What faith would you support banning???

[Quiddity]

There's also no law that if one chooses not to be a Christian they'll automatically be possessed by demons, either.

There isn't?

Sorry, couldn't resist...

The point is, he claims it happens to some people, therefore the entire religion should be outlawed. Well, some Christians act like morons and hurt people because they believe their faith tells them to. I think that's just as bad, if not worse, than possession.

I agree...

 

[madhatter85]

I don't mind radical ideas. I just think that if someone proposes a radical idea and chooses not to support it with reasoning, it isn't really so much an idea as it is a ploy to get attention and annoy people on purpose.

Well i can't support my opinion in this without offending people.

Except maybe scientology, because of the overwhelmig evidence of illegal practices over the last few years, any business that tries to cricumvent the law should be put to rest.

 

[MaddLlama]

Not everyone is going to be possessed. But the danger is always there in these religions and their practices. Your only 25 calm down! So you been a witch since your 15. The people I know are twice your age. The "dubious evidence" as you call it is common knowledge to most. That is why the radio shows interview deomonologist and exorcist like Fr Amworth. My case would hold up in court very well with state, local, medical,outside witnessees and church documented evidence. Would yours?

Again you may disagree with me all you want. You would be wrong but thats fine. These are the reasons why I would bann those religions. Period!

The US Constitution > documented evidence of possession.

I win

 

[MaddLlama]

Well i can't support my opinion in this without offending people.

Except maybe scientology, because of the overwhelmig evidence of illegal practices over the last few years, any business that tries to cricumvent the law should be put to rest.

If you're so afraid your opinions will offend people, then what reason do you have to keep posting?

 

[Quiddity]

The US Constitution > documented evidence of possession.

I win

Not entirely. The US Constitution doesn't only give freedoms but can also take away perceived freedoms. Not to the extent of banning an entire religion, but certainly practices and who knows, maybe even certain teachings?

 

[Bishka]

Well i can't support my opinion in this without offending people.

I'm curious how you rationalize this with the 11th Article of Faith of the LDS Church. Are you above it or do you not believe it applies to you? If you need a reference, check my signature.

 

[Booko]

There isn't?

I've been possessed by a demon chicken. Does that count?

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Me neither.

 

[MaddLlama]

Not entirely. The US Constitution doesn't only give freedoms but can also take away perceived freedoms. Not to the extent of banning an entire religion, but certainly practices and who knows, maybe even certain teachings?

Really? I thought the first amendment clearly states that the government will make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. To me, that sounds like even if they wanted to they couldn't ban practices or teachings, let alone an entire religion. I find it highly unlikely that the government will start outlawing religions, or practices that pose no danger to anyone else. Even if they try, the various civil liberties unions will be so far up the governments rear that it won't know if it's coming or going. Bush even said once that he didn't think Paganism should be a recognized religion, and he got a big backlash from that.

I just don't see it happening to any religion. Unless the religion had practices that are already illegal, and the only one I know of would be Rastafarian religion (however, I do hear tell that you can get a permit to smoke weed for religious reasons right from the federal government, so..)

 

[Booko]

Well i can't support my opinion in this without offending people.

It's impossible for everyone on a religious forum to be able to explain their faith without offending someone. The problem is when things are personal and rude or make blanket statements like "members of X are idiots!"

So feel free to explain your reasoning.

 

[Quiddity]

I find it highly unlikely that the government will start outlawing religions, or practices that pose no danger to anyone else.

That's the trick ain't it?

If it is found that danger is posed, you bet the government will strip you of that freedom.

 

[Booko]

I just don't see it happening to any religion. Unless the religion had practices that are already illegal, and the only one I know of would be Rastafarian religion (however, I do hear tell that you can get a permit to smoke weed for religious reasons right from the federal government, so..)

Polygyny is allowed in Islam but it's still illegal here.

 

[Quiddity]

Polygyny is allowed in Islam but it's still illegal here.

Human and animal sacrifices is another one that is part of some religious practices and we lose no sleep in knowing we strip such freedoms.

 

[MaddLlama]

That's the trick ain't it?

If it is found that danger is posed, you bet the government will strip you of that freedom.

I'm pretty confident that if someone went to the supreme court and demanded that they outlaw witchcraft on the basis of someone being possessed, they'll be laughed out of the courtroom.

One could argue that there's danger in anything. And, the constitution doesn't say anything about something being part of freedom of religion as long as it isn't dangerous. If something isn't against the law, then the government has no power to prohibit me from practicing my religion.
The ancient Celts were warriors and head-hunters, but you don't see any Celtic recons running around demanding the right to chop off people's heads, do you?

 

[MaddLlama]

Polygyny is allowed in Islam but it's still illegal here.

The question was whether or not I felt safe that my religion wouldn't be outlawed. I can't think of any practice that is an inherent part of Paganism that's against the law, so therefore I can say yes, I feel completely safe that my right to practice my religion is not in danger.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm pretty confident that if someone went to the supreme court and demanded that they outlaw witchcraft on the basis of someone being possessed, they'll be laughed out of the courtroom.

I wasn't even thinking about that, but yeah, I'm sure that's what would happen.

One could argue that there's danger in anything. And, the constitution doesn't say anything about something being part of freedom of religion as long as it isn't dangerous. If something isn't against the law, then the government has no power to prohibit me from practicing my religion.

It all depends on what you do.

The ancient Celts were warriors and head-hunters, but you don't see any Celtic recons running around demanding the right to chop off people's heads, do you?

Well, it is there right to practice there religion isn't it?

 

[Booko]

Human and animal sacrifices is another one that is part of some religious practices and we lose no sleep in knowing we strip such freedoms.

Not so, Victor.

First, human sacrifices can be easily demonstrated to be harmful, so naturally we wouldn't allow those anyway.

As for animal sacrifices, check out Santeria and the Supreme Court ruling regarding their case.

 

[MaddLlama]

Well, it is there right to practice there religion isn't it?

My point is that we all realize we don't have a right to circumvent the law just for the sake of historical accuracy. We're adaptable, and as I said I can't think of any practice a Pagan would feel is necessary that's also illegal.

Well, aside from fire safety issues, but I have no sympathy for stupid Pagans who don't know how to build a safe bonfire.

 

[Quiddity]

First, human sacrifices can be easily demonstrated to be harmful, so naturally we wouldn't allow those anyway.

Indeed.

As for animal sacrifices, check out Santeria and the Supreme Court ruling regarding their case.

I stand corrected. I see it was ruled as unconstitutional.

 

[madhatter85]

I'm curious how you rationalize this with the 11th Article of Faith of the LDS Church. Are you above it or do you not believe it applies to you? If you need a reference, check my signature.

I know very well the article of Faith, Thanks for pointing it out, and Yes, I allow people to do whatever they want because it doesn't affect me. It's called being Polite, nobody said anythign about true respect. The 11th article of Faith is about repsecting the person, says nothing about respecting the ideas.

And if you really want to know? because I don't have any respect for "secret codes and combinations" And the fact that those religious beliefs i listed have nothing to give back to humanity that is wholesome and uplifitng. just as well as there is no such thing as being "posessed" or things of that nature.

 

[MaddLlama]

By what criteria are you judging what counts as "wholesome" or "uplifting"?