Should Society Ban The Abrahamic Religions And How?

[Left Coast]

I do not hate and I do not have aggression. I am asking for solutions for a problem we all face, specifically the death and destruction caused by the Abrahamic religions

Criminalizing Abrahamic religions will only make them more prone to death and destruction. The most effective solution to them is for them to be liberalized and secularized. This has been the most effective solution proposed and tried to date.

 

[shmogie]

I agree but as you say it does not happen fast enough and this trend can reverse at any time


Cultural traditions are more important than human life. What are you talking about?
I don't want to impose anything. I want to use the great minds on here to solve a problem we all face, a problem that is growing


?


Religion is the problem relevant here


I do not hate and I do not have aggression. I am asking for solutions for a problem we all face, specifically the death and destruction caused by the Abrahamic religions

The problem you are trying to eliminate is a portion of humanity because you don´t like what humans do based upon the specific labels you want to use according to your personal agenda.

I can use labels too, why are you worried about religions when the greatest killers of all time, mao and stalin were atheists. Do you want to ban atheism ?

I spent 25 years as a law enforcement officer, I saw quite a bit of violence, had murderers in my custody, came upon a woman whose throat had been slashed by a straight razor seconds before, and all I saw and dealt with had nothing to do with religion.



It is an integral part of humanity, and it cannot be banned. It simply goes underground as Rome learned Russia learned, and China is learning today.

You are using religion as a scapegoat while trying to deal with violent human behavior. PERVERTED religious precepts forms an excuse for violence, it isn´t the cause.

That is no more reasonable than to think firearms cause gun violence, humans cause violence of all sorts, labeling ignores the violent side of humanity, inherent violence. If religion isn´t an excuse, another justification will be found.

I suggest you look at American prohibition when you talk of banning things or peoples beliefs, part of their psyche.

Religion is just one of the excuses humans use to be horrible to each other and the natural world.

 

[dianaiad]

IMO Given the harm they do, given all the trouble caused in the world by them they should be banned, but how? People have the right to believe what they will and worship as they see fit. These are human rights, but they turn people against people, spawn extremism and give their followers a false and divisive view of the world.

As do certain forms of atheism.

How could they be banned? How can these divisive, misleading, tribal, anachronistic dogmatic and destructive forces be done away with without the obvious cries of outrage.

They can't. Or rather, they can, but doing so causes far more problems than freedom of religion does.

We would have to tread very carefully. How could it be done? What would the first steps be.

the first step would be....

Not to take that first step.

I would suggest a piecemeal ban of various passages as a start. For example everything that stirs up hatred of another religion or violence towards another should be edited out.

Oh, goodie. You would begin with censoring the books you don't approve of.

Is it the case that we are powerless even to take the first step in this direction because of human rights and the good (far outweighed by the bad IMO) these religions sometimes do.

Yes. And there is a reason for that.

Can we really not sort this nonsense out?

Why do you think it's your job...or that you have the right or authority, to 'sort this nonsense out?"

My solution would be to ban all the holy books and just allow Genesis up to 9:19 (everything after that is just tribal self-interest but that is unrealistic and dictatorial.
What else could be done? Just keep in mind the thousands of lives that have been lost / ruined because of these divisive forces.

So...your solution is to ban all books of which you do not personally approve. Where have I heard that before?

And how do you think that YOUR doing this sort of thing would have different...and better...results than when others have tried it?

As it turns out, please keep in mind, that the folks who ban religion ended up killing more people in the twentieth century than theocracies have been responsible for in the whole of recorded human history.

The solution is not to ban "Abrahamic religions," but to allow all people the absolute right to believe, and practice their beliefs (or non-beliefs) as they wish. Freely. Without let or hindrance. To allow all to freely teach their beliefs to all who would listen. To recognize that yes, people have died because of their religious beliefs...and every one of them died because someone ELSE thought HE had the right to decide what others should, and should not, believe and teach. You have simply joined the persecutors.

Don't do that.

If you don't want to be a part of the Abrahamic religious belief system, fine. Find your own beliefs and hold to them. Teach others what you believe and see if you can change some minds.

But you do not have the right, or the authority, or the superior anything at all, to decide FOR ME what I can read, think or believe.

And that is what you are proposing here.

Tell me: would you be OK if I walked up to you on a Sunday morning and took away your right to watch sports on TV, or to attend a game, or to take your family somewhere, because in my opinion, doing those things is blasphemous on a Sunday? Nevermind that YOU don't think so, I do, and it's what I think that counts?

Because that is precisely what you are doing here.

And I'm not OK with it.

