It is 2015 , should governments outlaw religion?

So your government could be over actively involved with religion and you would be clueless to this?

Your whole country is based on defending religion,

''(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.''

So America and the constitution was formed to protect an abstract creation? that is for a certainty the most stupid thing I have ever heard, and obviously from a few narcissistic people who wrote your constitution.

 

I love it when people who admit they don't know what they're talking about try to sound like they know what they're talking about.

 

You will wish I had never started to discourse your stuff, unlucky that I thought this was a UK forum originally.

Already by discourse I can see there is no logic in wanting to emphasise religion to be protected in the very 1st of the amendment, categorised as main priority, obviously over involved in religion and not neutral .

 

Yesterday, you admitted complete ignorance of 1st amendment to the US Constitution; I had to educate you.
You really think you have any capacity to argue an effective point in your favor regarding the Constitution?
I laugh out loud at you.

Rather than sit in you bean-bag chair and whine at your computer, why don't you go outside and try to realize your narcissistic dream of outlawing religion world-wide, based on your belief that here is no God.
Start in the neighborhoods populated by fundamentalist Muslims.
Let us know how that goes.

 

There is no God, you are all Europeans, America was stolen off the indians by Europe, or should I say religion..

Fisher Ames thoughts, ''I shall write this as the first amendment to protect my strong religious beliefs'', the word religion does not belong in any constitution ''rules'', these people were not qualified to be a governing body or to write governing rules, amateurs.

 

As well as those of everyone else, for everyone has the right to believe whatever they want.

 

None of this addresses my point. You cannot ban religion. You cannot say to person X: Be an atheist or I will put you in jail. That is, in effect, what outlawing religion would ultimately require. But you seem to be ambiguous enough to leave the door open for alternative ways to do what you want. Maybe you should be 100% clear with us exactly what laws you want passed forbidding what specific actions on the part of everyone.

 

Oh dear, you have just made a fatal mistake to challenge me, I spent 5 years giving science hell and learning that to show them they are full of beans, You think Einstein was any good? you have just challenged what they call the anti-science.

Ok I accept , lets rumble for a few years I will learn your constitution, discourse it, and shred it into the bin when I am through.

- - - Updated - - -

we can certainly prevent religion from being taught in schools, we can certainly stop people making wealth from it.

 

Unlikely.

 

We already forbid teaching religion in our public schools. The 1st Amendment effectively forbids that. Schools that are violating the constitution are effectively stopped when they are legally challenged. As far as anyone making money off of religion, what do you mean? Are you going to forbid churches from collecting donations from their congregations?

 

and you feel it needs to be a government law, a part of a constitution, to even mention a belief about an abstract in government is like mentioning Harry Potter.

- - - Updated - - -

really? you dont teach religion in schools? so it is the people that are stupid not the government?

 

... to protect the right of people to believe what they want to believe, from narcissists like you.
Yes.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh look... abject ignorance...

 

The point is though, it is 2015 , a few cowboys won a fight and wrote a few rules they thought were cool at the time, they did not have much science available then, and they were strong in religion, do you no thtink it is a bit childish to protect a ghost that does not really exist? do you feel that is a bit extremist?

 

Yes, any public school teaching religion is in violation of the constitution. It's not a question of stupidity when some school violates the constitution. It's a question of bad interpretations or defiance by those particular schools.

 

Noting here changes the fact that the 1st Amendment was created to protect the right of the people to believe what they want to believe from people like you.
That is, you are a perfect example as to why it is necessary; your every post further proves the soundness of its existence.
Please keep up the good work.

 

you do realize.... you can't teach world history without teaching religion, right? I teach religion every year... in the context of how it affects history. I have to have a basic understanding of all the major religions in order to answer questions about it that kids have.

 

That would be contradictory to your own constitution. What I do not understand, is if you have got this constitution and follow it to the letter, you are still following and obeying a cowboys thoughts, even today they are dead bu t you follow their orders they left. So why do you need a president? the laws are already there and for some strange reason all of you follow the cowboys commands from the past.

 

I teach it... because whether you support religion or not... it's part of history. Are we to just not teach about why the Pilgrims came to America, why the Spanish and Portuguese were motivated to explore the new world (wealth obviously, but also they wanted converts)

I don't grade based on whether or not a person accepts Jesus as their savior, or teach sharia law.... but I absolutely teach religion in History

 

Let me clarify: You can and should teach ABOUT religion in history. I'm fine with that. Teaching religion as I am saying it means to teach and preach doctrine to the students the way a sunday school teacher or pastor in the pulpit would.

 

Not particularly; but I do believe in conscience, which you may rest assured is not explicable by any material phenomena or combination thereof.

 

careful, your jealousy of America is showing.... I'm sure your country has it's own problems to worry about... why are you so concerned what we do?

 

I love it when people who admit they don't know what they're talking about try to sound like they know what they're talking about.

 

So you do teach religion then and disguise it as history.

 

I read back to what you were answering, and I understood what you meant.... We aren't preaching at the front of class. Equality's lack of understanding of Constitutional law and how things work in the US is pretty clear he thinks we do.

- - - Updated - - -

ignoring history...... your ignorance knows no bounds I guess. Good thing you can't vote over here. Enjoy us continuing to dictate your life though

 

You do not teach that God is a fictional cha-rector from a book do you?