America was founded on religious freedom; why do atheists want to ban organized religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Religious freedoms for all*!!

(*christians only)

Religious freedom for all. What religious groups or nonbelievers are persecuted in our country? Any person who does discriminate can be prosecuted or punished.

Just because more Christians live in out country, doesn’t mean everyone who isn’t a Christian is discriminated against. Christians don’t have to not be Christian because you don’t share their beliefs. Nobody has to pray, go to church, celebrate any holidays, etc.

How are people who don’t believe in a religion persecuted? How are other religions persecuted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just in case they are going to hell .. they want to drag everybody with them. Just like that vaccine pressure .. if they are poisoning themselves they want everybody poisoned so even if they are wrong then everyone is wrong as well.

Christians don’t believe they are going to hell and Christians don’t believe they can drag anyone to hell.

People take vaccinations to protect themselves. They don’t think vaccines are poison. People who are normal don’t wish to be poisoned or to poison other people. Your logic is disordered and possibly malicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:christians only want religious freedom for christianity. They DGAF about anyone else, or any actual religious freedom.

Still no christian has condemned the hateful acts of a christian man who destroyed a religious display he did not like.

How do Christians stop other religions from exercising their religious freedoms?

[Anonymous]

Why dont christians speak up when religious freedoms for others are at stake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why dont christians speak up when religious freedoms for others are at stake?

What are you specifically referring to?

What incidents or events have occurred in America where non-Christians were being persecuted or prevented from practicing their religion/faith/belief/non-belief within the boundaries of our laws and Christians did not speak up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why dont christians speak up when religious freedoms for others are at stake?

What are you specifically referring to?

What incidents or events have occurred in America where non-Christians were being persecuted or prevented from practicing their religion/faith/belief/non-belief within the boundaries of our laws and Christians did not speak up?

Religious extremists on the SCOTUS forcing their beliefs on the entire country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why dont christians speak up when religious freedoms for others are at stake?

What are you specifically referring to?

What incidents or events have occurred in America where non-Christians were being persecuted or prevented from practicing their religion/faith/belief/non-belief within the boundaries of our laws and Christians did not speak up?

Religious extremists on the SCOTUS forcing their beliefs on the entire country.

They are not religious extremists. They they are religious people who are legally and lawfully appointed to the position in which they serve. You simply think someone is a religious extremist because they practice their religion, and you don’t agree with their religion and opinions.

“One prominent definition of extremism as a motivation for terrorism is that extremism comprises ideological beliefs about an obligation to bring back the political system to a form suggested by religious norms through violence (Arena and Arrigo, 2005). Therefore, the label of extremist is attributed to groups fighting for their political agendas against mainstream systems accepted by the majority of people (e.g., ISIS against the government of Syria, or MILF or Moro Islamic Liberation Front against the government of the Philippines). Such a definition of extremism associated with political violence is related to broad collective responses against perceived oppression or injustice, and it may be fueled by extreme religious dogma or not.

The understanding of religious extremism as political has been elaborated by many scholars. For example, religious extremists have been characterized by Sageman (2008) as seeking martyrdom, and fueled by anger regarding perceived injustice. Similarly, Wiktorowicz (2005) proposed a four-stage model of extremism culminating in violence: first, a cognitive openness to new people or new ideas followed by the experiences of personal or group grievance (e.g., discrimination and oppression). Second, the individual takes up activism, and the openness can lead to an acceptance of the group’s extreme norms (e.g., for violence). Belief in the group’s claims and willingness to act based on the group’s norms can overcome the actor’s rational choice perspectives. Thus, when the group’s norm allows the use of non-normative tactics such as violence to gain their objectives, the individuals will intentionally commit violence on behalf of the group.

The above conceptual approaches to extremism associate extremism with violence committed as a group member. Other more individual-level analyses of extremism operationalize it as endorsement of particular beliefs, such as the duty to engage in violent holy war against the enemy (Webber et al., 2017) or sympathy toward extremist groups and support for their political action (Simon et al., 2013). Some analyses have spanned both individual and group levels: for example, Schmid (2014) proposes that either for individuals (i.e., personal beliefs) or groups (i.e., as embedded in salient group norms), the five warning signs of religious extremism include belief in absolute truth, endorsement of blind obedience, a quest to establish utopia, belief that the end justifies the means, and a declaration of holy war. Similarly, Hogg and Adelman (2013) have defined extremism through the aspects covering group level (i.e., a radical agenda, support for violent action, and authoritarian leadership) and individual level (i.e., extreme pro-group action).“

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02560/full

You are an intellectually dishonest person who uses words incorrectly to unjustly malign people you don’t personally agree with.

The members of our supreme court are not extreme. They are educated, intelligent people who you don’t agree with that have been appointed to a position you don’t want them to occupy.

You haven’t named one religious group that has been harmed or persecuted who Christians have not spoken up for.

You haven’t named one religious freedom (non-Christian) or freedom of nonbelief that has occurred in America, that everyone has stood by and allowed to happen.

