Nobody is saying they dont. We arent talking about drug laws. We arent saying people with certain worldviews shouldnt vote. We are explaining why atheists pay attention to religion.
And…so?
…
Yes because non religious and even some religious pay attention to how religion gets codified into law
She is pretending that the discussion is about the practice of religion being “forced on people.’” Of course, no one has said that at all. It’s easier to debate that rather than discuss what is really being talked about – people enacting LAWS that reflect their specific religious beliefs.
1 Like
I forgot to add: "while trying to take away or limit the rights of others.
1 Like
The point is… ACTION HAD TO BE TAKEN
1 Like
Why is that a problem? America has self-corrected worse.
I don’t think there’s such a thing as “self correction” without a human agency.
Correct. Humans going through the American process. Keep in mind without humans there would be nothing for other humans to correct to begin with.
Actually…I thought that’s what we were discussing.
And religion has been forced on people - the service academies are an example.
And the evangelicals who want to take the word gays out of the lynching law - well in the first place why should any race or gender or whatever it’s called now even be called out in a lynching law? “No lynching for anyone!” would seem to be pretty simple.
But it doesn’t matter that the evangelical attempt to enforce their religious beliefs on this law probably won’t fly - the point is that these are religious people trying to enforce their will on others.
I have no problem with the 10 Commandments in courthouses or a creche in a public building - people just walk right past it.
But when, as the evangelicals seem to be trying to imply, it should be against the law to lynch everyone EXCEPT people who happen to be gay…well, that’s crossing a line.
Actually…I thought that’s what we were discussing.
And religion has been forced on people - the service academies are an example.
And the evangelicals who want to take the word gays out of the lynching law - well in the first place why should any race or gender or whatever it’s called now even be called out in a lynching law? “No lynching for anyone!” would seem to be pretty simple.
But it doesn’t matter that the evangelical attempt to enforce their religious beliefs on this law probably won’t fly - the point is that these are religious people trying to enforce their will on others.
I have no problem with the 10 Commandments in courthouses or a creche in a public building - people just walk right past it.
But when, as the evangelicals seem to be trying to imply, it should be against the law to lynch everyone EXCEPT gays, that’s crossing the line.
The problem in religion was forced on people and had to be stopped…and you see this and still pretend it’s not forced on anyone.
1 Like
Yes and the sky is blue what’s your point?
We may have different ideas by what it means to have “religion forced on people.” For example, when Muslims at school wish to come into my classroom either for prayer or fast during a lunch period, I do not feel their religion is being forced on me.
However, it appears at one time a person at West Point felt that was what was happening to him because people were praying/studying/reflecting during a lunch period. I doubt had he brought in a book by Richards Hawkins to reflect on, no one would have so much have blinked. But that last statement is based on observations from the two people I knew who were involved well before the incidents and not until well after.
Again, the article written at the time noted that a random survey reported that no one else felt what was happening was forcing a religion onto anyone. It was also reported that this someone disagreed. It is clear people have different sensitivities to this.
Neither do we
We arent talking about richardDawkins. And above is only one example. We have given you multiple examples: gay marriage, abortion, creationism in schools.
I have no idea what your point you are trying to make is. Sounds like you are attempting be arbitrarily contrarian here, just because you’re religious?
The fact is that large groups of religious people try to and have succeeded in the past at codifying their beliefs into law. This is why non religious people care and pay attention. Just like how you would pay attention if a Muslim candidate/group started calling for women to be forced to cover their faces.
Here’s an analogy that maybe (although I doubt it) will help you understand.
A man attempts to rape you. You resist and stop him, or someone comes to your rescue and stops him.
According to your logic re: the examples we gave you of religion being forced on people…because the rape was successfully stopped, the man is not guilty of anything and shouldn’t be charged with a crime.
Odd logic. Curious way of looking at something that is in no way a physical attack and is also apparently easily diverted.
You don’t understand what an analogy is either?
In teaching analogies, it is stressed there has to be at least one point of similarity and also at least one point of comparability. Religion, opera, or studying evolution going on around a person does not have a similarity to rape which is something being done directly to a person. Comparability: Would rape victims feel that a rape can be compared to an atheist being in the midst of a group of people who are praying?
Again…you’re missing the point
