Freedom of Religion gets the axe

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by Covertibility, May 30, 2005.

  1. ElCubano


    :D imagine being corrected...
    #51     May 31, 2005
  2. If it can be proved that Wicca parents produce children who are destructive to society, that such offsprings actions can be measued to show a specific causal relationship between Wicca beliefs and harmful actions, you might have a case.

    #52     May 31, 2005

  3. Not that it should matter but just so you know wiccans don't worship satan.

    You guys might want to learn a little about wicca. Most of the wiccans i know are very peaceful souls.

    I woulda thought all the wannabe libertarians around here would love wicca.

    It's central moral tenet is "An it harm none, do what thou wilt."

    Basically, as long as you're not hurting anybody do whatcha like.

    They are also big on "what goes around comes around" sort of like the golden rule on steroids.

    You can read more here:

    Blessed Be yall
    #53     May 31, 2005
  4. i think that most wiccans have been fooled... and i already read the wikipedia bit. if you care to delve a little more into the history of wicca you will see conflicts between what they think wicca is and it's true genesis. btw, they do worship The Horned God and use a variation of the pentagram. as with most cults the leaders have a better understanding for the true purpose. the lower levels are kept ignorant. if one goes back far enough you will trace their deity to the Light Bearer, i.e. Lucifer. their philosophy is in line with "his" i.e. that they are in control and responsible for their destiny. they control their "salvation". they are gods themselves. this is in direct conflict with christianity and the bible recognizes Lucifer as the fallen one.....the deceiver.

    hollywood is making it fashionable to be a witch with all the little shows portraying hot young chicks saving the day. even modern wicca is only 50 yrs old.... although they claim that theirs is ancient wisdom. obviously we could debate the merits indefinitely and no one would give an inch so why don't we just stick to the 1st amendment argument.
    #54     May 31, 2005
  5. Cutten


    Why is it odd? I hate baseball but I'd think it outrageous if it were banned.
    #55     May 31, 2005
  6. Cutten


    Just because X is granted the same legal protection as Y, does not mean that X is identical to Y or even of the same category. Atheism is not a religion by any accepted definition of the term. Atheists don't gather at places of worship, they don't have a fairly uniform moral code that they preach to atheists "non-believers", they don't worship a divine being, they don't have any sacred texts, they don't have any centralised institution or religious leaders whose teachings they follow. The only thing atheists have in common is a belief that there is no divine being or beings. By definition, something that denies the truth of religion cannot be a religion.

    All religions are beliefs, but not all beliefs are religions. Atheism is a belief, and not a religion.
    #56     May 31, 2005
  7. Turok


    >...he applied the 1st amendment as to protecting satanism
    >which our founding fathers did not have in mind when
    >they sought religious freedom.

    And you know this how?

    #57     May 31, 2005
  8. Cutten


    Not believing something is not equivalent to "practicing" a religion, in any meaningful sense of the term. When someone says "I think politicians are liars", you don't say they are "practising" their "religion" of scepticism. They are simply being sceptical. Scepticism of elected representatives is not a religion, it's just a belief about the veracity of politicians. Equally, atheism is not a religion, it's just a belief about the veracity of religions and their advocates.
    #58     May 31, 2005
  9. Cutten


    Can you show where the courts have said "atheism is a religion"? In any case, courts don't determine the meaning of words.
    #59     May 31, 2005
  10. You may not hold Atheism as a religion, but from what I have seen in these forums, I see people form beliefs that they can't verify as necessarily true (just like beliefs of God), and I have seen these people hold these beliefs with faith as strong as any religious person I have ever seen.

    The level of emotionalism seen consistently here by the atheists matches the level of emotionalism by theists, which indicates a strong attachment to the respective belief systems.

    Just as people claim that music is their religion, politics is their religion, sex is their religion, so too atheism for those who post here seems to fit the same criteria.

    Atheism denies the truth of God, not the truth of religion.

    The key component of a belief that brings it to the level of religion is the repetitive practice of that belief in the face of opposition, and the emotional investment beyond a pure intellectual belief.

    The difference between having a heart felt soulful belief in something and simply holding an idea in the mind about something is the difference between a computer and a human being. A robot could be programmed to perform all the external and measurable actions of a particular religion, you could have a robot priest perform mass, give confession, be seen externally praying.....but no one would say that a robot is actually practicing the Catholic religion because of the external acts.

    It is this internal relationship between a person and their ideas, whether they are invested emotionally or not that ultimately determines their religiosity toward their beliefs...their passion concerning their beliefs, and their attachment to their beliefs.

    #60     May 31, 2005