United Nations to ban religion?

[SomeRandom]

I would say as an example that books that portray adulterous relationships as something to be admired and desired while disregarding the negative consequences on society, on children, and to the adulterers' relationship with God is something to be banned. I would suggest books portraying sexual encounters outside the confines of marriage that are beyond the necessity for educational purposes that undermine biblical principles ought to be banned. I can't really give you any real examples, because I don't read books like this. I read science books, and I read inspirational Christian books. I don't read fiction. I don't see the point. It's a waste of my time. And I certainly wouldn't want to read someone's auto-biography because I just don't care to know the details of someone's life, especially if it is a life full of debauchery.

I read fiction a lot and I can't think of anything like you're saying. Adultery, especially in classical fiction is always portrayed as something with consequences. Fiction has to be rooted in reality, so it can't just be completely unrealistic. Fiction often explores topics that are dark because it's a safe way to do so. In order to explore topics even philosophically fiction needs to portray the good and the bad. So again it proves what I was saying earlier. People who want books banned don't seem to either understand basic thematic elements they contain and why or they haven't read them therefore they cannot give reasonable objections to them. Only ones born from ignorance. If you wish to advocate banning certain books you need to back it up with some kind of well reasoned argument. "It goes against the Bible" can only be used if you've read said book and can point out exactly what your objections are. Because if you can't, well, how are you going to "protect people" from them? Also it makes one come across as intellectually lacking. Just saying.

 

[columbus]

Yes, I too say things I regret.

What I started to say was more like "When I take over you'll be first up against the wall."
But as a hard core pro-lifer I would have regretted that.
Tom

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Eh. This is dumb. Its horrifying to people who are religious and funny to those that are not.

I personally believe the world would be a better place if we took steps to actively remove religion from the world. But I don't think that banning religion would get us anywhere. If someone wanted to end religion world wide the best thing to do is actually shoot for secularism. The main difference being that religion will still exist in some form or another but it a weak form that doesn't actually affect policy and daily life for the most part.

Steps to do this? Best case scenario off top of my head.

1. Combined UN and world collaborative efforts to eradicate poverty worldwide.
2. Shift to Green energy worldwide.
3. Work to secularize the governments of the world worldwide.
4. Give easier access to education both primary and secondary to all people of the world.
5. Outlaw laws with no secular backing
6. Off of #5 pressure governments to provide equality to citizens with basic fundamental rights and create an agreed upon basic bill of rights that is effective everywhere and for all people reguardless of nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, fiancial status or political viewpoints.
7. Encourage development of nations to raise the economic equality of the world.


This will lead to a huge drop in religious ideology worldwide. And even what is left will be mostly cultral.

Whilst I haven't really got a stepped plan, I completely agree that secularism should be the aim.
I have zero issue with religion, per se. Religious dogma is another matter, but as long as it doesn't directly impact on laws, I don't want to restrict people's rights to believe whatever they want and maintain their cultural traditions.

 

[Kemosloby]

None of the Scriptural Christian verses I posted are my own idea.
1 Peter 4:17 shows to me there will be a spiritual house cleaning.
To me, Matthew 25:31-33,37 ' time of separation ' is still ahead of us.
What could be my own idea about Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16

Your interpretation of them. Is this your own interpretation or do you belong to some organization or group which also believes as you do?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Whilst I haven't really got a stepped plan, I completely agree that secularism should be the aim.
I have zero issue with religion, per se. Religious dogma is another matter, but as long as it doesn't directly impact on laws, I don't want to restrict people's rights to believe whatever they want and maintain their cultural traditions.

I think there is an issue with one fundamental property of religion.

If you take a "liberal christian" or even a "liberal muslim" or really any Jew, they have a concept of reality. They understand and accept the world around them as non-religious people do but have for whatever reason a religious or spiritual side to them that they go to for spiritual needs. They dont' believe in micracles that suspend the laws of physics and don't propose that prayer will heal your cancer. They also don't claim the earth is a few thousand years old.

But people who are fundamentalist or those that believe strongly in the literal interpretations of their religious beliefs will have to go. There is no way around that. Some people simply live in a fantasy world where information and observation comes second.

 

[columbus]

I read fiction a lot and I can't think of anything like you're saying. Adultery, especially in classical fiction is always portrayed as something with consequences.

There is a bunch of porn I would be inclined to agree with @Sonofason about. There are two basic reasons I wouldn't advocate banning it. One is the forbidden fruit syndrome. Even more importantly I wouldn't give anyone the power to ban things that way, the power is all but guaranteed to be abused.
Tom

 

[Sonofason]

I read fiction a lot and I can't think of anything like you're saying. Adultery, especially in classical fiction is always portrayed as something with consequences. Fiction has to be rooted in reality, so it can't just be completely unrealistic. Fiction often explores topics that are dark because it's a safe way to do so. In order to explore topics even philosophically fiction needs to portray the good and the bad. So again it proves what I was saying earlier. People who want books banned don't seem to either understand basic thematic elements they contain and why or they haven't read them therefore they cannot give reasonable objections to them. Only ones born from ignorance. If you wish to advocate banning certain books you need to back it up with some kind of well reasoned argument. "It goes against the Bible" can only be used if you've read said book and can point out exactly what your objections are. Because if you can't, well, how are you going to "protect people" from them? Also it makes one come across as intellectually lacking. Just saying.

