Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

....would you support any type of "non-violent" religious persecution in our modern times?

Well, if I was to reject religion I wouldn't be in favour for persecution because A) people have the right to believe what they want and B) it would become blurred, and spawn into political persecution, racial persecution, cultural persecution and so on.

Oh, you've edited it...I suppose Non-Violent could be...banning Churches of certain religions or saying Theists can't work in politics or the post office...again its wrong.

As for your poll...I don't get it, Yes to Religious Tolerance, No to Religious Tolerance or is it Yes I favour Persecution, No I don't?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
....would you support any type of "non-violent" religious persecution in our modern times?

Are you talking about every religion, or any religion?

What do you mean by "non-violent" religious persecution?

What type of support are you talking about?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you talking about every religion, or any religion?

What do you mean by "non-violent" religious persecution?

What type of support are you talking about?

Religion as a whole.

non-violent as in "you" directly harming someone.

Support as in advocator, propagandist, political, etc...

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Religion as a whole.

non-violent as in "you" directly harming someone.

Support as in advocator, propagandist, political, etc...

Passive harm is just as bad as direct harm. So, the answer would be NO.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Passive harm is just as bad as direct harm. So, the answer would be NO.

Its the whole "washing your hands of it" sort of thing.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Its the whole "washing your hands of it" sort of thing.

If such a think were to happen, my religion would demand that I protect those that I could. The type of Buddhism that I practice is not passive and does fight against evil.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If such a think were to happen, my religion would demand that I protect those that I could. The type of Buddhism that I practice is not passive and does fight against evil.

"For evil to prosper all it takes is for good men to do nothing."

Religious Persecution and indeed any type of persecution would be evil.

Yeah, the way you framed the question means that pretty much anyone would say "no." What normal huamn would endorse persecution of any kind?

I think you might have been looking for non-violent protests. But again, you're just protesting someone else's belief. For that to be viable from any perspective, it would have to be protesting some aspect of a religion that was causing harm to others. If that's the case, then sure I'd have no problem protesting. Otherwise, an unequivocal no.

What do you mean by "reject religion"? If I were in the shoes of someone who viciously hated theists I'd be all for persecuting them.

If you just mean someone who happens to be an atheist then they would have to be a rather nasty person to want to persecute others in any way. Personally I'm against any kind of religious persecution.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Yeah, the way you framed the question means that pretty much anyone would say "no." What normal huamn would endorse persecution of any kind?

I think you might have been looking for non-violent protests. But again, you're just protesting someone else's belief. For that to be viable from any perspective, it would have to be protesting some aspect of a religion that was causing harm to others. If that's the case, then sure I'd have no problem protesting. Otherwise, an unequivocal no.

How the hell do you beat me to damn near every topic and quote me verbatim?

Originally posted by chithappens
How the hell do you beat me to damn near every topic and quote me verbatim?

Digi: 5
Chit: 0

I'd say something encouraging like "Great minds think alike" but really I'm just thrilled that I thwart you so often.

313

Sigh, really, I have to type expeditiously.

Your defeat shall come!

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
....would you support any type of "non-violent" religious persecution in our modern times? I am religious, but if I did reject religion:

I would actively work against religion in the same manner that religious individuals approach others about religion.

I would support efforts to educate the religious about the error of their ways.

If this would be considered "persecution" then my answer is yes.

Originally posted by Regret
I am religious, but if I did reject religion:

I would actively work against religion in the same manner that religious individuals approach others about religion.

I would support efforts to educate the religious about the error of their ways.

If this would be considered "persecution" then my answer is yes.

But it wouldn't be considered persecution by most. That's education, or at worst evangelization. So I'd co-sign your comments, but again wouldn't advocate anything that I would consider to be persecution.

Well i'd certainly work so that Religion had no benefits over non-religion.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well i'd certainly work so that Religion had no benefits over non-religion.

Hmm. I wonder if atheist organizations get tax benefits like mainstream religions...

Originally posted by Regret
I am religious, but if I did reject religion:

I would actively work against religion in the same manner that religious individuals approach others about religion.

I would support efforts to educate the religious about the error of their ways.

If this would be considered "persecution" then my answer is yes.

Depending on how it's done that can slip very quickly into something that is clearly persecution.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hmm. I wonder if atheist organizations get tax benefits like mainstream religions...

Their God won't let them do that.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hmm. I wonder if atheist organizations get tax benefits like mainstream religions...
Right see, that's the exact thing i'd get rid of... no tax benefits for religious organizations. Or any sort of benefits. They don't deserve anything from the government.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
....would you support any type of "non-violent" religious persecution in our modern times?

Absolutely not. I am in no position to dictate what another person must believe. But, at the same time, folks of the other side of the divide MUST understand that their beliefs have no place in politics, my life or the social progress of a nation that recognizes no state religion. Basically, there is no need for religious persecution as long as those who subscribe to it know their absolute faith in it doesn't automatically represent an opprotunity for them to force their personal beliefs on others...much less everyone.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Right see, that's the exact thing i'd get rid of... no tax benefits for religious organizations. Or any sort of benefits. They don't deserve anything from the government.

