From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 01:56:25 MDT
Cory Przybyla wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone here knew of any
> organization whose goal was to specifically fight
> against the proliferation of organized religion,
> rather than for support of various alternatives such
> as free-thought, atheism, agnosticism, etc?
How would you fight against voluntarily spread memes without
seriously threatening individual freedoms?
>
> I'm currently planning on going back to get a
> different degree from a college where the students
> will be on the whole not particularly well educated
> thus far. I'd like to finally become active in the
> fight against the trend toward mental terrorism in the
> United States.
I can say many things pro and con about religion but I don't
think you can call religion, at least not without state power
behind it, "mental terrorism". Please explain what you mean by
this.
>
> I specifically want to set up a group/club (hopefully
> to expand into something greater) that gives a general
> scope of the pressure tactics used by religions, even
> peaceful ones, to prevent other views and bring about
> new converts. The organization will stress that
> people are to be free, and protected as such, to hold
> whatever beliefs they want even those considered
> irrational or dangerous, so long as they do nothing to
> push their views onto unwilling others. There of
What is unwilling? I cannot step into your mind and force you
to believe or disbelieve anything. I can present arguments and
attempt to persuade you. Do you think that should somehow be
prohibited if you disapprove of the ideas being proposed? Some
people consider your own favorite ideas to be quite dangerous.
Should you be prohibited to spread them?
> course will be an attack on how current democracies
> are incapable of allowing for freedom of religion,
> when one religion, or similar belief sets, are in a
> vast majority. I want to stress the freedom from
> religion being a necessity now that freedom of
> religion has failed.
No, it hasn't failed at all. The US, despite much highly
publicized rhetoric, was not built on the basis of religion but
was build on freedom of religious belief or disbelief and the
separation between church and state. The US is one of the most
religiously diverse countries, and generally peacefully so, on
the planet. So on what grounds do you say it failed?
>Even more importantly here, I
> want to express that the freedom of religion for a
> child is non-existent when parents are allowed to
> force their views without any regard. And of course
> these children will often grow up with an skewed
> perception of reality, and only a small chance of
> freeing themselves from their mental bondage.
>
Considering that a large percentage of people in the US is
agnostic/atheist who were raised under a particular relgious
slant, I think you underrate the ability of people to go beyond
childhood conditionings. On the other hand, I wonder if I would
have fought so long and hard with making sense of
spirituality/religion if I had not been so immersed into it
growing up. Dunno.
> Again I must stress, this is a search for
> organizations that fight solely against organization
> of religion, not personal beliefs regardless of how
> radical they are.
So, I can believe what I want but not group together with others
who believe similarly or attempt to spread my beliefs? At least
not about things that make you personally uncomfortable or that
you disapprove of? Sorry, but that isn't freedom of any kind.
> I've thus far come across authors
> supporting this view but no sign of a movement for it,
> which I find to be a vital step in establishing a
> truer free state. Most libertarians might not take
> kindly to this notion of state interference, but is it
> really a step for the worse.
>
State interference with peoples beliefs and right to associate
and spread their beliefs is tyranny.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:32 MST