I agree with much of what you are saying. But my guess is that you are probably wrong, that there are probably books that ought to be banned. I just don't know which ones they are. I suggest reviewing some of the court cases revolving around this issue and read the books. You have already brought up Lord of the Rings, which I don't have a problem with, but surely there are others that you may take offense to, that you would not want our children to see. And it is my general belief that if something is no good for your children, it is likely no good for you either. (edited for the removal of unnecessary content)

 

[Sonofason]

There is a bunch of porn I would be inclined to agree with @Sonofason about. There are two basic reasons I wouldn't advocate banning it. One is the forbidden fruit syndrome. Even more importantly I wouldn't give anyone the power to ban things that way, the power is all but guaranteed to be abused.
Tom

This is of course the reason that I believe we must all come under the authority of Christ. That we can choose for ourselves to ban the books from ourselves that we ought not read. And then we as parents must ban the books that we ourselves know are no good influence on our children.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think there is an issue with one fundamental property of religion.

If you take a "liberal christian" or even a "liberal muslim" or really any Jew, they have a concept of reality. They understand and accept the world around them as non-religious people do but have for whatever reason a religious or spiritual side to them that they go to for spiritual needs. They dont' believe in micracles that suspend the laws of physics and don't propose that prayer will heal your cancer. They also don't claim the earth is a few thousand years old.

But people who are fundamentalist or those that believe strongly in the literal interpretations of their religious beliefs will have to go. There is no way around that. Some people simply live in a fantasy world where information and observation comes second.

I think we're probably on the same page there. For me, it's not really a direct identification of 'fundamental religious belief'. However, such belief tends to indirectly cause things I would have issue with (eg. impact on laws, others, etc), so in a practical sense it probably amounts to the same thing.

 

[Nietzsche]

I suggest banning everything that undermines and devalues the principles and will of God as prescribed and described in the Bible...How's that?

Jawohl!

 

[Sonofason]

I think we're probably on the same page there. For me, it's not really a direct identification of 'fundamental religious belief'. However, such belief tends to indirectly cause things I would have issue with (eg. impact on laws, others, etc), so in a practical sense it probably amounts to the same thing.

I do not understand why you would agree with all of that. While there are some people who interpret the Bible in a way that suggests that there is a literal translation of the Bible suggesting that the earth is only a few thousand years old, why in the world would they have to go? What does that even mean, they have to go? Second, it is only an interpretation. There are literal interpretations of the Bible that do not in any way shape or form suggest that the earth is only a few thousand years old. One can have a literal interpretation of the Bible that is completely consistent with science, as I do.

 

[SomeRandom]

I agree with much of what you are saying. But my guess is that you are probably wrong, that there are probably books that ought to be banned. I just don't know which ones they are. I suggest reviewing some of the court cases revolving around this issue and read the books. You have already brought up Lord of the Rings, which I don't have a problem with, but surely there are others that you may take offense to, that you would not want our children to see. And it is my general belief that if something is no good for your children, it is likely no good for you either. (edited for the removal of unnecessary content)

Again if you want to advocate banning certain books you should at least have enough common decency to read some of them. Understand the literary landscape because otherwise you just come across as ignorant.

I have a very negative reaction to banning books (which is an entirely different thing to having age appropriate ratings on books, just FYI.) Children don't typically read adult fiction because the themes, philosophical musings and metaphors used would often be outside of their intellectual capacities. Not to say that all children would experience such confusion of course all kids are different. But what would be appropriate to show a child has more to do with the child than simply being an age restriction thing. I mean Shakespeare probably isn't suitable for most 5 year olds (interestingly enough though there are children's picture book translations of his plays. Weird.) but to ban him? Good lord, could you imagine the dull and barren landscape of Western Literature? I shudder at the very thought of such a dumbed down Canon.

So nope I wouldn't even ban Libertine literature and that's quite literally hedonistic fiction with strong S&M. I'm not into such a philosophical movement but I don't presume myself with enough importance to decide what books are suitable for other people. I'm not that arrogant. I also find the whole "oh won't someone please think of the children" argument at best lazy and at worst idiotic.

 

[Sonofason]

Jawohl!

If this is shocking to you, you'd better not hang around for the arrival of the King.

