Why can't people be religious if they aren’t hurting anyone?

YeshuaBought

In before liberals attack.

TTKDB

@YeshuaBought:

Do you see any sort of "hate speech rhetoric" in my statement's? 

Am I attacking anyone with my statement's? 

Am I providing a fair and equal debate platform? 

Please, what are your thoughts? 

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

aren't hurting or harming anyone?

When was the last time a religious parent or parents were tried in a court of law over teaching their kids about religion? 

Kids have been hurt by parents who were religious and they went to jail for their crimes didn't they? 

But their religion wasn't put on trial was it? 

How do you try a religion for a parent who broke the law, when their religion had nothing to do with their crimes?  

I'm pro society.

I'm pro religious, pro atheist, pro theist.

I'm glad that people can have the right to believe in religion or be non religious if they choose to be?

But people deserve to be ridiculed over religion if they haven't hurt or harmed their kids with religion? 

And I'm pro education, provided that the education benefits all of society as a whole. 

If parents are being peaceful with their religion why can't they be left alone? 

And I'm pro community.

I expect this to be taken down before next week 

Joeseph

@Zombieguy1987

His last hate debate was taken down that’s 5 now and counting 

MayCaesar

This is a free country. You can be religious. We can say what we think about your being religious. You can say what you think about our thoughts about you being religious. And so on, and so on!

Now, to me personally, what you believe does not matter if you do not put it out and just keep to yourself. Just as much I do not tell everyone I meet what my beliefs are.

To other people it might be different, but, again, part of living in a free society is learning to deal with people expressing opinions you dislike. People making anti-religious sentiments do not necessarily believe that you cannot or should not be religious, they simply believe that the alternative is better.

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

Why should it be taken down? 

It's a peaceful statement.

TTKDB

@Joeseph

Do you view my statement as hate speech?

WordsMatter

@MayCaesar "freedom for me, but not for thee"

Joeseph

@TTKDB

Your last debate was a deliberate attack which used  a notorious hate site to attack others , I don’t care what you think but at least be man enough to back your claims up with facts instead of slinging unfounded accusations about .

If you now persist in your usual trolling I shall again ask for you to be banned , you’ve been warned 

TTKDB

@MayCaesar:

"Now, to me personally, what you believe does not matter if you do not put it out and just keep to yourself. Just as much I do not tell everyone I meet what my beliefs are."

So do you view my statement as this? 

"Now, to me personally, what you believe does not matter if you do not put it out and just keep to yourself."

So to you, my putting a stance out, and not keeping it to myself, is I think what you're expressing? 

TTKDB

All I've done is present a question.

And present a statement that followed the question. 

Nathaniel_B

I ain't have a problem with religious people. I have a problem with religious people trying to convert people, and pushing religious indoctrination.

WordsMatter

Religion, or lack thereof, is like a penis. It's cool if you have one, it's cool if you don't. You shouldn't pull it out in public. You better not try to shove it down people's throats, especially children's.

TTKDB

@Nathaniel_B

"I ain't have a problem with religious people. I have a problem with religious people trying to convert people, and pushing religious indoctrination."

The above isn't the intent at all.

I'm not a verse quoter, or trying to push religion on anyone at all.

My intent was just to express a question and the statement that followed it. 

WordsMatter

@TTKDB you're asking why be against someone who is religious if they haven't hurt anyone. I'm saying that I'm against people being religious in public and pushing their views on people or resorting to it specifically as justification for their actions in public, neither of which actually hurts anyone. I answered your question, don't move the goalposts.

Example would be the people who get all upset about happy holidays and think there is a war on Christmas. No they aren't hurting anyone but they can stop freaking out about their religious views in public. Happy holidays covers thanksgiving and new years, plus whatever religious holiday is celebrated in between. 2/3 have nothing to do with religion at all yet it's somehow all about religion to some Christians.

YeshuaBought

@TTKDB I was not talking about you, I was talking about liberals who hate religious liberty and ONLY attack Christians. You are not doing that, so stop whining.

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@Nathaniel_B

"I ain't have a problem with religious people. I have a problem with religious people trying to convert people, and pushing religious indoctrination."

The above isn't the intent at all.

I'm not a verse quoter, or trying to push religion on anyone at all.

My intent was just to express a question and the statement that followed it. 


mmmmmmmmmmmm...

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

Why should it be taken down? 

It's to hide your anti-atheist bias

It's a peaceful statement.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

Show me one United States court case, from anywhere in the country, where religion was found guilty of murder, along with the convicted felons? 

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

Show me one United States court case, from anywhere in the country, where religion was found guilty of murder, along with the convicted felons? 

You didn't read @MayCaesar answer did you?

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

"You didn't read @MayCaesar answer did you?"

All I saw, were excuses being made, and religion being blamed for crimes that the offenders were guilty of.