 

[shmogie]

I agree that religion is not "THE" problem. But it is one of the problems. As for the "atheist" regimes that you and so many others continue to cite, they were not really atheistic in nature. These leaders were in fact all trying to set themselves up as demigods. This is the opposite of what secularism strives for. Now I understand that atheist does not always go hand in hand with secularism, but I would say that most atheists who are engaged in politics are secularists, correct?

No, they were stated atheists who ruled with iron fists.

Yes, most atheists are secularists, but that is just more labeling. You imply that secularists have some noble goal, which is possible, but that label doesn´t change the fact that they are humans and some are violent.

Christians, because of the noble goal for their behavior should rarely be violent, and then only in self defense. However, this side of the grave they are humans, and guess what.

 

[dianaiad]

I agree with this, but so what. You can't ban the media and you can't prevent bad news making a disproportionately loud noise.
The media is not the real problem. The real problem is that we value the freedom of being able to worship any way we like more than we value people's lives

That's quite an excuse....that can be used to justify almost anything. Censor books? Oh, you value books more than you do human lives! Limit access to news? Oh, but we mustn't panic people...you value freedom over human lives!

Well, yeah. I value freedom more than I do my life, because my life wouldn't be worth living if I were not free to live it as I wish...and I really get worried about people who think THEY have the right to protect my life by telling me what to read, think and believe.

Go stand on a soap box and rail against Abrahamic beliefs. I'll bring you cookies and lemonade to keep you going. I'll applaud any good lines.

Tell me that you want to keep me from reading something YOU disapprove of? Tell me that you have the right to protect my life by restricting my freedom?

Oh, now....there we part ways. There, sir, you are going to hit a very tall wall, indeed. I don't have the right to tell you not to teach your opinions to whomever you wish, and I'm not giving you the right to restrict MY freedom to believe, read or practice, my beliefs.

I wouldn't suggest that you attempt to take it, either.

 

[charlie sc]

IMO Given the harm they do, given all the trouble caused in the world by them they should be banned, but how? People have the right to believe what they will and worship as they see fit. These are human rights, but they turn people against people, spawn extremism and give their followers a false and divisive view of the world.
How could they be banned? How can these divisive, misleading, tribal, anachronistic dogmatic and destructive forces be done away with without the obvious cries of outrage.
We would have to tread very carefully. How could it be done? What would the first steps be.
I would suggest a piecemeal ban of various passages as a start. For example everything that stirs up hatred of another religion or violence towards another should be edited out.
Is it the case that we are powerless even to take the first step in this direction because of human rights and the good (far outweighed by the bad IMO) these religions sometimes do.
Can we really not sort this nonsense out?
My solution would be to ban all the holy books and just allow Genesis up to 9:19 (everything after that is just tribal self-interest but that is unrealistic and dictatorial.
What else could be done? Just keep in mind the thousands of lives that have been lost / ruined because of these divisive forces.

Ban, no. Religious exemption, yes. Remove those. I don’t see why an ideology, by choice, gets exemptions from tax and other special privileges.

 

[Vee]

What else could be done? Just keep in mind the thousands of lives that have been lost / ruined because of these divisive forces.

You're worried abut the loss/ruin of thousand of lives? Ban central banks, corrupt politicians and junk food companies. The results will be far greater.

 

[icehorse]

No, they were stated atheists who ruled with iron fists.

we'll have to disagree on whether one of their goals was to set themselves up as demigods.

 

[icehorse]

You're worried abut the loss/ruin of thousand of lives? Ban central banks, corrupt politicians and junk food companies. The results will be far greater.

This is such a dodge, really. There are many problems in the world, it's okay if an individual focuses on only one them wouldn't you say?

 

[Lionel Refson]

As do certain forms of atheism




They can't. Or rather, they can, but doing so causes far more problems than freedom of religion does.



the first step would be....

Not to take that first step.



Oh, goodie. You would begin with censoring the books you don't approve of.



Yes. And there is a reason for that.



Why do you think it's your job...or that you have the right or authority, to 'sort this nonsense out?"



So...your solution is to ban all books of which you do not personally approve. Where have I heard that before?

And how do you think that YOUR doing this sort of thing would have different...and better...results than when others have tried it?

As it turns out, please keep in mind, that the folks who ban religion ended up killing more people in the twentieth century than theocracies have been responsible for in the whole of recorded human history.

