Ban All Abrahamic Religions.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by blazefortwenty, Mar 14, 2017.

  1. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam Senior Member

    I'm not following the distinction you're making between a ban and "removing one's access to a public platform." He was and has been reported banned from Twitter, for different reasons, which removes his access to a public platform...

    Just a couple of the several headlines...

    Also, his book cancellation is essentially a proactive ban.
  2. Dental_Floss

    Dental_Floss Active Member

    banning someone from twitter is not a infringement of basic rights, I'm not on twitter but I am sure there is an agreement when you sign up giving them the right to ban you for a number of reasons, now if the government banned someone from the use of the internet or a computer (which they have for criminals) than you could argue rights have been violated.
    2 people like this.
  3. Meliai

    Meliai Senior Member

    freedom of speech laws protect you from the government, not from twitter. Milo has not lost the right to free speech just because he cant use twitter. Years ago I was banned from AOL for being a troll (before troll was even part of our lexicon!) Was my free speech stifled? Internet companies, in particular social media companies, have the right to define their own terms of service and ban anyone who violates their terms of service.

    And the same goes with book publishers. Publishing companies can publish, or not publish, whatever they want. Publishers will not hesitate to drop anyone who hints of the whiff of failure or controversy, thats just how the industry is.

    He can still self publish. No one has taken away his ability to publish his book, but the publishing company who dropped him cant be forced to publish him. If they can be forced, force them to publish me while you're at it plz.

    This is getting a bit off topic though.
    3 people like this.
  4. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam Senior Member

    If Copernicus and Galileo were not "hell bent" on showing that the Earth revolved around the Sun, who knows we may still be championing a geocentric Universe. It's certainly not easy changing people's minds but I don't think it's necessarily a waste to explore and challenge ideas.
  5. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    Yeah. Isn't declining a publishing your own form of free speech anyway? :D

    That's why there's different publishing agencies, like record companies. Some companies will only choose to publish one specific genre etc. who has the right to tell them what they can and can't do?
  6. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam Senior Member

    Similar argument could probably be made about the government...
  7. tumbling.dice

    tumbling.dice Senior Member

    How would we enforce such a ban? What would be the penalty for practicing religion?

    All religions eventually die out; today's religions will be no exception. Granted, it won't be soon. Trying to force the inevitable will only cause more problems than it solves.
  8. Ajay0

    Ajay0 Guest

    Religion is just a methodology or tool for the expansion of consciousness so as to attain bliss and peace in life. It is not religion, but the identification with religion that is the problem.

    When you identify with a religion the consciousness gets constricted and dualistic, which is the opposite of what religion is supposed to attain , and this begets conflict and disharmony.

    There is an insightful remark by Jiddu Krishnamurti in this regard....

    “When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”

    It is not just identification with religion, but identification with nation, gender, ideology, race, gangs, language, caste, creed and other divisive factors that promote duality and violence. Hence the problem originates with blind identification which is an aberration from the natural state.

    I have explained this further in this post.
  9. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Trying to connect this topic to politics, since it was posted in the Politics forum, I think it best relates to the issues of fake news and alternative facts that have been much discussed in the Trump era: "Obama isn't a U.S. citizen, Obama and Hillary were the founders of ISIS, Obama bugged Trump's office", Hillary is part of a ring of pedophiles holding children as sex slaves in the dungeons below a pizza parlor, etc. Nearly everything in the OP's list of grievances against Abrahamic religion is false,misleading, exaggerated, illogical, questionable, factually unsupportable,or to use the language of the courts, in "reckless disregard of the truth". It is delivered in a tone of high dudgeon, and used in an effort to mobilize adverse action against a targeted group. It seems to be part and parcel of the contemporary notion that if any dimwit feels strongly about a matter they're entitled to spout off about it whether or not they know what they're talking about. Of course, even wingnuts have the right to free speech, but we have the duty not to take them seriously unless their arguments are consistent with facts and logic. Not encouraging for our future as a country!

