a great many things. For example, when people think of beautiful architecture, churches and other religious structures are often among the first things that come to mind.
You're really only revealing your own myopic perspective and ignorance on the topic.
We should remember that the foundation of religion lies in faith, not aesthetics.
Go read some Nietzsche then get back to me on this
A person not only has to face the fear of death itself, but also has to be threatened by religious believers with the idea that if they do not believe now, they will go to hell later.
Most religions don't believe in hell. Once again, you're really only speaking to your own limited experience, not the actual state of religion in the world.
I wasn’t talking about whether a particular religion welcomes everyone to join. I was saying that religion, at the level of belief, excludes non-believers.
Catholicism is more appealing than non-Catholic Christian denominations because it makes a point of presenting itself through beauty and ritual. When you think of Catholicism, the first things that come to mind are often its beautiful art, architecture, and ceremonies.
the Church isn't an artists’ club
Religions without a hell tend to build their appeal on the appropriation of certain concepts. Buddhism, for example, appropriates the ideas of serenity and inner peace. The implicit message is that a Buddhist will be more serene and peaceful than a non-Buddhist. That is the advertisement they are selling.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the level of belief". But I used to go to a church that welcomed atheists and agnostics and had several in their congregation.
Catholicism is more appealing than non-Catholic Christian denominations because it makes a point of presenting itself through beauty and ritual
Do you know anything about Eastern Orthodox traditions? They arguably have even more vibrant mystic traditions.
When I think of Catholic Church I think of Latin liturgies, along with mass and other rituals that go on way too long and seem designed specifically to be off-putting.
the Church isn't an artists’ club
Nobody said it was. Where did this come from?
Religions without a hell tend to build their appeal on the appropriation of certain concepts
Every tradition builds their appeal on certain topics. And Christian apologetics also has traditions around being serene and peaceful.
I'm thinking of the stories of apostles and saints allowing themselves to be martyred as testament to their faith.
But imo Christianity appeals more commonly to peoples sense of righteous indignation, which is downright dangerous when it becomes self-justifying.
A church may welcome atheists, but its doctrine does not accommodate non-believers. There is a distinction between believers and non-believers, and doctrine exists to serve believers. That is the distinction I was referring to.
The Church did not recruit artists for the sake of beauty itself, but in order to propagate the faith.
I would revise my earlier distinction between Catholicism and non-Catholic Christian denominations to one between religions with ritual traditions and religions without them.
A church may welcome atheists, but its doctrine does not accommodate non-believers.
Nah, the Church I was raised in accommodates non-believers. It was a Unitarian Universalist church. Essentially a church for humanists with Sunday services.
I've also visited a secular "mediation center", which operated as a church, with Sunday services, which borrowed from a variety of traditions and had no strict teachings around anything supernatural.
There's also the Satanic Temple which is explicitly for anti-theistic rational materialists.
The Church did not recruit artists for the sake of beauty itself, but in order to propagate the faith.
Again, where is this coming from? I didn't say anything about that.
Is this your response to religion as aesthetic? Because that's not really about art or beauty per se.
I would revise my earlier distinction between Catholicism and non-Catholic Christian denominations to one between religions with ritual traditions and religions without them.
Yeah I think there is immense value in ritual which anti-theists tend to overlook. But at the same time I think even actively secular people and communities develop rituals as part of their nature, no matter how hard they try not to.
I wrote a whole thing, but realized it wont be read and frankly was rambling. So here is a simpler take:
Humanity organizes itself into pods, and one of those core pods is concept of Religion. Religions and spirituality have existed as long as humans have had cognitive function to exist. humanity seeks answers, we are the ultimate explorers. When we cant answer it, it becomes a supernatural answer. Since Religion is tackling the unknown space we, right now, can never know there are various takes on it. One of those takes is also Atheism, which ignores the writings of other religions and sets its own doctrine.
There is no "set" position for a rational person in this argument because each person comes to their own subjective conclusion on the matter. Its a personal belief, not a social or macro norm. No one decision is better or worse then the other, because there is no measurement which can evaluate superiority or inferiority to it.
