Religious Countries - Guilt by Association

[Madsaac]

God, I'm happy I don't live in a religious country, even though it still has too much say on peoples freedoms.

And to think, Europe was only recently effected 'greatly' by religion as well.

By the way, does anyone feel guilty by association?

Go religion

Religious restrictions around the world

For more than a decade, Pew Research Center has been tracking global patterns in restrictions on religion – both those imposed by governments and hostilities committed by individuals and social groups.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[1213]

God, I'm happy I don't live in a religious country, even though it still has too much say on peoples freedoms.

It seems to me that the "secular" people are worse for freedoms of people. For example Biden's regime goes against freedom of speech. Christian leaders gave more freedom than the "democrats". It is almost funny how tyrannical the "liberals" of today are.

 

[Viker]

It seems to me that the "secular" people are worse for freedoms of people. For example Biden's regime goes against freedom of speech. Christian leaders gave more freedom than the "democrats". It is almost funny how tyrannical the "liberals" of today are.

And yet, you haven't been arrested or censored for any of your rhetoric. What exactly do you mean by "goes against freedom of speech"?

 

[Viker]

God, I'm happy I don't live in a religious country, even though it still has too much say on peoples freedoms.

And to think, Europe was only recently effected 'greatly' by religion as well.

By the way, does anyone feel guilty by association?

Go religion

Religious restrictions around the world

For more than a decade, Pew Research Center has been tracking global patterns in restrictions on religion – both those imposed by governments and hostilities committed by individuals and social groups.

www.pewresearch.org

More reason to resist the tide of Christian nationalism in America.

 

[Madsaac]

It seems to me that the "secular" people are worse for freedoms of people. For example Biden's regime goes against freedom of speech. Christian leaders gave more freedom than the "democrats". It is almost funny how tyrannical the "liberals" of today are.

There's enough freedom of speech in the US, that's not a problem, the problems are the other freedoms that are being limited by religion.

 

[HonestJoe]

It seems to me that the "secular" people are worse for freedoms of people. For example Biden's regime goes against freedom of speech. Christian leaders gave more freedom than the "democrats". It is almost funny how tyrannical the "liberals" of today are.

Secular and Christian aren't mutually exclusive. Secularism is jus about treating people equally regardless of their religion (or lack thereof). Most Christians (certainly in the West) are broadly secular, Biden being a clear example.

How exactly do you believe that the Biden administration specifically goes against freedom of speech? Remember that freedoms should apply equally to everyone, not just to (some) Christians.

 

[1213]

There's enough freedom of speech in the US, that's not a problem, the problems are the other freedoms that are being limited by religion.

Please tell, what freedoms?

 

[1213]

And yet, you haven't been arrested or censored for any of your rhetoric. What exactly do you mean by "goes against freedom of speech"?

....How exactly do you believe that the Biden administration specifically goes against freedom of speech? ...

For example by telling Facebook what is allowed to be said on that platform.

"Zuckerberg says he regrets caving to White House pressure on content..."

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/26/zuckerberg-meta-white-house-pressure-00176399

Biden administration coerced social media giants into possible free speech violations: court

The White House may have violated First Amendment rights by pressuring tech companies to suppress or remove posts, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

eu.usatoday.com

That is what tyrannical regimes do. But, apparently it is not a problem for "liberals".

 

[HonestJoe]

For example by telling Facebook what is allowed to be said on that platform.

But the Trump administration and Republicans in general also put pressure on social media companies in similar ways, and it isn't at all clear that any of them crossed the line between legitimate government regulation or private interest and actually breaching the constitution.

Different politicians and parties aren't anything like as different as any of us might wish to imagine.

 

[Madsaac]

Please tell, what freedoms?

Just a few off the top of my head

Abortion, Homosexuality, VAD, Women's rights, Stem Cell research, No pre marital sex, Conservative monetary policy

Yeah love thy neighbour, right

None of you guys better be libertarians

 

[1213]

But the Trump administration and Republicans in general also put pressure on social media companies in similar ways, and it isn't at all clear that any of them crossed the line between legitimate government regulation or private interest and actually breaching the constitution.

Different politicians and parties aren't anything like as different as any of us might wish to imagine.

I can agree that the parties are not different. There are maybe just some individuals, who are not against the people, but otherwise the parties are mainly for themselves and against the people.

However, if Republicans do bad things, it doesn't make it good, if also "Democrats" do the same.