Someone who is religious, practices their religion, and has a job you don’t want them to have because you don’t like or agree with their religion, is not a religious extremist.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that the country shall have no official religion. There is no official religion. Religious people can and are elected to public office and can make decisions while in public office based in part off their personal values.

Nobody in America is forced to pray, attend worship, celebrate or conform to any religion traditions/holidays/ rituals.

You simply don’t like Catholic people and post obsessively about them in negative ways. You don’t like the justices who are Catholic. The justices who are Catholic are not denying any religion freedom or forcing nonbelievers to be religious.

[Anonymous]

The religious right used extreme, unethical methods to place these far-right justices on the bench.

These extremist justices went against the wishes of the people to force their own, personal religious beliefs on everyone in this country. They are infringing on the religious freedom of millions in this country.

No one would care what they do in their personal life but when they abuse their power to actively take away the rights of half the population then people are going to have a big problem with that.

[Anonymous]

Why don’t christians speak up when non-christian religious displays are vandalized by extremists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why dont christians speak up when religious freedoms for others are at stake?

What are you specifically referring to?

What incidents or events have occurred in America where non-Christians were being persecuted or prevented from practicing their religion/faith/belief/non-belief within the boundaries of our laws and Christians did not speak up?

Religious extremists on the SCOTUS forcing their beliefs on the entire country.

They are not religious extremists. They they are religious people who are legally and lawfully appointed to the position in which they serve. You simply think someone is a religious extremist because they practice their religion, and you don’t agree with their religion and opinions.

“One prominent definition of extremism as a motivation for terrorism is that extremism comprises ideological beliefs about an obligation to bring back the political system to a form suggested by religious norms through violence (Arena and Arrigo, 2005). Therefore, the label of extremist is attributed to groups fighting for their political agendas against mainstream systems accepted by the majority of people (e.g., ISIS against the government of Syria, or MILF or Moro Islamic Liberation Front against the government of the Philippines). Such a definition of extremism associated with political violence is related to broad collective responses against perceived oppression or injustice, and it may be fueled by extreme religious dogma or not.

The understanding of religious extremism as political has been elaborated by many scholars. For example, religious extremists have been characterized by Sageman (2008) as seeking martyrdom, and fueled by anger regarding perceived injustice. Similarly, Wiktorowicz (2005) proposed a four-stage model of extremism culminating in violence: first, a cognitive openness to new people or new ideas followed by the experiences of personal or group grievance (e.g., discrimination and oppression). Second, the individual takes up activism, and the openness can lead to an acceptance of the group’s extreme norms (e.g., for violence). Belief in the group’s claims and willingness to act based on the group’s norms can overcome the actor’s rational choice perspectives. Thus, when the group’s norm allows the use of non-normative tactics such as violence to gain their objectives, the individuals will intentionally commit violence on behalf of the group.

The above conceptual approaches to extremism associate extremism with violence committed as a group member. Other more individual-level analyses of extremism operationalize it as endorsement of particular beliefs, such as the duty to engage in violent holy war against the enemy (Webber et al., 2017) or sympathy toward extremist groups and support for their political action (Simon et al., 2013). Some analyses have spanned both individual and group levels: for example, Schmid (2014) proposes that either for individuals (i.e., personal beliefs) or groups (i.e., as embedded in salient group norms), the five warning signs of religious extremism include belief in absolute truth, endorsement of blind obedience, a quest to establish utopia, belief that the end justifies the means, and a declaration of holy war. Similarly, Hogg and Adelman (2013) have defined extremism through the aspects covering group level (i.e., a radical agenda, support for violent action, and authoritarian leadership) and individual level (i.e., extreme pro-group action).“

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02560/full

You are an intellectually dishonest person who uses words incorrectly to unjustly malign people you don’t personally agree with.

The members of our supreme court are not extreme. They are educated, intelligent people who you don’t agree with that have been appointed to a position you don’t want them to occupy.

You haven’t named one religious group that has been harmed or persecuted who Christians have not spoken up for.

You haven’t named one religious freedom (non-Christian) or freedom of nonbelief that has occurred in America, that everyone has stood by and allowed to happen.

Someone who is religious, practices their religion, and has a job you don’t want them to have because you don’t like or agree with their religion, is not a religious extremist.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that the country shall have no official religion. There is no official religion. Religious people can and are elected to public office and can make decisions while in public office based in part off their personal values.

Nobody in America is forced to pray, attend worship, celebrate or conform to any religion traditions/holidays/ rituals.

You simply don’t like Catholic people and post obsessively about them in negative ways. You don’t like the justices who are Catholic. The justices who are Catholic are not denying any religion freedom or forcing nonbelievers to be religious.

Holy !@#$ balls. Do you EVER stop??

[Anonymous]

I don't want to ban anything, I want your religion to leave me alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why dont christians speak up when religious freedoms for others are at stake?

What are you specifically referring to?

What incidents or events have occurred in America where non-Christians were being persecuted or prevented from practicing their religion/faith/belief/non-belief within the boundaries of our laws and Christians did not speak up?

