What faith would you support banning???

[Gentoo]

Not a single one. All have their truths, though some may take a little more digging to find it, it's there.

 

[rojse]

Kept what other religions? "Extreme Islam" is not a separate religion from non-extreme Islam, just as "extreme Christianity" is not a separate religion from non-extreme Christianity. There are religions. And there are more intolerant versions of those religions, which usually get called "extremist." And then there are violent extremist who seek to harm people with whom they disagree. (Not all extremists are violent.) Go after those who seek to harm, not the religion which they claim to espouse.

But they interpreted their scriptures and teachings in a different manner to the standard manner. I would call their branch of worship a religion, just as I would call the different branches of Christianity religions.

 

[Jeremiah]

No matter how crazy their teachings may be or how small their numbers. The law must apply in all situations, even if we don't like the results.

As far as I am concerned every single religion fosters pride, segregation and is fallacious in someway. It is up to us to behave rational and not lose our heads to religious zeal. If a person breaks the law than that person is subject to the law regardless of "divine inspiration". The religion itself should not be ban. That would be ludicrous step backwards in achieving and sustaining a widespread freedom of religion ideology.

 

[hannahrose1209]

none....there is something we can learn from all types of faith!! Even the extreme ones! Besides they just make a balance!!

 

[lilithu]

But they interpreted their scriptures and teachings in a different manner to the standard manner. I would call their branch of worship a religion, just as I would call the different branches of Christianity religions.

Fine, then there are as many different religions as there are religious people. The point is that even amongst extremists, not all are violent. If you are going to start banning religious thought just because you don't like what is said, you're headed for a slippery slope. It should be sufficient to go after the people who actually try to harm others, whether they are "extremists" or no.

 

[rojse]

Fine, then there are as many different religions as there are religious people. The point is that even amongst extremists, not all are violent. If you are going to start banning religious thought just because you don't like what is said, you're headed for a slippery slope. It should be sufficient to go after the people who actually try to harm others, whether they are "extremists" or no.

I must not be conveying my thoughts to you properly. I do apologise.

I said that America had banned several religious groups with known links to terrorist organisations, and actively support terrorism.

I did state before that banning religions was a dangerous precedent, and I certainly agree that not all extremists couple their ideaology with hatred for those that do not conform.

Although I respect people's rights to religion, and to worship whomever and however they please, I disagree with this when they wish to harm or kill others.

If an organisation itself supports terrorist acts, I do not see why it should not be banned, even though they may be a religious organisation.

 

[TashaN]

This is a hot topic, and I would be interested to see if there is any faith that anyone here would support banning?

I chose none. my answer is based on my beliefs, which is that, if God himself chose for us to have open ways to this life so who am i to ban these beliefs or even to think of it?!

[13] O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full Knowledge and is well-acquainted (with all things). (Quran 49:13)

And ....

[48] To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single People, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you; so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; (Quran 5:48)

 

[Zephyr]

Your "ideal country" wouldn't have freedom of religion?

How many theocracies can you name with freedom of religion?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would not ban any religion.
I would not allow them any special status... tax wise, or any other special protection in law.

If a religion wanted to support charitable works. I would grant Tax breaks in the same way as other charities, that would be audited by the Charity commissioners, as we do in the uk.
This would only apply to ring fenced charitable work.. not the churches entire income.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

It depends on the type of poll that was created. Click on the underlined numbers to see how people voted. Polls that don't have underlined numbers do not show results. It all depends on how it's set up.

Cheers danisty, i can see know, some of them were funny...

 

[Don Penguinoini]

It depends on the type of poll that was created. Click on the underlined numbers to see how people voted. Polls that don't have underlined numbers do not show results. It all depends on how it's set up.

Cheers danisty, i can see know, some of them were funny...

 

[Hema]

Take a look at the caste system if you believe Hinduism has never done anyone any wrong. And do the words "Gujarat riots" mean anything to you?