The solution is not to ban "Abrahamic religions," but to allow all people the absolute right to believe, and practice their beliefs (or non-beliefs) as they wish. Freely. Without let or hindrance. To allow all to freely teach their beliefs to all who would listen. To recognize that yes, people have died because of their religious beliefs...and every one of them died because someone ELSE thought HE had the right to decide what others should, and should not, believe and teach. You have simply joined the persecutors.

Don't do that.

If you don't want to be a part of the Abrahamic religious belief system, fine. Find your own beliefs and hold to them. Teach others what you believe and see if you can change some minds.

But you do not have the right, or the authority, or the superior anything at all, to decide FOR ME what I can read, think or believe.

And that is what you are proposing here.

Tell me: would you be OK if I walked up to you on a Sunday morning and took away your right to watch sports on TV, or to attend a game, or to take your family somewhere, because in my opinion, doing those things is blasphemous on a Sunday? Nevermind that YOU don't think so, I do, and it's what I think that counts?

Because that is precisely what you are doing here.

And I'm not OK with it.

If you came round and told me to stop practicing my religion because it hurts one other person, in any way ....I would give up the religion, for the falsity it is....and by hurt I do not mean self-righteous indignation.

 

[SugarOcean]

IMO Given the harm they do, given all the trouble caused in the world by them they should be banned, but how? People have the right to believe what they will and worship as they see fit. These are human rights, but they turn people against people, spawn extremism and give their followers a false and divisive view of the world.
How could they be banned? How can these divisive, misleading, tribal, anachronistic dogmatic and destructive forces be done away with without the obvious cries of outrage.
We would have to tread very carefully. How could it be done? What would the first steps be.
I would suggest a piecemeal ban of various passages as a start. For example everything that stirs up hatred of another religion or violence towards another should be edited out.
Is it the case that we are powerless even to take the first step in this direction because of human rights and the good (far outweighed by the bad IMO) these religions sometimes do.
Can we really not sort this nonsense out?
My solution would be to ban all the holy books and just allow Genesis up to 9:19 (everything after that is just tribal self-interest but that is unrealistic and dictatorial.
What else could be done? Just keep in mind the thousands of lives that have been lost / ruined because of these divisive forces.

Your entire OP is Spurious and self-contradictory.

Your remarks seek to denigrate the Abrahamic faiths as extremist while your suggested solution is just that.
In the process you also say this: "...People have the right to believe what they will and worship as they see fit."
While your OP demonstrates you believe no such thing. Your entire premise is groundless.

 

[Lionel Refson]

Your entire OP is Spurious and self-contradictory.

Your remarks seek to denigrate the Abrahamic faiths as extremist while your suggested solution is just that.
In the process you also say this: "...People have the right to believe what they will and worship as they see fit."
While your OP demonstrates you believe no such thing. Your entire premise is groundless.

Your entire OP is Spurious and self-contradictory.

Your remarks seek to denigrate the Abrahamic faiths as extremist while your suggested solution is just that.
In the process you also say this: "...People have the right to believe what they will and worship as they see fit."
While your OP demonstrates you believe no such thing. Your entire premise is groundless.

Oh come on. People have the right to believe what they want and worship as they see fit, right up to the point that their beliefs cause harm to others , at which point the quality of the religion in question should be examined as to its place on society

 

[IndigoChild5559]

IMO Given the harm they do, given all the trouble caused in the world by them they should be banned, but how? People have the right to believe what they will and worship as they see fit. These are human rights, but they turn people against people, spawn extremism and give their followers a false and divisive view of the world.
How could they be banned? How can these divisive, misleading, tribal, anachronistic dogmatic and destructive forces be done away with without the obvious cries of outrage.
We would have to tread very carefully. How could it be done? What would the first steps be.
I would suggest a piecemeal ban of various passages as a start. For example everything that stirs up hatred of another religion or violence towards another should be edited out.
Is it the case that we are powerless even to take the first step in this direction because of human rights and the good (far outweighed by the bad IMO) these religions sometimes do.
Can we really not sort this nonsense out?
My solution would be to ban all the holy books and just allow Genesis up to 9:19 (everything after that is just tribal self-interest but that is unrealistic and dictatorial.
What else could be done? Just keep in mind the thousands of lives that have been lost / ruined because of these divisive forces.

How awful this suggestion is!!!! That you would preach against freedom of religion is backwards and medieval -- that you would eliminate religions wreaks of Stalinist Russia. Freedom of religion flows directly from freedom of speech, which finds its ultimate origins in freedom of thought. You suggest the legitimacy of Big Brother.

You logic is flawed. You bring up the destruction of those few who associate themselves with Abrahamic religions. They are destructive personalities who bring their warped values with them when they come into the religion, and then end up perverting the religion to suit their personal agendas.