Religious extremists on the SCOTUS forcing their beliefs on the entire country.

They are not religious extremists. They they are religious people who are legally and lawfully appointed to the position in which they serve. You simply think someone is a religious extremist because they practice their religion, and you don’t agree with their religion and opinions.

“One prominent definition of extremism as a motivation for terrorism is that extremism comprises ideological beliefs about an obligation to bring back the political system to a form suggested by religious norms through violence (Arena and Arrigo, 2005). Therefore, the label of extremist is attributed to groups fighting for their political agendas against mainstream systems accepted by the majority of people (e.g., ISIS against the government of Syria, or MILF or Moro Islamic Liberation Front against the government of the Philippines). Such a definition of extremism associated with political violence is related to broad collective responses against perceived oppression or injustice, and it may be fueled by extreme religious dogma or not.

The understanding of religious extremism as political has been elaborated by many scholars. For example, religious extremists have been characterized by Sageman (2008) as seeking martyrdom, and fueled by anger regarding perceived injustice. Similarly, Wiktorowicz (2005) proposed a four-stage model of extremism culminating in violence: first, a cognitive openness to new people or new ideas followed by the experiences of personal or group grievance (e.g., discrimination and oppression). Second, the individual takes up activism, and the openness can lead to an acceptance of the group’s extreme norms (e.g., for violence). Belief in the group’s claims and willingness to act based on the group’s norms can overcome the actor’s rational choice perspectives. Thus, when the group’s norm allows the use of non-normative tactics such as violence to gain their objectives, the individuals will intentionally commit violence on behalf of the group.

The above conceptual approaches to extremism associate extremism with violence committed as a group member. Other more individual-level analyses of extremism operationalize it as endorsement of particular beliefs, such as the duty to engage in violent holy war against the enemy (Webber et al., 2017) or sympathy toward extremist groups and support for their political action (Simon et al., 2013). Some analyses have spanned both individual and group levels: for example, Schmid (2014) proposes that either for individuals (i.e., personal beliefs) or groups (i.e., as embedded in salient group norms), the five warning signs of religious extremism include belief in absolute truth, endorsement of blind obedience, a quest to establish utopia, belief that the end justifies the means, and a declaration of holy war. Similarly, Hogg and Adelman (2013) have defined extremism through the aspects covering group level (i.e., a radical agenda, support for violent action, and authoritarian leadership) and individual level (i.e., extreme pro-group action).“

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02560/full

You are an intellectually dishonest person who uses words incorrectly to unjustly malign people you don’t personally agree with.

The members of our supreme court are not extreme. They are educated, intelligent people who you don’t agree with that have been appointed to a position you don’t want them to occupy.

You haven’t named one religious group that has been harmed or persecuted who Christians have not spoken up for.

You haven’t named one religious freedom (non-Christian) or freedom of nonbelief that has occurred in America, that everyone has stood by and allowed to happen.

Someone who is religious, practices their religion, and has a job you don’t want them to have because you don’t like or agree with their religion, is not a religious extremist.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that the country shall have no official religion. There is no official religion. Religious people can and are elected to public office and can make decisions while in public office based in part off their personal values.

Nobody in America is forced to pray, attend worship, celebrate or conform to any religion traditions/holidays/ rituals.

You simply don’t like Catholic people and post obsessively about them in negative ways. You don’t like the justices who are Catholic. The justices who are Catholic are not denying any religion freedom or forcing nonbelievers to be religious.

Nearly everything you have typed in this grey wall is false.

Would you like it itemized?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not an atheist. I am extremely concerned that many people now believe that their own freedom of religion can be used politically and legally to limit the freedoms of those of us who do not share their particular brand of religious beliefs. This is both dangerous and contrary to the freedoms that the founders of this country intended. Many religious beliefs and behaviors are indeed evil — and parts of this country are rapidly becoming, as you put it, terrible places to live for many of us.

Your appeals to “our” forefathers don’t move me very much. The ideals that this country was founded upon are extremely important. As a Black female, though, I get that my freedom and Liberty and that of most of MY forefathers — on any level, from physical to religious— wasn’t on their list of priorities. Evil is still evil — no matter how many flags you wave or Bibles you clutch.

Exactly. Freedom of religion means that the government shouldn’t force religion on others. Religious people have unethically - and unconstitutionally - been using the government to force their beliefs on others.

If anyone should be complaining about religious freedom right now, it’s the millions of oppressed people who’ve had their rights taken away from them by religious extremists.

You are wrong and live in a country where you are allowed complete freedom because we are a Christian nation. You ignore millions of slaves worldwide in non-Christian countries and the authoritarian anti- religious countries you would never want to live in for 10 minutes.

Please stop trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t christians speak up when non-christian religious displays are vandalized by extremists?

They do.

Why do you post questions based an false assumptions as if such falsehoods are facts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t christians speak up when non-christian religious displays are vandalized by extremists?

They do.

Why do you post questions based an false assumptions as if such falsehoods are facts?

Havent seen a single post in this thread, after many many prompts. Will you make the first?