CYDdharta

Nathaniel_B said:

I ain't have a problem with religious people. I have a problem with religious people trying to convert people, and pushing religious indoctrination.

Fair enough, do you also have a problem with atheists trying to convert people, and pushing their religious indoctrination?

SilverishGoldNova

Eh, let people believe in fairy tales about sky monsters if they want to.

TTKDB

@SilverishGoldNova

"Eh, let people believe in fairy tales about sky monsters if they want to.'

In what religious book, is the above talked about or mentioned? 

TTKDB

Why can't people be religious if they
aren't hurting or harming anyone? 

There are religious people who have hurt people, and they have been incarcerated for their crimes.

So if the religious individuals aren't hurting their own kids, or families, or they aren't harming their communities, cities, or the states that they are a part of, then why can't they be religious if they aren't harming anyone with religion? 

Why should they be treated with the same treatment that the jailed parents or parent gets treated with? 

Can anyone provide a court case, where religious individuals were tried in a court of law for not breaking any laws because of religion, and they were incarcerated for not breaking any laws because of religion? 

AlofRI

@TTKDB I'm an atheist. I agree anybody can follow ANY religion they want in this country, as you said, "as long as they're not hurting anybody". Nearly everything you said is actually protected by your Constitutional Rights. So, What's the problem? The Constitution also protects others FROM those religions who would limit OTHER religions, or those with none, from THEIR freedoms.
 Still, a religion sometimes strives to "make laws establishing a religion" and sometimes gets away with it as in "In God We Trust", and "One nation, under God" …. the "under God" was added when I was around the third grade. We didn't need it, we don't need it now. When one is sworn into a government office one pledges to "uphold the Constitution", not the Bible. Some don't seem to remember that. (Actually, T.R. and I believe it was J. Adams were sworn in with their hand on the Constitution, NOT the Bible. I think more SHOULD.)
 All religions should be allowed, all religions should follow their own rules, within their own circle, "as long as they don't hurt anyone" … OR the country. Those who don't believe in a religion should have the same respect and not have religious rules shoved down their throat. If religions did that around the world there have been many wars that would never have happened. You have all those things you think you should have. Try to remember, I have mine, also, as does the Jew, the Muslim, the Sikh, the Atheist, etc..

AlofRI

AlofRI said:

@TTKDB I'm an atheist. I agree anybody can follow ANY religion they want in this country, as you said, "as long as they're not hurting anybody". Nearly everything you said is actually protected by your Constitutional Rights. So, What's the problem? The Constitution also protects others FROM those religions who would limit OTHER religions, or those with none, from THEIR freedoms.
A religion sometimes gets away with it as in "In God We Trust", and "One nation, under God" …. the "under God" was added when I was around the third grade. We didn't need it, we don't need it now. When one is sworn into a government office one pledges to "uphold the Constitution", not the Bible. Some don't seem to remember that. (Actually, T.R. and I believe it was J. Adams were sworn in with their hand on the Constitution, NOT the Bible. I think more SHOULD.)
 All religions should be allowed, all religions should follow their own rules, within their own circle, "as long as they don't hurt anyone" … OR the country. Those who don't believe in a religion should have the same respect and not have religious rules shoved down their throat. If religions did that around the world there have been many wars that would never have happened. You have all those things you think you should have. Try to remember, I have mine, also, as does the Jew, the Muslim, the Sikh, the Atheist, etc..

"Religion is like a penis. It's a good thing to have, it's good to be proud of it, but don't whip it out and wave it around in public, or try to shove it down somebody's throat that's not interested in it." (anonymous … I guess?)

TTKDB

@AlofRI

"Still, your religion (apparently), strives to "make laws establishing a religion" and sometimes gets away with it as in "In God We Trust", and "One nation, under God" …. the "under God" was added when I was around the third grade. We didn't need it, we don't need it now."

As I stated before:

I'm pro community.

I'm pro religious, pro atheist, pro theist.

I'm glad that people can have the right to believe in religion or be non religious if they choose to be?

And I'm pro education, provided that the education benefits all of society as a whole. 

If parents are being peaceful with their religion why can't they be left alone?  

If you have an issue with:

"In God We Trust", and "One nation, under God" …. the "under God" was added when I was around the third grade. We didn't need it, we don't need it now."

You could address your points of view, before the Supreme Court of the United States, and see what their response is? 

TTKDB

@AlofRI

And these words are a benefit to whom globally on the internet? 

"Religion is like a penis. It's a good thing to have, it's good to be proud of it, but don't whip it out and wave it around in public, or try to shove it down somebody's throat that's not interested in it." (anonymous … I guess?)

TTKDB

@AlofRI

I'm guessing that the quotation you reshared, isn't maybe that anonymous?

Did maybe a Ryan, actually write that quotation? 

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

You as well, could maybe address your points of view, before the Supreme Court of the United States, and see what their response is? 