Actually the caste system is merely a classification of people by profession, for eg. we all need a working class, business class, there is a class for holy people etc. This just shows that we all have functions in society - it does not say that one is greater than the other and one is not confined to a particular caste. Someone born into a working class can aspire to be of the holy class. Also God in his avatar of Shri Ram ate food from an outcaste woman - something people would see as forbidden. Shri Ram did this to show us that he does not look at caste, only a devotees love. :yes:

As for the Gujarat riots - these are the actions of some Hindus and not the general consensus of all Hindus. I do not know the whole reason behind those riots though.

 

[Hema]

I chose Other - I would ban hatred of any kind. :yes:

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Yeah! Hema is right! MOST hindus are never bad.

 

[lilithu]

Actually the caste system is merely a classification of people by profession, for eg. we all need a working class, business class, there is a class for holy people etc. This just shows that we all have functions in society - it does not say that one is greater than the other and one is not confined to a particular caste. Someone born into a working class can aspire to be of the holy class.

Right, tell that to the Dalit. :sarcastic

Also God in his avatar of Shri Ram ate food from an outcaste woman - something people would see as forbidden. Shri Ram did this to show us that he does not look at caste, only a devotees love. :yes:

You prove Jaymes' point. It would not be noteworthy that Ram ate the food if it were not the case that most Hindus would see this as forbidden.

It is not my desire to denigrate Hinduism. I think it's one of the world's greatest religions. But it's simply wrong to try to claim that the caste system has not caused any suffering, or that Hinduism is perfect.

As for the Gujarat riots - these are the actions of some Hindus and not the general consensus of all Hindus. I do not know the whole reason behind those riots though.

Ask the BJP. There is evidence that the govt conspired with the Hindu rioters resulting in the massacre of almost 800 Muslims, including women and children.

I do agree with you that you cannot condemn Hinduism for what a few adherents do. But that is true for all religions.

 

[Gentoo]

Yeah! Hema is right! MOST hindus are never bad.

The same could be said of any other religion of the world.

 

[Hema]

You prove Jaymes' point. It would not be noteworthy that Ram ate the food if it were not the case that most Hindus would see this as forbidden.

It is not my desire to denigrate Hinduism. I think it's one of the world's greatest religions. But it's simply wrong to try to claim that the caste system has not caused any suffering, or that Hinduism is perfect.

However, the caste system according to scripture, does NOT teach this segregation. It is people’s interpretation of it….when they misconstrue it for their own purposes. It’s like how some Muslims misinterpreted Islam and blew up the World Trade Center.

In my country, there is no such caste system as in India.

Ask the BJP. There is evidence that the govt conspired with the Hindu rioters resulting in the massacre of almost 800 Muslims, including women and children.

Then they have to suffer for their own karmas.

I do agree with you that you cannot condemn Hinduism for what a few adherents do. But that is true for all religions.

Agreed! This is my point. If a religion teaches one thing and its followers do something else, we cannot blame it on the religion! Yes, it is true for all religions.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

This is a hot topic, and I would be interested to see if there is any faith that anyone here would support banning?

If by banning you mean in the way that alcohol was "banned" during prohibition, or in the way that marijuana is "banned" by current drug laws, then I would not vote to ban any religion, ever. If, however, I was given a magic wand that really worked, and I could cause any religion's to cease to be, then I can answer I would "wave away" any religion claiming the "one true god" i.e. Abrahamics, and any that encouraged its followers to proselytize, and any that was based on supernaturalism.

I would love to see a world full of buddhists, freethinkers and well reasoning secularists. I am sure they would fight one another, as people always have, but I would like to see what they would frame their wars around.

B.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I am in favor of banning any religion that practices or encourages human sacrifice. Can't think of one offhand.

I'm in favor of stripping all religions of their tax-free status.

There was something about this Jesus guy I heard of one time. . . sounded very similar to human sacrifice. . . (shakes head to clear cobwebs) maybe I am just crazy.

B.

 

[madhatter85]

I would Ban Satanists, Luciferians, Pegans, Wiccans, Scientology, Alien-based religions and other such lines.

but that's just me.