You neglect to even mention the vast good that these religions do, such as feeding the hungry, building hospitals, visiting the incarcerated, clothing the poor, educating the ignorant, etc. They cultivate our better virtues. Can an atheist be a good person? Of course!!! But if a person is not good, and wants to become good, the easiest place to find the tools for change is religion, especially the Abrahamic faiths which emphasize morality.

 

[dianaiad]

If you came round and told me to stop practicing my religion because it hurts one other person, in any way ....I would give up the religion, for the falsity it is....and by hurt I do not mean self-righteous indignation.

....and you think I am being self righteously indignant because I think that someone else telling me what I can read, believe or think is hurting me?

Do you understand the difference between you voluntarily giving up a belief because someone told you it was hurting someone else...

And you deciding that because you think a belief system hurts others, you have the right to decide what the believers can, and cannot, read?

This isn't me being self righteous...though I could paste that label on you.

This is me being righteously indignant.

The solution to all this is simple.

Freedom of religion. All people should have the right to read what they want, believe what they want, and teach what they wish to anybody they can get to listen. That includes theists, atheists, Christians, Buddhists,Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Taoists, pagans of all description, and any other belief system that can be imagined.

Nobody has the right to force their beliefs on anybody else through law or through force.

EVERYBODY has the right to knock on doors, preach in parks, or shout on street corners.

You have the right to express your opinion that Abrahamic religions are horrific and need to disappear.
You do NOT have the right to enforce that opinion upon Abrahamic believers, and Abrahamic believers don't have the right to shoot you for expressing that opinion.

We do, however, have the right to tell you that you don't have that right.

And we have the right to make very certain that you can't do what you have proposed doing: censoring our scriptures, to begin with.

You can decide what you read. You can decide what you believe. You can yell, and rant, and tell us just how evil we all are. No problem. I'm quite sure that there are all manner of Abrahamic believers who would do the same to you.

...and as I mentioned, if you want to express your opinion from a soapbox in the park, I'll bring you food, and drink, and applaud at the good lines.

but as soon as you try to regulate, in ANY way, what I read in terms of my religion, you're toast. That, you see, is the cause of all the damage caused by religion (or those wishing to get rid of religion). It's all about, as it has always been, forcing one's own beliefs upon others by force of law or just plain force.

I don't see any difference here between the folks and beliefs you hate and accuse......and what you are proposing doing TO them.

No difference at all.

 

[Lionel Refson]

How awful this suggestion is!!!! That you would preach against freedom of religion is backwards and medieval -- that you would eliminate religions wreaks of Stalinist Russia. Freedom of religion flows directly from freedom of speech, which finds its ultimate origins in freedom of thought. You suggest the legitimacy of Big Brother.

You logic is flawed. You bring up the destruction of those few who associate themselves with Abrahamic religions. They are destructive personalities who bring their warped values with them when they come into the religion, and then end up perverting the religion to suit their personal agendas.

You neglect to even mention the vast good that these religions do, such as feeding the hungry, building hospitals, visiting the incarcerated, clothing the poor, educating the ignorant, etc. They cultivate our better virtues. Can an atheist be a good person? Of course!!! But if a person is not good, and wants to become good, the easiest place to find the tools for change is religion, especially the Abrahamic faiths which emphasize morality.

So you do not think the majority of any one of the abrahamic faiths have their lives ruined by the actions of their extremist elements

 

[exchemist]

IMO Given the harm they do, given all the trouble caused in the world by them they should be banned, but how? People have the right to believe what they will and worship as they see fit. These are human rights, but they turn people against people, spawn extremism and give their followers a false and divisive view of the world.
How could they be banned? How can these divisive, misleading, tribal, anachronistic dogmatic and destructive forces be done away with without the obvious cries of outrage.
We would have to tread very carefully. How could it be done? What would the first steps be.
I would suggest a piecemeal ban of various passages as a start. For example everything that stirs up hatred of another religion or violence towards another should be edited out.
Is it the case that we are powerless even to take the first step in this direction because of human rights and the good (far outweighed by the bad IMO) these religions sometimes do.
Can we really not sort this nonsense out?
My solution would be to ban all the holy books and just allow Genesis up to 9:19 (everything after that is just tribal self-interest but that is unrealistic and dictatorial.
What else could be done? Just keep in mind the thousands of lives that have been lost / ruined because of these divisive forces.

ZZZzzzzz........

 

[dianaiad]

Oh come on. People have the right to believe what they want and worship as they see fit, right up to the point that their beliefs cause harm to others , at which point the quality of the religion in question should be examined as to its place on society

And you think that censoring books and scriptures isn't causing harm?