TTKDB

@anonymousdebater

Who are you maybe directing your commentary towards? 

YeshuaBought

Who says they can't?

TTKDB

"Separation of church and state means all religious beliefs should be treated equally. Because of this, I am against having "God" in the pledge of allegiance or on coins, support prayer in schools (as long as they are student rather than teacher or administrator driven), etc."

An example of the conversation over the separation of church and state: 

https://amp-usatoday-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1612766002?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ==#aoh=15460933277758&amp_ct=1546093802093&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/02/supreme-court-decide-if-peace-cross-war-memorial-can-survive/1612766002/

Some excerpts from the article:

"Supreme Court's latest church-state conundrum: Must a 'peace cross' memorial to World War I vets come down?

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether a 93-year-old memorial to World War I veterans must be removed from public land in Maryland because it is shaped like a cross."

"The latest church-state skirmish to come before the justices pits veterans organizations against the American Humanist Association, which represents atheists, agnostics and other secular groups. Its motto is "Good Without a God."

"The 40-foot cross was built in 1925 by the American Legion and "a group of bereaved mothers," according to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which wants it left alone. Honoring 49 men from Prince George's County who died in the war, it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places."

"The commission took over the property in 1961 and maintains it with public funds. It sits in a three-way highway median that is now the county's busiest intersection."

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, ruled 8-6 last October that the Latin cross is the "pre-eminent symbol of Christianity" and ordered it removed or destroyed. It sided with opponents in ruling that the memorial appears to honor Christian veterans above others."

"The commission and American Legion say that's not the case. They argue that the monument had a secular dedication and has been used as the location for patriotic events dating back nearly a century. The cross, they say, represents the symbol of World War I dead."

"This court has recognized that passive displays – particularly displays that have stood without challenge for decades – may constitutionally employ religious symbols in order to convey a predominantly nonreligious message," they argue in court papers."

"Nearly 20 military, veteran, religious and conservative groups urged the Supreme Court to step in, a huge number for a case that had yet to be granted. Lawyers for the commission and American Legion say if allowed to stand, the appeals court ruling will imperil hundreds of similar monuments on public land, including those in Arlington National Cemetery."

“One group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by America’s veterans and their families," said David Cortman, senior counsel for the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom. "The offended feelings of a passer-by does not amount to a constitutional crisis."

"The group challenging the memorial calls it a "Christian cross monolith" that's in poor condition and is a safety hazard. Government funding for maintenance and restoration, it says, represents "excessive entanglement with religion."

"It also disagrees that the monument was secular from the start, contending that it was conceived as a "Calvary Cross" to symbolize Jesus Christ's crucifixion and that events held over the decades have featured Christian-themed prayers."  

"Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said veterans can be honored "in ways that don’t promote a particular religion and that respect the religious diversity of Maryland’s citizens, including veterans. We urge the Supreme Court to affirm that this cross is unconstitutional.”

"Federal appeals courts have ruled differently on similar memorials. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuchdissented as an appeals court judge in 2010 when the 10th Circuit refused to reconsider a panel's decision that memorial crosses violate the Constitution."

“Our court has now repeatedly misapplied the ‘reasonable observer’ test, and it is apparently destined to continue doing so until we are told to stop,” Gorsuch said."

"Now the Supreme Court, with five conservative justices following the confirmation of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh last month, could issue just such an admonition."

Gian_Greene

"If parents are being peaceful with their religion why can't they be left alone?"

That was the core question, and the debate went off the rails. Many good points made here, but not directed to the debaters core question. 

To me, the question almost doesn't deserve a reply. It is equal to asking; If rednecks are being peaceful with their hanging out why can't they be left alone? The question points directly to the group; religion and rednecks. So, the underlying question is why are religious people or rednecks, or whatever group singled out? 

Since this isn't about other groups, the question is what draws our attention to religious people, that a debate question like this would even be posed? 

Religious people have extremists, and like in politics, there are the liberals and conservatives, which draw objections from the opposite sides. A peaceful religious family can come under attack, just because they are trying to spread their views. They are in essence being asked to just stay in the closet, and all will be well - this is called fascism. When they raise their voices though, the fight is on - which is called democracy.

If they are being peaceful, why can't they be left alone? It's because they -  in possibly the kindest of fashions - are shoving their views down someones throats, including children. This brings up the part of the question I skipped over; parents. As concerned citizens we want to reach into those homes and save those children. Indoctrination is insidious, and can produce twisted adults. By law though, thankfully, we still are not able to invade peoples private homes. 

So, the ultimate question that we can't quite answer is; what is our universally agreed upon philosophy? Without that, the debate rages on, and parents will do what they think is best for their children. Prove to them that they are wrong, come up with a universally accepted alternative, or agree to disagree.  

Why can't they be left alone? As with any issue, as long as they stand on a side that others don't, they need to be part of the discussion.