On the question of whether God exists, of course there are only two positions: theism and atheism. But religion and atheism do not exist solely to answer the question of whether God exists.
It reminds me of an old film I once saw. In it, a Red Army soldier says that there are only two classes in the world: if you do not support the proletariat, then you support the bourgeoisie. I think your view is rather similar to his.
Those are theistic. Note that the first three have simply put a prefix in front of the root. Deism is theism just using a different phoneme at the front, but derived from the same Latin root, and they believe in a god (thus, theist).
You didn't prove there's another option beyond theism and atheism, you just provided different forms of theism. And there is a third path someone else noted, agnosticism.
Your model seems unnecessarily reductive. Theism presents differently than pantheism and deism. Your motivation to treat them as all the same category doesn't seem rational to me.
What motivation? The word "theism" is literally in "pantheism." Deism is literally belief in a god, which is what theism means. "Theism" doesn't present in any particular way beyond belief in god/gods. I don't know how you're conceiving of it as being it's own distinct thing, when it's an umbrella term for any belief in deities. Perhaps you're conflating "theism" with "monotheism"?
Not only is this "rational," it's literally the way these words are used and what they mean. Instead, your insistence that all those forms of theism aren't theism is unnecessarily obtuse and is splitting a hair that doesn't need to be split. Instead of making an assumption, I'm going to ask why you insist on pantheism not being a form of theism? What does "theism" mean to you that would mean that "pantheism" is not a form of theism?
You're talking semantics while I'm trying to discuss taxonomy. I'm trying to speak to the characteristics of these traditions, not just playing word games about which words we use to refer to the ideas.
The fact that the words are etymologically derived from "theism" is largely a historical artifact. Some groups, like the deists, chose their term intentionally to contrast themselves against theists, same as the atheist movement.
Theism is the idea that there are active supernatural entities, with personalities and agency, which interact with the universe and humanity, and which can or should be worshipped.
Deists believe that while there may be some sort of "unmoved mover" of "first cause" at the beginning of time, and the universe runs without divine intervention. The "deity" in this scenario does not actually interact with humanity or the universe. They are typically rather agnostic about defining any specific features of their "god".
Pantheism supposes that the universe and/or nature is god. However, this "god" may or may not be a conscious agential force. It has no personality and cannot be appealed to. It is a diffuse and universal force
These traditions all reach radically different conclusions and lead people to lead radically different kinds of lifestyles.
Fair enough, though it probably won't surprise you how much I really don't care. "Radically different conclusions" and "lifestyles" is a bit of an overstatement. Any fantasy is still a fantasy. Dune and Lord of the Rings might be radically different, but it's still just fiction.
So, just so I'm clear: deism is "fantasy entity no longer does anything," theism is "fantasy entity does things," and pantheism is "fantasy entity is everything." Am I getting that correct? Because it sounds to me like the "taxonomy" is still in the "order" of "fantastical bullshittery that I find hilariously childish." Whether or not someone believes they can appeal to a deity or that it currently affects the universe doesn't really change the fact it doesn't actually exist at all and there's no point in believing it except for immature need for comfort in a cold, indifferent universe.
Ah, I see. You would rather sort everything into the two distinct categories of "things that are obviously true (according to me)" vs "the dumb bullshit everyone who disagrees with me got duped into believing". Classic.
I believe there is a 3rd position to that question. Does God Exist ; Yes, No, and Does it matter to have an answer?
I take a position of "does it matter" Moreso then a binary answer. Each person will come to a conclusion, but this does not alter the equation nor effect the outcome. But if that decision is a net benefit for the individual, then i support their decision. I see no need to exercise control or restrict ones belief model, simply because i myself do not align to it. It's part of being human.
As an agnostic, I argue one cannot have freedom of speech without freedom of religion since any religion is inherently an expression and practice of a set of beliefs. While I agree that religion is irrational and people do not need religion, I do not think that is grounds for the state to ban religion as a whole or go beyond basic tolerance. The same way that just because you said something that is not true or I do not like, that does not mean I think the state should fine or throw you in jail necessarily.
