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

post reply Forum Index » Religion

◄ 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 22 ► Go

Go to page...

12/26/2023 21:22

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

quote

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The grey wall is actually comical. Justice A-hole regularly complains about the supposed lost of religious freedom. And, yes, they are educated, but frankly Justice A-hole and his fellow Justice Tickhead are exceedingly unimpressive and lack any self awareness.