You have an odd notion of 'harm.'

For one thing, how would you enforce that censorship? Would you invade homes and confiscate books? Arrest those who have contraband scriptures? Jail the preachers who have memorized those passages you disapprove of? Just how would you DO this, and who died and made you God, that you think you can?

 

[Lionel Refson]

....and you think I am being self righteously indignant because I think that someone else telling me what I can read, believe or think is hurting me?

Do you understand the difference between you voluntarily giving up a belief because someone told you it was hurting someone else...

And you deciding that because you think a belief system hurts others, you have the right to decide what the believers can, and cannot, read?

This isn't me being self righteous...though I could paste that label on you.

This is me being righteously indignant.

The solution to all this is simple.

Freedom of religion. All people should have the right to read what they want, believe what they want, and teach what they wish to anybody they can get to listen. That includes theists, atheists, Christians, Buddhists,Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Taoists, pagans of all description, and any other belief system that can be imagined.

Nobody has the right to force their beliefs on anybody else through law or through force.

EVERYBODY has the right to knock on doors, preach in parks, or shout on street corners.

You have the right to express your opinion that Abrahamic religions are horrific and need to disappear.
You do NOT have the right to enforce that opinion upon Abrahamic believers, and Abrahamic believers don't have the right to shoot you for expressing that opinion.

We do, however, have the right to tell you that you don't have that right.

And we have the right to make very certain that you can't do what you have proposed doing: censoring our scriptures, to begin with.

You can decide what you read. You can decide what you believe. You can yell, and rant, and tell us just how evil we all are. No problem. I'm quite sure that there are all manner of Abrahamic believers who would do the same to you.

...and as I mentioned, if you want to express your opinion from a soapbox in the park, I'll bring you food, and drink, and applaud at the good lines.

but as soon as you try to regulate, in ANY way, what I read in terms of my religion, you're toast. That, you see, is the cause of all the damage caused by religion (or those wishing to get rid of religion). It's all about, as it has always been, forcing one's own beliefs upon others by force of law or just plain force.

I don't see any difference here between the folks and beliefs you hate and accuse......and what you are proposing doing TO them.

No difference at all.

You got it when you said the cause of all the damage caused by religion is forcing ones beliefs...
The guilt fear and religious arrogance, felt by many born and raised in these religions IS the result of the religion being forced onto them via the use of methods and doctrine designed to cause guilt fear and religious arrogance,...and in some cases extremism IMO.
They have caused great psychological damage to so many.as well as bloodshed.
And if you think banning them or editing them removes your ability to think for yourself, or think what you like then I disagree. I wonder how many thousands of yet to be born people would be so much freer, after the ban or text alterations

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So you do not think the majority of any one of the abrahamic faiths have their lives ruined by the actions of their extremist elements

Oh of course not!!!! In the vast majority of cases, their lives are enriched. Scientific study has shown that those involved in religious communities are healthier, happier, have greater mental stability, and are longer lived.

Are their some toxic churches/synagogues/mosques? Of course, and those attending there are traumatized. But you cannot judge the whole by the few.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Who is the WE that is going to attempt the banning ? Atheists ? Their track record regarding murder and genocide isn´t all that hot.

You decry divisive actions, how about atheist organizations that are constantly suing one entity or another in their quest to purge the USA of alleged violations of the first amendment.

In the US we have a thing called the Constitution, which provides every individual the right to the complete freedom of religion. These cannot be revoked except for two very complicated procedures, one of which is very rare, and would utterly fail in attempting to deny any American of their first amendment rights.

There is also the second amendment to consider, Americans have the right to own and use firearms. An Amendment the very wise Founders put in the Constitution. It exists to protect the people from their own government if that government attempts something like you propose.

Our ancestors defeated the greatest military force in the world when draconian denial of rights was attempted.

There are millions of firearm owners who would quite simply revolt if the rights in the Constitution were obliterated. The Founders made it clear that an attempt by the government like you propose would constitute a situation in which rebellion is justified.

In Europe, where rights are like silly putty, bent here, bent there, some removed, the sheeple are used to and expect this manipulation.

Further, the governments have ensured that the people are pretty much unarmed and cannot defend themselves.

Your proposal is revolting and reflects the thinking of hitler and mao, and stalin.

European people may allow themselves to be crushed by the psychological brutality you propose, but millions upon millions of Americans will not allow it.

Cool your jets, he isn't an atheist. He believes that cannibalistic giant half-angels once existed, the same as you do.