Until there is verifiable proof of the existence of god religion should have no place in society. It should not be taught in schools and should not form the basis of any laws. In fact even if you do show up with proof that god exists I still hold the right to ignore god and religion. I claim the right to live without god.
It’s Canada, religion only exists in private (home/place of worship). As soon as it enters public life you’re infringing on other people’s freedom of religion.
How Ford hasn’t been forced to step down over his public displays of religion is beyond me but he seems to get away with illegal shit all the time.
Speaking as a staunch atheist, I’d say you don’t get to dictate other peoples’ beliefs or practices.
Public schools don’t teach religion, except from a social and historical context. Our laws are not based on any particular religion.
You do not have to follow a religion. You do not have to attend church. You do not have to “live with god” in any sense.
The only thing you have to deal with is living in a pluralistic society.
If everything you seem to want was put into practice, then if proof of god was revealed you would not have the “right” to opt out, by your own logic.
Just let people live their lives.
Are you talking about Catholic schools? I don’t remember being taught religion (except about religion) going to regular 'ol public schools.
When I was a kid in school they read the lord’s prayer every morning.
That’s crazy. It wasn’t like that for me in Ottawa in the 90s. I wonder if it was/is different by region.
In the 70s Ontario had God Save the Queen followed by the Lord’s Prayer every morning.
- That’s unethical, but even it it wasn’t…
- There’s no way to satsifactorily define religion in the way I think you’re going for, but even if you could…
- People would worship their gods anyway, but even if they didn’t…
- They would worship something else instead (see the ongoing AI cult for live evidence!), but even if they didn’t…
- It wouldn’t suddenly make everyone empathetic, non-tribal, morally consistent, rational physicalists, but even if it did…
- Physicalism is for edgy teenagers who haven’t taken the p-zombie question seriously (source: was edgy teenage physicalist)
Just want to note that physicalism =/= atheism. There are theistic physicalists (eg Thomas Hobbes) and non-physicalist atheists (eg David Chalmers). Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Physicalism is the belief that reality is made up of entirely physical stuff. The two viewpoints are not necessarily related.
True. I’m just reading between the lines here, because of the phrase “until there is verifiable proof”. If it applies to god, then it applies to privacy of conscious experience, in which case… well, we have done pretty horrific things in the past because there was no verifiable proof of someone’s conscious experience, like performing surgery on infants without anesthesia.
sorry,what is unethical? proposal is to stop teaching religion in schools (different from teaching about religion) and now allow religious beliefs to be base for laws. all quite reasonable and no unethical bits as far as I can see. Nobody aims to persecute believers or ban faith, just stop making an arbitrarily selected religion the one driving policies. What is unethical is disregarding beliefs of people who’s religion doesn’t line up with religion taught at schools or making inroads i politics.
The title of the post is “ban religion”, and the first line is that religion “should have no place in society”
I may not agree with the guys who dress in leviticus quotes and declare me a harlot at transit stations, but I’ll defend to the death their right to do it.
Are you in Calgary? That sounds a lot like Larry Heather.
No, but that goes to show how many rich characters we’d lose to the skeptic laws.
Some people seem to need the psychological crutch religion provides them with in order to function, and I’d no more take it away from them than I’d take a physical crutch away from someone in a leg cast. I have no issue with people who want to pray or carry out ceremonies in private or in a public building clearly marked out for the purpose. If you voluntarily enter a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc. then you should expect religion.
The problem is forcing religion on people who don’t need or want it, including children. In other words, the real issue is proselytization (trying to either encourage people to join your religion, or shame them into it) aimed at random members of the public. It shouldn’t be illegal, but it should be treated as much more impolite than it currently is.
While I personally don’t believe in the existence of gods or any supernatural beings, if others want to believe in it I think it’s fine.
If people encroach on other’s choices that’s where I’ll personally draw the line.
- aka don’t force others to make the same choices as yourself. Don’t become Microslop.
Yeah but it almost always eventually endsup with them telling us what to do, how to think and how to live our lives. And if we don’t we’re the bad guys.
There are far dumber things that are higher on the list of shit to ban
I don’t think it should be illegal to have bad opinons. Everybody has been there at some point (except me)
The separation of Church and State is a given, though of course some people will still attempt to shoehorn their religious beliefs into law under any pretext they think is feasible much like what is happening with our friends to the south and in many other places with religiously fascist governments (Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc.); however, that doesn’t mean people should be criminalized for their beliefs. Think of what you’re proposing; someone attends church on Sunday, after it has been criminalized. They are arrested and thrown into prison… why? What harm did they bring to their community? It is somewhat of a fascist thing to do, no?
I have met many religious people in my life, and the majority of them are amazing people that truly believe in serving humanity in the name of their god. I personally think it’s silly that they need that justification to do what they do, but it’s an effective emotional driver. That being said, there are certainly people that have very extreme views based entirely on their religious beliefs. Christo-fascist movements in the US, like the well-funded group of “Christians” that successfully lobbied the government to repeal laws that protected the right to abortions, are prime examples.
I do agree that religion has had a negative effect on society as a whole, especially when considering recent and not so recent atrocities committed in the name of their God; like the millions of missing and murdered Indigenous children that were attending residential schools, the women currently being treated like property in Afghanistan, and more women in America that have lost access to safe abortions. Not to mention the crusades…
All in all, it’s pretty horrendous what religion has done, but outright banning it won’t solve the problem. Any form of prohibition doesn’t really work that well, and only forces people to go outside of the law potentially putting them in precarious situations. Heck, the people that use religion as justification for being horrible human beings might simply find a different justification and then only innocent people will become criminals for their beliefs.
New law: Religion is banned because there is no evidence for it. Except for the state’s beliefs, which are obviously true and transcend other religious beliefs. If you claim the state’s beliefs are false or posit any doubts of its doctrine, that is illegal and you will be jailed for promoting religious views that are not true according to the state.
Organizations seem to always have a love affair with religion because it’s such an easy tool to control the masses with. Might hafta target oppressive control structures and hierarchies first, or simultaneously, for people to be free from the blight of organized religion.
Superstitions may always exist. I think it’s a by product of face and pattern recognition. They have to be guided to not be harmful.
Hw are you going to do that idiot
Based on the exact wording I think this is a hard swap on religious people’s take on evolution and atheism to make that exact point.
The atheist ussr still killed ton of people. You can’t ban religious people right to believe whatever they like just because of extremists. The supposly secular countries are still working with countries fueling genocides all over the world.
It is not even possible to ban a religion or ideology it is not realistic that’s why you are an idiot
The State was the religion in the USSR. It didn’t like the competition from the Church.
And the west including canada religion is neo colonialism and hypocrisy
You forgot consumerism and corporatism. It’s a bunch of things. Point is, there are ideologies everywhere and if it’s not religion-based, somehow atheism gets blamed. It was never the lack of a belief in a god that was the problem.