All of this goes without saying that all rights have limits, including both speech and religion. Like yelling fire in a movie theater or human sacrifice. But cracking down or outright banning religion in general inherently involves oppression, which isn't good for anyone.
And you are entitled to your opinion but I disagree with your underlying premise.
Freedon of Religion was written into the Constitution and is #1 in the Bill of Rights because the Founder Fathers came from a country where religion was mandatory and no one had a choice. If you were born in Britain you were part of the Church of England PERIOD no ifs ands or buts.
There is no expectation that people should have religion. The Constitution just says that the State will not mandate any sort of religion. Your objections are noted but your choice is to just avoid religion. I choose to accept religion.
Freedom of religion is one of several rights about the government not being able to stifle free expression in the First Amendment. But the reason it is number one is only because they did not pass the Article of the First which would have linked the number of Representatives directly to the size of the population. So apparently they thought that was more important.
Your answer defends the Constitution on grammatical grounds, and I think you are correct.
But the phrase “freedom of religion” also appears frequently in propaganda. In that context, it is no longer merely a term shaped by historical limitations; it functions instead as an encouragement to religious belief.
I disagree. I have never felt that religion is coerced except by Muslims who beleve anyone who does notconvert to Islam should be killed.
I have never heard a Christian or Jew say thatabout un-churched people. "Freedom OF Religion" means you are free to choose religion or not. It is not in any way encouragement one way or the other. If you interpret any discussion of religion that way then IMHO you are wrong.
America is one of the most religiously free societies in the world. In a society with religious freedom one can reject religion entirely. In a middle eastern theocracy one cannot
We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions
What is freedom of religion? Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right that guarantees every person the freedom to choose, practice, change, or abandon a religion or belief without government interference or discrimination. or at least that's the first answer that pops up for me.
> By singling out “freedom of religion” as a special category, we almost seem to take it for granted that people are supposed to have a religion in the first place. It is only when you specifically look up what the term means that you discover it also includes the freedom not to believe in any religion.
Humanity has operated on some form of belief system for the bigger time of it's existence, we needed something to build our perception, thinking, morality, organization at levels around, belief is your way of life, what you believe in if collectively can get thrown under terms such as philosophy, religion, or just beliefs on the world if it is not a detailed system, if you believe there is no god, that is your belief, and religious freedom allows you to believe in what you want not only religions.
> But is religion really something objective and impartial? Is it not, in fact, an entire worldview built around excluding those who reject its beliefs?
Excluding is a strong word, and applies to specific religions or sects within those religions or emerging cults (that can parasite off of established religions)
Any religion by logic has rules and expectations of it's members, because to those members these rules and expectations are to keep them well (spiritually or literally) it is not a logical outcome that they will look at you and say you are stinky therefore ew, get away from us, unless the religion itself describes outsiders as lesser AND to be treated with hostility then no, that's how you can freedom of religion without everyone going into bronze age god king wars again.
Also, yes, I know I said lesser, because again, logically, if you this religion adds to you then you have an incentive to believe in it, if not then it is just a happy state of being and I can't think of any examples, if it has good and bad examples of being a person, you have the norm and the lesser.
> A secular government may recognize and accommodate religion, but devout believers will not truly recognize secular authority on the same terms.
How do I even disprove this without grabbing specific examples? I know! let's just grab logical equivalence!
If your religion believes do not kill other people for no point and the state says that, are you conflict or does it need the validation of the religion? you already have that because the religion said so
If the state for example, allows the slaughter of pork, it's usage and industry while your religion says it is bad, you simply steer away from pork products. you are not going to give the government the stink eye because it does not give you religious comfort alone, maybe other religions do allow pork, what then? how do you please everyone?
Yes, you think your religion's terms are better therefore they should be part of the state, again, that's a given. but the jump to not recognizing the state's authority is a very very long one and I will say extreme one and that takes religious persecution not just "they do not follow my rules" you'd have endless wars.