Well, the idea is that if they are monetarily contributing to our government, they need equal say with other organizations. Which voids the separation of church and state. Otherwise they're being stripped of wealth without gaining benefits, which would be wrong on multiple levels.

I actually agree with tax breaks on those grounds. My musings above were more for ironic value than as an actual argument.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hmm. I wonder if atheist organizations get tax benefits like mainstream religions...

Non-religious charities do, yes.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Well, the idea is that if they are monetarily contributing to our government, they need equal say with other organizations. Which voids the separation of church and state. Otherwise they're being stripped of wealth without gaining benefits, which would be wrong on multiple levels.
No, you misunderstood me. They will get the same benefits anyone else gets. They won't get any benefits BECAUSE they are religions, they will get all the same benefits that any "club" gets but not one bit more.

Interesting idea.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
....would you support any type of "non-violent" religious persecution in our modern times? Nonviolent persecutions, now as opposed to old time persecutions, are still the same thing. Persecutions are just that. It may not be on plat forms, but it is still on the plat form.

This is what it would be like, if the majority of people were athiests.

ATHIEST KID: Mom, I'm going to go **** a hooker.

ATHIEST MOM: Okay, son.

ATHIEST KID: Afterwards, I'm going to go smoke pot with my friends, since it's "not addictive."

ATHIEST MOM: Okay, come home soon!

The athiest kid leaves the room. The father comes home from work several minutes later.

ATHIEST DAD: Hey!

ATHIEST MOM: Hi, honey! I'm pregnant again. I guess I'll just get another abortion, since "fetuses don't count as human life."

ATHIEST DAD: Okay, get as many abortions as you want!

ATHIEST MOM: Oh, and don't go in the bedroom.

ATHIEST DAD: Why not?

ATHIEST MOM: There are two gay men ****ing each other in there.

ATHIEST DAD: Why are they here?

ATHIEST MOM: I wanted to watch them do it for awhile. They just aren't finished yet.

ATHIEST DAD: Okay, that's fine with me!

Suddenly, their neighbor runs into the house.

ATHIEST NEIGHBOR: Come quick, there's a Christian outside!

ATHIEST MOM: We'll be right there!

The athiest couple quickly put on a pair of black robes and hoods. They then exit the house, and run into the street, where a Christian is nailed to a large, wooden X. He is being burned alive. A crowd of athiests stand around him, all wearing black robes and hoods.

RANDOM ATHIEST: Damn you, Christian! We hate you! We claim to be tolerant of all religions. But we really hate your's! That's because we athiests are hypocritical like that! Die, Christian!

THE END

Scary, isn't it?


Everyone knows this is how the world would be if a majority of people rejected religion. DUH!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Everyone knows this is how the world would be if a majority of people rejected religion. DUH! And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Everyone knows this is how the world would be if a majority of people rejected religion. DUH!

Except the end (which has some humorous truth to it) that really doesn't sound too bad for anyone.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except the end (which has some humorous truth to it) that really doesn't sound too bad for anyone. Haha, yeah, I do tend to agree. Though it is written with obvious disgust at the idea of such freedoms.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except the end (which has some humorous truth to it) that really doesn't sound too bad for anyone.

The part where they want to kill Christians?

I thought he might have literally meant "The End."

Ah. K then. Lulz.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I thought he might have literally meant "The End."
Nah, I am pretty sure he meant the part with killing a christian.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The part where they want to kill Christians?



Just thing about claiming to be tolerant of religion but still disliking Christians. Burning them is amusing though.

Oh well. Lulz all round either way.

Indeed.

Well...X and Digi's joke ruined...

If a person rejects organized religion it seems for many societies or subgroups that they are rejecting their views, their morals, and their culture. Therefore, they are ruining their idealized concepts of their own ideologies and feel threatened. At this point they strike out against those that think or view things differently. And like the historical evidence has shown, heaven forbid someone should share an opposing view on certain subjects.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well...X and Digi's joke ruined...

...I wasn't joking. I was asking him a question.

And somehow I doubt anyone knows enough atheists to say they're familiar with a representative example of how they'd behave toward Christians. Personally, any atheists I know (quite a few) are among the most tolerant people I know. It's the "angry atheists" that flood youtube videos and discussion forums that create the stereotype, which doesn't usually hold up to legitimate inquiry. In other words, Sym's comments might have been intended as lighthearted, but reveal an underlying cultural stereotype which is largely unfounded.

See my thread "Why Atheists Are Moral" for more on this matter, including numerous studies that link non-religiosity to higher moral standards.

Dudes.

Sym just said that except for the burning Christians that scenario isn't that horrible (i.e. pot isn't very harmful, sexual open mindedness should be accepted, abortions are okay). Though he was probably saying it in a lighthearted manner, I tend to agree.

Religion and morality aren't always found hand in hand...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Religion and morality aren't always found hand in hand...