 

[Sonofason]

I have a very negative reaction to banning books (which is an entirely different thing to having age appropriate ratings on books, just FYI.) Children don't typically read adult fiction because the themes, philosophical musings and metaphors used would often be outside of their intellectual capacities. Not to say that all children would experience such confusion of course all kids are different. But what would be appropriate to show a child has more to do with the child than simply being an age restriction thing. I mean Shakespeare probably isn't suitable for most 5 year olds (interestingly enough though there are children's picture book translations of his plays. Weird.) but to ban him? Good lord, could you imagine the dull and barren landscape of Western Literature? I shudder at the very thought of such a dumbed down Canon.
So nope I wouldn't even ban Libertine literature and that's quite literally hedonistic fiction with strong S&M. I'm not into such a philosophical movement but I don't presume myself with enough importance to decide what books are suitable for other people. I'm not that arrogant. I also find the whole "of won't someone please think of the children" argument at best lazy and at worst idiotic.

So you don't believe it is possible for children to read inappropriate books? And if they do, how would you propose undoing the damage that is done?

 

[SomeRandom]

There is a bunch of porn I would be inclined to agree with @Sonofason about. There are two basic reasons I wouldn't advocate banning it. One is the forbidden fruit syndrome. Even more importantly I wouldn't give anyone the power to ban things that way, the power is all but guaranteed to be abused.
Tom

Perhaps. Though I agree banning something is laughable. It's the best publicity imaginable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I do not understand why you would agree with all of that. While there are some people who interpret the Bible in a way that suggests that there is a literal translation of the Bible suggesting that the earth is only a few thousand years old, why in the world would they have to go? What does that even mean, they have to go? Second, it is only an interpretation. There are literal interpretations of the Bible that do not in any way shape or form suggest that the earth is only a few thousand years old. One can have a literal interpretation of the Bible that is completely consistent with science, as I do.

Yeah, sorry...I shorthanded my response, so I can see why it's confusing. Let me be clearer...

1) I don't care what people believe, in and of itself, and would prefer to leave all belief alone. So, YECs, or whatever else, that's fine. I have a small issue with what they are doing to their kids, actually, but I think any direct action on that is worse than the issue. Much like I think banning 'evil' books is worse than having to deal with them. I do feel sorry for the kids though.

2) 'They have to go' purely means from the reigns of power. Ultimately, I don't want people with literal interpretations which are at odds with evidence in power. Evidence can be wrong, and it can be interpreted different ways. But people who ignore evidence over faith are not best placed to make decisions for our society in my opinion. The means of getting rid of them is to increase secularism, in my opinion. People, religious or not, would then feel more comfortable with evidence based decision making. I'm not proposing bans on belief, or lining people up against brick walls, etc.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So you don't believe it is possible for children to read inappropriate books? And if they do, how would you propose undoing the damage that is done?

Have an open conversation with them about what they read and how the interpret it.
I have to do it all the time, anyway. Between burquas and nativity scenes, my kids are constantly exposed to messaging which is confusing to them.

 

[SomeRandom]

So you don't believe it is possible for children to read inappropriate books? And if they do, how would you propose undoing the damage that is done?

Oh it's possible. I read a few of them myself. Not realising that some of your fave children's authors also did adult fiction is often how I was exposed to things I probably was not ready to see/read. My Uncle Oswald comes to mind.
Hell because I was a kid in the 90s I played all sorts of adult only games because the adults didn't know games could even be for adults. So as a kid I played things like Doom, Conker's bad fur day, all the GTA games and much more.
Ahh memories.

But it never really harmed me. Perhaps gave me a more dirty sense of humor maybe. But I personally would suggest discussing said books with kids. Put them into context for them, explain to them any questions they might have and you know be a freaking parent! Kids aren't idiots you know, they're resilient little beggers and your handwringing is nothing more than condescension. Which I hated having to put up with as a kid. Adults too afraid to treat me like a person because they assumed I was made of glass. Spare me.

 

[Sonofason]

Have an open conversation with them about what they read and how the interpret it.
I have to do it all the time, anyway. Between burquas and nativity scenes, my kids are constantly exposed to messaging which is confusing to them.

That would be great if you knew what they were reading. Do our children tell us everything? I don't think so.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So you don't believe it is possible for children to read inappropriate books? And if they do, how would you propose undoing the damage that is done?

As a firm proponent of freedom I think that it isn't damanging for children to read so called "innappropriate" books. I wouldn't give a kid a porno mag but even if someone did I don't think it would ruin them. I think that our society's uber secrecy of sexuality to our children is also wrong. Its wrong to have sex with childen obviously. Castrate the pedophiles for all I care but kids have known about sex since the dawn of time. A mixture of religious shaming of sex and misuided protectionist practices have led to us telling children that babies come from storks. Why lie like that? What is so wrong with sex that we have to keep it hidden from them? We don't hide childbirth anywhere near as much. We don't hide any other bodily function?

There is smiply no good argument against sex education in general; as this is what it boils down too.

Or if you mean by "innappropriate" you mean viewpoints that differ from your own? Hell I don't think its wrong to let kids read Mien Kamphf. I actually encourage it. But have a conversation afterwards. Explain your ideas. I recommend, as an atheist, people read the bible, the Torah and the Koran.It broaden's them as people. Children aren't some pure white cloth that gets stained or infected by the outside world. They are a complex little person who needs to learn and question.

Anyway my two bits on that.