United Nations to ban religion?

[User14]

This was a proposal submitted to the UN la few years back. The formulism site is now off line, but the formulism movement seems quite alive.

Quote:
The resolution is being proposed by Antony Last, founder of formulism.org, a site which claims that freedom FROM religion would be of far greater benefit to mankind than freedom OF religion.

Freedom from Religion | Proposed UN Resolution / Charter Amendment | Version 1.1

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS HEREBY VOW
* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of organized religion, a folly which has brought untold sorrow to mankind through the division, hatred and conflict it engenders, and
* to reaffirm an individual's right to freedom of belief, freedom of conscience and freedom of prayer, and
* to establish conditions under which these freedoms can be privately exercised.
AND FOR THESE ENDS WE UNDERTAKE
1. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the public expression of religious beliefs, including the use of symbols, clothing or markings which are synonymous with any currently or previously existing religions.
2. To outlaw, with immediate effect, public acts of worship or religious declaration.
3. To outlaw, with immediate effect, private gatherings of three or more people for the purposes of engaging in acts of worship or religious services.
4. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the publication of books, literature or articles which seek to promote religious beliefs or encourage adherence to religious doctrine.
5. To outlaw, after a period of amnesty, the personal ownership of books or materials which seek to promote religious beliefs or encourage adherence to religious doctrine. (Books of academic or social interest will be made freely available to schools, universities and public libraries).
6. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the celebration of religiously significant dates.
7. To begin, with immediate effect, the destruction or reassignment of predominantly religious buildings, such as churches, mosques and temples.


See Revelation Chapters 17 & 18

Is that some dream?

Google the lyrics to John Lennon's Imagine

Take note of religious developments in Russia.

It doesn't surprise me that there are people who thought like this, and thought their proposal had a chance to go somewhere. If you spend enough time reading the rather militant New Atheists say things like: "Religion is a social disease, religious people are mentally ill, religion is the root of all wars and suffering, civilization and progress only comes from the rejection of religion, etc."...eventually you're going to become so smugly confident in the superiority of your worldview that you'll feel like you have a moral obligation to force it on everyone else, for the good of humanity.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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'm coming into this conversation late and with lots of pages unread but I have to ask, are you talking about banning books in the political sense or banning it within your household? Because banning if information, even if it runs contrary to your values, doesn't make that information goes away, just moves it underground where it can't be aired out and discussed. Part of defending religious freedoms means defending people's ability to write and circulate information that runs counter to your values and/or biblical values.

 

[Tumah]

I'd probably ban the Quran if such a thing were in my power.

I'd probably ban the NT if such a thing were in my power.

 

[Tumah]

It doesn't surprise me that there are people who thought like this, and thought their proposal had a chance to go somewhere. If you spend enough time reading the rather militant New Atheists say things like: "Religion is a social disease, religious people are mentally ill, religion is the root of all wars and suffering, civilization and progress only comes from the rejection of religion, etc."...eventually you're going to become so smugly confident in the superiority of your worldview that you'll feel like you have a moral obligation to force it on everyone else, for the good of humanity.

Have you not been reading what sonofasun has been writing on this thread all along. Its not restricted to Militant Atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This country is only one executive order away from banning Bibles. Like it or not we are at the mercy of government. These days, their guns are much bigger than ours.

It's bizarre to me how, even though you belong to the largest, most powerful religious group in your country, you think you're being persecuted.

It's like a certain segment of the Christian population acts like a dangerous, threatened wild animal... but one who feels threatened by hallucinations from eating weird mushrooms, not from any real threat.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I often see proposals by atheists just on this site alone for banning the Bible. So I can assure you it is not a Christian only notion. But even if you were right, I'd be okay with that too.

Should I judge you by the wild threats I've heard from other Christians?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd probably ban the Quran if such a thing were in my power.

If so, then it's hypocritical of you to freak out at the idea of banning the Bible.