 

[1213]

Abortion

Why should women have the right to murder their babies?

Homosexuality, VAD, Women's rights, Stem Cell research, No pre marital sex, Conservative monetary policy

I don't see how religion is limiting those.

Yeah love thy neighbour, right

How is killing ones baby loving?

 

[HonestJoe]

However, if Republicans do bad things, it doesn't make it good, if also "Democrats" do the same.

I agree, but you only criticised "Biden's regime" (and secular people generally) for going against freedom of speech yet you've not been able to identify any offences that are unique to them.

Could it be that this is less about freedoms for everyone, but challenges and criticism of the specific things you choose to say?

 

[1213]

I agree, but you only criticised "Biden's regime"

Because they are in power now and I would not like to allow them to continue to do wrong things. If they are allowed to continue, they will make things worse, limiting freedom of speech is one of the first steps of tyranny and fascism.

(and secular people generally) for going against freedom of speech yet you've not been able to identify any offences that are unique to them.

By what I know, Republicans didn't do the same.

Could it be that this is less about freedoms for everyone

On my behalf this is about freedom for everyone. I think at the moment Republicans are more constitutional than "democrats", which is why I think they are better. The constitution is to protect people from government tyranny, and it is disturbing how "democrats" seem to want to destroy it. There are also similar Republicans, who are against freedom and constitution. That is why I would recommend people to vote only those who want to protect the constitution and the rights and freedom it gives to the people.

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems to me that the "secular" people are worse for freedoms of people. For example Biden's regime goes against freedom of speech. Christian leaders gave more freedom than the "democrats". It is almost funny how tyrannical the "liberals" of today are.

That would be very hard to sustain with facts, though.

 

[HonestJoe]

Because they are in power now and I would not like to allow them to continue to do wrong things. If they are allowed to continue, they will make things worse, limiting freedom of speech is one of the first steps of tyranny and fascism.

You didn't specifically refer to now though, you were making generic comparisons between "secular" and "Christian" leaders (despite them not being mutually exclusive) and identified the "Biden regime" as the former rather than the latter.

Of course, you still haven't identified any actual facts supporting you perceive difference in intents or behaviour, or even clarified the issues with your terminology I've highlighted.

On my behalf this is about freedom for everyone. I think at the moment Republicans are more constitutional than "democrats", which is why I think they are better.

The US Constitution is about much more than free speech and the free speech is about much more than the US Constitution (even in the US). I'd suggest you need to address your initial assertions about freedom of speech before expanding the discussion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to me that the "secular" people are worse for freedoms of people.

The top results here all seem to be pretty secular: Countries and Territories

For example Biden's regime goes against freedom of speech.

In what way?

Christian leaders gave more freedom than the "democrats".

... in the sense that countries with nominally Christian heads of state have "allowed" their countries to function as secular democracies for all practical purposes? Or did you mean something else?

It is almost funny how tyrannical the "liberals" of today are.

Example?

 

[Madsaac]

I don't see how religion is limiting those.

Okay, well it seems you and people like you, need to see the light. Here is a start.

The Christian right has advanced socially conservative positions on issues such as creationism in public education,[20] school prayer,[21] temperance,[22] Christian nationalism,[23] Christian Zionism,[2] and Sunday Sabbatarianism,[24] as well as opposition to biological evolution,[20] embryonic stem cell research,[25] LGBT rights,[27] comprehensive sex education,[28][29] abortion, euthanasia,[31] use of drugs,[2] and pornography.[32] Although the term Christian right is most commonly associated with politics in the United States,[2] similar Christian conservative groups can be found in the political cultures of other Christian-majority countries.[33]

This is from Christian right - Wikipedia.

 

[1213]

In what way?

Please look post #8.

... in the sense that countries with nominally Christian heads of state have "allowed" their countries to function as secular democracies for all practical purposes? Or did you mean something else?

Please tell first what country has a Christian heads of state and what do you mean with that?

Example?

Please look post #8.

 

[1213]

That would be very hard to sustain with facts, though.

Do you not read the news? For example the soviet union of Europe is not democratic and tries to force nations to go as the people in Mordor of Europe demand. One example is Hungary, that doesn't submit to EU's tyranny.

The EU launches legal action against Hungary over new law accused of targeting critics

The European Union has launched legal action against Hungary’s right-wing government over a new law that allows authorities to investigate and prosecute people accused of undermining the country’s sovereignty.

apnews.com