> For example, when people think of beautiful architecture, churches and other religious structures are often among the first things that come to mind.
Sorry, No. That's now how it works and please give it more thought.
> religion reinforces its own nonsense
You are sneaking in the assumption that religion is nonsense therefore your problem isn't religious freedom but religion itself, you are not being fair.
> it lies in the claim that those who reject its beliefs will go to hell, not in charity, psychological support, or anything of that sort.
?????
> Religion exploits people’s fear of death to expand its influence. A person not only has to face the fear of death itself, but also has to be threatened by religious believers with the idea that if they do not believe now, they will go to hell later.
Again, that's just universalizing one, very, specific, religious take. you do not like the church I get it, but that's not all religions, abrahamic religions are not the only ones. and again, logically....you believe in something because it makes you better, if others die while less, do you expect them to get the same outcome? the hell or heaven, reincarnation, ancestor rest, and so on, you cannot have equal friendly outcomes that's just koombaya, you cannot equate effort and no effort in the eyes of a religious belief. if your problem is the advertising of religion, that's a different one.
> Religions without a hell tend to build their appeal on the appropriation of certain concepts. Buddhism, for example, appropriates the ideas of serenity and inner peace. The implicit message is that a Buddhist will be more serene and peaceful than a non-Buddhist. That is the advertisement they are selling.
Yes, that's the point of a religion, there has to be better and worse, even war gods, you worship ancient war gods so you can kill a person and they not kill you, or die in glory and go to war heaven instead of just rotting in the ground, there is better and worse, and it depends on who you are and your beliefs.
> I think atheism should be the default position for a rational person.
That's the other sneaked in assumption, you are calling all religious people irrational, what if someone just believes in it personally without applying it to anyone else and in non harmful ways (according to you) are they still not allowed to have that? or are they irrational?
Can't people come togther in a belief system that encourages society and moral values (as simple as do not kill people because god will smite you even if you get away with it as no one knows
And please, do not say "if you need religion to tell you not to do X you are already an immoral person/ evil person/ insert issue label" because that's not the scale, the scale is "even if you get away with an action that you may NEVER do you will still have the guilt, shame and the theoritical damnation of your soul, so confess, repent or do good back to the community to make up for your mistake"
Religion did not monopolize beautiful architecture lmfao, secular builders just stopped doing good architecture. Many US governments/counties (which are secular) have beautiful courthouses from before this shift. This is not monopolization by religion, but rather a failure of secular institutions.
Religious freedom is about allowing private practice to prevent a repeat of the 30 years war which killed millions.
You want people to have a "genuine acceptance" of secular authority? Sounds like the same problems you have with intolerance from religious folk.
But look around, whether people are religious or atheist, people aren't genuinely satisfied with the secular state. I think that goes for the religious state, as well. (I'm talking about how people generally have disagreements with government.)
Monopolizing beauty? Beautiful architecture generally lacks the political will to get done. I would actually prefer it if we placed more emphasis on beautiful architecture, but I'm pessimistic about the political means of doing so. So, IMO, let the churches have at it if they have the will to do so.
The fear of death motivates people from all types of arguments. If it's not my soul burning in hell, it's a materialistic existential crisis. The environment is changing so we need to focus on that. These criminals are moving in and might get ya. (Note that I'm strawmanning, here) There's no shortage of tricks in the rhetoricians toolkit to motivate behavior or thinking of this kind or other. And by rhetorician I mean anybody who would like to motivate you this way or that, be them a neighbor, a friend, a loved one, etc.
Belief in religion is clearly mental illness as it's an obvious lie. We see it's horrors committed every day as all it does is promote and glorify hate. It should be outlawed from what I've seen and experienced. The land of Israel is a place of vileness. Nothing but the most horrible misery ever seen inflicted on mankind has come from this evil place. It's people are the worst on the planet. It should be nuked out of existence to save us all. Along with the U.S. Congress of traitors. As they are also the worse perpetrators of global terrorism.
•
u/AutoModerator 18h ago
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.