    My favorite is the charge that "Due to religion, humans conduct their behavior unfairly and oppress other humans (a violation of the Pursuit of Happiness clause.)" Does the OP think that "clause"(really a phrase) is some kind of law? It's in the Declaration of Independence, not a law but a statement of noble sentiments nonetheless. How ironic! Does (s)he realize that the "clause" occurs in a list of rights supposedly given to humans by God:("endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"), and in a document that begins with a paragraph acknowledging the "station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"? Seems to me that passage refutes the basic contention that religion is a hindrance to human rights. And atheism would deny the purported source of human rights (God), including "the pursuit of happiness". Seems to me the course of action (s)he's advocating would violate it big time! By the same illogic, we might conclude that if the OP's muddled arguments are what atheism does to the human mind, maybe we should add it to the ban list.
    1 person likes this.
  10. Dental_Floss

    Dental_Floss Active Member

    you only plucked out part of what I said to make your point though, if you break down the whole statement I said that the only way to really make a change is through education, fuck I am from a state that continues to try to ban the theory of evolution (brown vs board of education is a monumental case in Kansas). My parents loosely believe, my sister strongly believes in god and boy did I take hell from the parents for trying to educate my sister lol. My point is you're not going to change a 40 y/o adults mind on religion but good luck with that, but through education you might get a young adult to see clearly. A lot of folks I've talked to over the years, whether they admitted to me or not, are obviously brainwashed to the point where they are afraid not to believe, it would tear down all the walls they've built up for XX amount of years, and would prove that their parents, grandparents and every adult mentor they had through their church were wrong. Most folks don't want to deal with that. The only way I can really relate to that idea would be when I realized that my parents were just normal people who in some cases knew less than me about things.
  11. Ged

    Ged Rhetorical Juvenile.

    God doesn't exist.That's why he/she is there
    1 person likes this.
  12. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam Senior Member

    You had paragraph breaks in that post ???

    I responded to the paragraph I felt worth responding to, It's not like I was quote mining you. I just didn't have much to speak on in regards to the other paragraphs.

    I hear ya in regards that people get set in their ways, but I do think now, especially with the ways and at the rate we can access information, people can more easily access information and data that they are provided. Granted there a lot of media sources and websites that are clearly aligned with certain positions and exhibit particular biases but I think people who like to explore ideas can think critically and discern quality sources from dubious sources. I don't really know how much of the population cares to seek information in that way, but the potential is there more so now than at any other time in history.
    1 person likes this.
  13. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    I'm pessimistic that the availability of more information will lead to greater enlightenment. I have the impression that for the churched one of the appeals of relgion is that it provides specialists in the form of priests, preachers and theologians, who can sift through the sacred writings and boil them down into a workable nutshell. Believers can simply go by that on faith and not spend their time in independent inquiry of confusing, contradictory materials. Students of public opinion have put forward the concept of "rational ignorance" to explain why Americans are so poorly informed about politics. Rational ignorance is the decision to refrain from getting information when the cost of educating oneself on an issue exceeds the potential benefit that the knowledge would provide. It's much easier to accept the traditional interpretations of eligion and spend ones time earning a living,playing golf, Enjoying the spouse and kids,watching sports, etc. There would have to be a strong incentive for the believer to break this pattern and look critically at the material. It can sometimes be done. I'm thinking of New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, who started out as a biblical literalist at the Moody Bible College but moved on to the Princeton Theological Seminary where he was confronted with contradictions in the Bible that challenged "inerrancy". Now he's an agnostic doing studies that challenge conventional Christian beliefs. And what about atheists? Would they be willing to put in time and effort to trulyunderstand religion, or are they content to dismiss it on the basis of a superficial impressions.
  14. blazefortwenty

    blazefortwenty Well-Known Member

    Typical half-baked, biased and bigoted half-logic of a religious person.

    I never advocated violence to suppress humanity, the only violence I advocate is to save humanity.
  15. blazefortwenty

    blazefortwenty Well-Known Member

    It is not a freedom, it is a brainwashing of babies to force them to believe a delusion. Saying religion is a freedom is like saying Nazi babies are free babies. The babies were brainwashed to be nazis, and the religious were brainwashed to be religious. The 10% of religious people who weren't brainwashed into it, are just idiots.
  16. morrow

    morrow Senior Member

  17. NoxiousGas

    NoxiousGas Old Fart

    as if what you offer is even remotely as informed and educated....Laugh Out Loud.......

    what's a matter feeling defensive...LOL
  18. NoxiousGas

    NoxiousGas Old Fart

    so uninformed,ignorant and juvenile, doesn't even warrant a real response.

    Hinduism and Buddhism low impact......LOL you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about,do you?
  19. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    That's what all fanatics say: You only advocate violence to advance your view of what would save humanity? How childish. So far, all we have from you is a bunch of name calling and emotional outbursts. No facts. No attempt to address objections. You really don't belong on a discussion forum.
  20. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Adagio Dazzle? Really? Are you ten years old, or is that just your mental age?

Share This Page