Outlaw religion
DirtySanchez
Regular
The time has come to outlaw religion outside of the home and church. Religion rejects logic and it rejects reason. The supreme court has ruled that the westboro baptist church can protest at funerals. The Muslims say they should be allowed to wear Burkas. Fuck the supreme court and fuck freedom of religion. Radical religion is hiding behind the first ammendmant.
I believe that we need to become like France and ban public displays of religion. It is a fact that the constitution is out dated. It is time to change the system and say no to radical religion. We need to become a secular society and really practice the separation of-church and state. fuck organized religion and uck what it does to society. People who follow radical religion should either be forced to convert or be punished/
I believe that we need to become like France and ban public displays of religion. It is a fact that the constitution is out dated. It is time to change the system and say no to radical religion. We need to become a secular society and really practice the separation of-church and state. fuck organized religion and uck what it does to society. People who follow radical religion should either be forced to convert or be punished/
Comments
When you get it done post pics
k bye
You're just pathetic now, it's like you're not even trying to be a good troll.
Oh wait..........
Either contribute something intelligent to all this or get the fuck out of my thread.
You should talk about intelligence you fucking imbred, racist, faggot...
how I will I ever go one after that burn:rolleyes:
- What you don't get is the concept of precedent. That much is obvious based on the concepts you come up with for government and "needed" government actions. Let's say that the U.S. actually amended the Constitution (1st Amendment) to exclude "radical religion". Now you have set a precedent which will allow law enforcement and the judicial system to define what is and is not a "radical religion" based on the precedent set by their rulings. This becomes a very dangerous downward spiral characterized by continuing loss of freedom and rights for any religious groups that exercise another part of the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech. So tell us, in your "Utopian" state run by the government, for the government, and of the government will you allow freedom of speech and thought? (please address this question directly)
- No, it is merely your opinion that the constitution is outdated. You have no empirical evidence to establish that as a fact. By abolishing organized religion as a mandate of the state you are not accomplishing separation of church and state. Instead your are creating a master slave relationship between religion and state, with the state as the master. A slave is not separate from it's master and neither will a master suffer a slave to be separate.
P.S. Moving this thread to Politics, Left, Right, Center with a redirect.I would be in favor of banning ALL religion outside of church and the home. As for as allowing freedom of speech I would allow freedom of speech within the party. See my thread on Democratic centralism or more on that. It would have it so that the country is unified under one ideology but there would be debate within the party so that no one man has absolute power. it would be modeled on how the politburo and the supreme soviet operated under Lenin and Brezhnev. Free speech has its good points but it is also dangerous.
It's called a typo dumbass.
this is a valid point but overall it would work except for a few troublesome groups that could be dealt with and i dont think it would have the same forbidden glamour as something like drugs when you take into account the retarded customs and beliefs of religions like Islam judaism and Christianity.
So in other words as long as you belonged to the party and did not disagree with the government in your words and thoughts one would be free to speak and think as one wanted to?
The party can go in different directions but yes overall the general philosophy would be unified.
That just proves my first point, who the fuck misspells a TWO LETTER WORD
I would argue that my plan takes the best of dictatorship and the best o freedom of speech and combines the two. a country needs to have a unified ideology but debate within the party should be encouraged.
So then you have nothing valid to refute my point with?
Which part, the part that agrees with you?
It doesn't have to agree it just can't be counterproductive towards progress.
Progress towards what? Who defines in which way everyone wants to progress? Everyone? Party members? The 'politburo'? A larger committee?
Is it a 99% thing? A 51% v 49% thing? I am looking for something her but all I am seeing is holes.
you reported this DS? really? I thought it was pretty damn funny.
You can never outlaw religion ,the whole concept is stupid.
That said "religion" is stupid ya I get it but that will not change people and people are dumb animals that are afriad of there own shadows and what they perceive as GOD.
Let the weak minded fall to the side so that we can move on.
Stalin did for the most part as did Mao Pol Pot and North Korea.
Can I have an answer please or is it still being formulated at the committee stage and not reached the politburo yet? Are you employing a focus group of those who have a proven right to decide?
Maybe you have thrown this one out to the wider party and they are having a work party to decide on the best way to vote on the issue.
Come on, I know you have seen it, dont use the trick of the people that you look up to and bury your head in the sand when you see something you do not like but can do nothing about.
http://www.totse.info/bbs/showthread.php?t=12083
Progress towards a truly unified and socialist country. Instead of having a government that bickers with each other constantly like in america it could be one that works towards a united goal. As for how everyone wants to progress I I think that every presidential election in america since FDR died proves that the masses aren't capable of deciding what kind of progress is needed.
A truly unified and socialist country?
What progress would this bring?
And please, this time, before you answer, ask your Dad to take his fingers from your bumhole so you will have more chance of reading, understanding and answering a question before you charge at it like a retard running head first into a wall because 'it is in the way'.
How can you possibly hope to convince anyone of your point of view by stating 'we need XY and Z because people are stupid as fuck'.
How is it going to be better for everyone? How, if those people are stupid as fuck, would they be convinced it would be better anyway? Better for who? You? Me? Them?
Are we all going get heated swimming pools? That would be progress.
Your answer is no different to one man leading a bunch of bedragled tramps lost in the destert deciding on a direction simply becuase it is there.
'I Think we should go that way'
'Why?'
'Because its what I can see'
Tell me how mankind and humanity will benefit your way more than any other way, how it is going to be better, and what the ultimate goal is. I will even help you out with an example.
'The ultimate goal of technology is to develop a sustainable nuclear fusion reaction to create free energy forever, whilst at the same time creating a legion of slave robots so humans can have time to persue thinking, reasoning and pleasure'
You see boyo, thats a goal, as opposed to a path to reach a goal. Sell it to me.
I find it difficult to believe that more educated class of people who may have power in a society are actually religious, they only claim to be to maintain the favor of those with less power who can be manipulated. For example, I have never heard of any Imams or Ayatollahs becoming suicide bombers, as they come from a class with more comforts or education while younger, less educated people can be easily radicalized, with a few exceptions such as genuine believers.
Some educated people have seen proof with their own eyes that convinces them. Belief is merely how proof is interepreted.
Just a small correction, belief is merely how whatever they have seen is misinterpreted as proof.
And the ones who say they actually literally heard or saw god are hallucinating