 

[SkepticX]

From the source:
"On January 27, 2004, Antony Last, founder of formulism.org. proposed a "Resolution to Ban Religion" to the United Nations ... "

That was 27 JAN 04, some dude with a website, and presumably a flock of some sort, sent a proposal to the UN to ban religion.

Better amass some serious armament, build some bunkers (I recommend calling them Bible Bunkers) and dig in ... !

 

[Barney Vincelette]

A silly idea that will never get anywhere. All attempting to do so will do is radicalize underground religious movements, create an incredibly strong backlash worse than it ever was with secular governments with religious freedom, and by no means guarantee governance from the same kind of prejudices seen in fundamental institution. As an irreligious atheist I value religious freedom. If people decide to set aside religious leanings as a group, let it be organically, not by force.

It is safe to assume that this will never happen. However that it can be proposed is a warning to those who use religion to demonize as deserving eternal damnation those who do not agree perfectly with their impossible to prove beliefs that whenever a religion goes to hell and commands its followers to do violence against those who disagree with it that taking away all religion can appear a practical and reasonable expedient.

 

[Kemosloby]

It is safe to assume that this will never happen. However that it can be proposed is a warning to those who use religion to demonize as deserving eternal damnation those who do not agree perfectly with their impossible to prove beliefs that whenever a religion goes to hell and commands its followers to do violence against those who disagree with it that taking away all religion can appear a practical and reasonable expedient.

Hmm, that sounds fair to you? Do away with all religion if one religion did violence, or someone did violence in the name of religion?

 

[dianaiad]

This is ridiculous. You and I live in the same country. @lewisnotmiller lives in a different one, Australia. But they're very similar in that Christians run the government and are usually the ones wanting to ban books that they don't like.
Tom

Christians don't desire to ban books just because they don't like them. They typically desire to ban books that they believe are evil. But as long as we have evil people in this world, the subjectivity of the matter makes banning evil books very difficult. How do you convince evil people that the books they are reading are evil. It's impossible.

I find this interesting...and a bit biased. Not deliberately, perhaps, but....as a retired English teacher I have had to deal with people wanting to ban books for many, many years. "Huckleberry Finn," though by no means the only book on the possible 'ban' list, is certainly one of the most recognized and controversial titles, and I'll use it as a typical example. I have had to fight to keep it in my curricula five times now...and though the reasons given for banning it vary, four out of five of the opposing groups were NOT religious. Two of 'em identified themselves as atheistic and opposing the work from that perspective. Two were just too politically correct to have even READ the book, and the fifth was a local religious group that objected to "the 'N' word." Of course, pretty much everybody objected to "the 'N' word," though for different reasons.

My point is that my experience with "Huckleberry Finn" was not unique to that book. Rather, it is just the most obvious example of my experience with most of the books various groups sought to be banned...more atheist and secular objections than religious ones.

One thing I did notice, however, is this: objections from secular and frank atheistic groups were listened to and sometimes acted upon. Objections from religious groups were laughed at, if, that is, such objections got to the desk of someone who could act on them. "Huckleberry Finn" had to be brought back into the classroom after I fought with secular and atheistic groups, but the same objection (to 'the 'N'word') from religious organizations was completely dismissed without so much as a 'huh...?'

I notice, indeed, that the most danger of getting books banned comes from secular and atheist groups, not religious ones.

 

[TheMusicTheory]

It's bizarre to me how, even though you belong to the largest, most powerful religious group in your country, you think you're being persecuted.

It's like a certain segment of the Christian population acts like a dangerous, threatened wild animal... but one who feels threatened by hallucinations from eating weird mushrooms, not from any real threat.

They have to believe they are under attack at all times or the whole thing kind of falls apart.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd probably ban the NT if such a thing were in my power.

If I was in power, I wouldn't ban any religion's scriptures. I just wouldn't promote any of them in taxpayer-funded schools.

