What law obligates the abandonment of Religion?

Off topic ... has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

weird isnt it?

i often say................ oh (*)(*)(*)(*)!

ie.... i had no idea what it all means while 'evolving'..........(while growing up)


but i do now!

enjoy the ride and give what you got (for others/life)

the knowledge is all that is important as each have been awaiting.

did you notice how 'the law' does invoke the loss of maintaining beliefs as the guide of 'life'?

 

I detect a change in your writing style. Interesting... does it have relevance to the thread or is it simply a retort to the comments of another?

 

My interest was only to fill in the next few lines "From whom the bell tolls" song by rock band metalica, in which Bishadi had posted the first part. I was assuming he would recognize those as the following lyrics to the same song.

But yes, I was off topic.

 

Thank you for that clarification .

 

the topic is easy

but that incorporated preacher dont want to discuss the thread.... or the implications of the title


So you recognized the lyric? Cool

the album i first heard from Metalica was "kill em all"......

has a tune ....."seek and destroy'

which i learned to play


Lying is for dying................. and to stop lying means beliefs will fade; religions will eventually be extinct!

 

Yeah, I really like them too. James H is a masterful lyricist, IMO ...

 

and just words to music but i like the idea that each can voice and each can judge and each be all they can be, naturally.

if given a chance

 

For the purposes of equal protection, yes. But that is a tageted and strictly legal point. Legally, freedom of religion and freedom from religion are the same thing. It only makes sense.

 

Only one problem with your view on that one... The 1st Amendment does not use the expression "freedom from religion". But in the spirit of fairness I will say "Perhaps" with regard to the intent of your suggestion.

 

Generally speaking,Religion" is a word which designates the worship or devotion to some superhuman or divine power or powers, but more recent developments in the legal field have disclosed that there can be no specific definition of the word 'religion', and has concluded that 'religion' also includes "beliefs".

Therefore, it stands to reason, that there are no 'laws' which would require the abandonment of 'religion'. Reason: A law cannot force the abandonment of something that is indefinable. "Law" would include any writing from any individual, group of individuals, state or nation or other governmental operation which is issued for the purpose of either supporting or prohibiting some activity, or behavior of the members of the specific group in question. Included in, but not limited to, those writings would be such things as administrative codes, rules, regulations, procedures, or traditions which have the force of law but are not necessarily in written form.

Because 'religion' is a generic word without specification to any particular set of beliefs, or practices of any particular groups or individuals, the term is neutral and subsequently applies to any and all where the word 'religion' is being applied toward the activities of that/those specific groups or individuals.

 

Now I wonder why everyone wanted to move away from this thread? Is it because the OP and the statements below show show the absurdity that someone would have to use to attempt such a destruction of 'religion'?

 

Patently false..........

 

That is not false.

 

Tens of thousands of American Christians have lived and worked and worshipped all over the ME.

 

Saudi Arabia doesn't allow any religions outside of Islam, for example.

 

"Relligion" is a generic term that is applicable to all religions of the world. To issue a law, rule, dictate, statute that would cause an obligation to abandon 'religion' would also be one that causes the abandonment of the religion practiced in Saudi Arabia. In effect, the laws you reference do not require the abandonment of 'religion', because at least one 'religion' is still allowed to be practiced in that country.

 

By definition, such a law that would obligate the abandonment of 'religion' unless such law requires the total annihilation of the planet in which humans are inhabiting.

"re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

So, IMHO, it would be wise for everyone to quit complaining about 'religion'.

Definitions (in their entirety) are a witch, aren't they?

 

I spent two decades in Arabia as a practicing Christian along with thousands of other Americans.

There are also practicing Christians in Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

 

So what? The law spoken about does not obligate the abandonment of 'religion'.