Wise words.

No? Then what is the good book about.

Now, I'm confused.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dudes.

Sym just said that except for the burning Christians that scenario isn't that horrible (i.e. pot isn't very harmful, sexual open mindedness should be accepted, abortions are okay). Though he was probably saying it in a lighthearted manner, I tend to agree. I just read it again, twice, before I got what he meant... strange syntax. Must be tired.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I just read it again, twice, before I got what he meant... strange syntax. Must be tired. Was it the excessive use of the word "that"?

Or did you mean Sym's post...you know...to add to the confusion?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
No? Then what is the good book about.

Now, I'm confused.

Yes, that doesn't take much now please...go stop with your rubbish.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Was it the excessive use of the word "that"?

Or did you mean Sym's post...you know...to add to the confusion? Second one...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Second one... Oh good, cause I just reread my post and I didn't understand what I said anymore. Strange syntax.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Yes, that doesn't take much now please...go stop with your rubbish. Excuse me? Isn't that what the good book teaches?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Excuse me?

Your posts make no sense, offer no regard for context and make give no productive contribution to debate. So please desisit from plaguing me with ill-structured questions or I will officially petition Bardock to have you removed.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Excuse me?

He's saying you are a ****. Your pseudo-intellectual posts are tedious at best, outright torture more often than not.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Your posts make no sense, offer no regard for context and make give no productive contribution to debate. So please desisit from plaguing me with ill-structured questions or I will officially petition Bardock to have you removed.

I don't think I have that kind of power.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He's saying you are a ****. Your pseudo-intellectual posts are tedious at best, outright torture more often than not. And your answer for what the Good Book teaches? That morality and Religion should be synonymous. He's stating that they aren't...but according to Christian beliefs, shouldn't they be? If you're a believer anyway? They should be intertwined.

That is all that I am saying.........pfft...Testosterone...

And, btw, you know I don't always get sarcasm..........for damn sakes........get over it.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
And your answer for what the Good Book teaches? That morality and Religion should be synonymous. He's stating that they aren't...but according to Christian beliefs, shouldn't they be? If you're a believer anyway? They should be intertwined.

That is all that I am saying.........pfft...Testosterone...

And, btw, you know I don't always get sarcasm..........for damn sakes........get over it.

That is not what I said.

NO?.. Then I am sorry.

I miss understood you.

I'm sorta in a uppity mood tonight..........LOL


Sorry.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dudes.

Sym just said that except for the burning Christians that scenario isn't that horrible (i.e. pot isn't very harmful, sexual open mindedness should be accepted, abortions are okay). Though he was probably saying it in a lighthearted manner, I tend to agree.

Ah. If that's the case, then I misconstrued it entirely. I thought he was saying it was a somewhat truthful account of atheists, rather than saying that most of the other stuff isn't that bad.

Originally posted by DigiMark007


It's the "angry atheists" that flood youtube videos and discussion forums that create the stereotype, which doesn't usually hold up to legitimate inquiry.



Aren't those the "strong atheists" as oppose to the "weak atheists"?

Because, atheists, just like any other group are split...right?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Aren't those the "strong atheists" as oppose to the "weak atheists"?

Because, atheists, just like any other group are split...right?

No, those are "idiot atheists" that flood the internet with spam videos intended to provoke a reaction, not actually accomplish anything positive. Troll tactics, just on a different level. They're in such a minority as to be ignorable, except for the fact that they're so visible that such portrayals often become the archetype for atheism, unfortunately enough.

Anyway, I don't make a distinction in atheism, because it's not a sectarian schism like many Christian sects (or most religions). It's just a matter of the degree of your belief, or rather the degree in how you let those beliefs dictate your actions towards other religions and peoples. No formal definition exists for "strong" and "weak" atheism...it's largely a colloquial term used by atheists who feel the need to label different approaches to atheism, even though the same belief (or non-belief, as it were) is the same.

Idiot Atheists? Why, Digi, is there sucha a thing or is that an oxymoron?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Idiot Atheists? Why, Digi, is there sucha a thing or is that an oxymoron?

Heh. There's "idiot" any-religion. It's more a matter of how you apply your personal philosophy than what exactly you believe, at least imo.

so, back on topic:

Yes, I would certainly be willing to non-violently persecute another religion.

with conditions, but look at what is done in the name of religion. It is hardly immoral to want to end Wahabbi oppression of women or Christian fundamentalist ideas of Jesus as the head of State.

Freedom comes at a price sometimes.

(For the record, I'm saying persecution as defined by the religious, as in, there are lots of Christians in America who feel oppressed, today, in 2008, in America, because they don't say prayer in school. So yes, telling them they can't run the country, to them, is oppression. Human rights, to some faiths, are oppressive. This doesn't even address the abilities of cults to hide themselves as "religions"

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
....would you support any type of "non-violent" religious persecution in our modern times?

I don't support it even as a religious person, I believe in teaching people why what they do is wrong, but not in religious persicution.

"If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." - John 8:7 (NIV)