Point to secularism for this one, IMO.

 

[columbus]

as a retired English teacher I have had to deal with people wanting to ban books for many, many years. "Huckleberry Finn," though by no means the only book on the possible 'ban' list, is certainly one of the most recognized and controversial titles,

Oh yeah, I remember that nonsense too. And "To Kill a Mockingbird" was on the PC hit list.
The local NAACP lost a lot of my support when they successfully quashed a HS production. And I was on the board at the time.
Tom

 

[Tumah]

If I was in power, I wouldn't ban any religion's scriptures. I just wouldn't promote any of them in taxpayer-funded schools.

Point to secularism for this one, IMO.

I don't have a problem with that. Orthodox Jews generally attend private institutions. I've never seen the inside of a public school building.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It is safe to assume that this will never happen. However that it can be proposed is a warning to those who use religion to demonize as deserving eternal damnation those who do not agree perfectly with their impossible to prove beliefs that whenever a religion goes to hell and commands its followers to do violence against those who disagree with it that taking away all religion can appear a practical and reasonable expedient.

It's neither practical, reasonable or expedient for the reasons I've already stated. It won't stop the bad behavior, more likely it would grow it. Punish violent offenders based on their actions individually, on a case by case basis.

 

[Blastcat]

Is that some dream?

It just looks like a clever publicity stunt.
It would never work.. we want to FORBID religions?

Did Donald Trump back the idea?
We could maybe not just kill all the jews, but EVERY person of "religion"... make hitler look like a ***** cat.

this is the MOST ridiculous idea ive heard in a long long while.
But its' maybe not a bad idea to think about as a thought experiment.

But IMPLEMENTING ?....
that would be global fascism.

Like I say... about as ridiculous an idea as an idea can get.
Who lets bull**** like this get to the UN?

 

[columbus]

Like I say... about as ridiculous an idea as an idea can get.
Who lets bull**** like this get to the UN?

The problem with public forums and venues is that some of the public is crackpots.
Tom

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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.

To me, 'Caesar' stands in a relative position. Christians are Not to interfere with ' Caesars' laws,etc.
What is different for Christians is if ' Caesar ' passes a law against God's Law, then the Christian would choose to obey God as Ruler rather than man. Example: if ' Caesar ' wants people to steal a Christian could Not obey that law.
- Acts of the Apostles 5:29 shows that God stands in an absolute position.

To me, religion and the political have often been strange bed fellows - Revelation 17:1-2 - and the world's religious element thinks still she sits as some sort of religious ' queen ' over Earth's political kings. - Revelation 18:7
Even in times of war, the religious have used the pulpit as a recruiting station so parents will sacrifice their young on the Altar of War as if that is the same thing as the Altar of God.

At 1 Peter 4:17 judgement will start with the religious ' house ' of God.
Spiritual ' house cleaning ' will thus start with ' Christendom ' because she claims to follow the God of the Bible.
'Christendom' (so-called Christian) will be shocked when the political will suddenly and surprisingly turn on her.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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.

To me, if faith healing was genuine then faith healers would be working in hospitals.
( maybe they don't work in hospitals for the same reason that psychics don't win the lotteries )
And there is Nothing in Genesis showing how long each creative day was, or even if each creative day was of the same or of differing lengths of time, but definitely Not a few-thousand-years old Earth.

Jesus did strongly believe in a literal interpretations of his beliefs when Not metaphorically speaking.
Of course, Jesus knew his parable illustrations were just that parables or illustrations and Not literal.
Jesus took the commandments as literal. Do Not steal, murder, etc.
Jesus also knew there would be a New covenant or contract coming for all nations - Jeremiah 31:31-34
Yet, 'many' come ' in Jesus' name ' and prove false as Jesus said at Matthew 7:21-23
So, ALL false religious teaching will have to go.
The political will have to start ' house cleaning ' with Christendom ( so-called Christian but mostly in name only )