[XogGyux]

Church & State are already separate in the US, Hollywood has been brainwashing the masses for decades. And most importantly extreme Soviet persecution did not manage to eliminate religion and you are going to eliminate it without persecuting anybody and anyone's religious rights.

I mean church and state separation for realz. If its separated why do taxpayers give nearly 100bil US in subsidy for church's taxes? Why do we have mention of god just about everywhere from our money to the swearing of the president or prayers in schools supported by federal money?
I don't care what hollywood says or do. The day hollywood makes a church and parents of kids take the kids (in most cases until adulthood) to get their brain washed on fact-less propaganda then we can talk.
And to your final point. Education is far more successful than violence to get rid of brainwashing and superstition. Take for instance North Korea, one of the things that have made it so successful of a regime is by preventing internet access to the public (a way of acquiring education). Islam is another example of this, prevent education and look... you get 1.6 billion fanatics. This is why it is so dangerous that religious fundamentalists are trying to meddle with US educational system.

[noemon]

I mean church and state separation for realz.

You need to actually prove your claims.

If its separated why do taxpayers give nearly 100bil US in subsidy for church's taxes?

Provide evidence and context for all non-profit organisations in the US. Non-profit organisations are not taxed anywhere in the modern world.

Why do we have mention of god just about everywhere from our money to the swearing of the president or prayers in schools supported by federal money?

It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath, or in their acceptance of the oath, as neither is required by law

In the United States, public schools are banned from conducting religious observances such as prayer. The legal basis for this prohibition is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which requires that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The first part of the amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") is known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, while the second part ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") is known as the Free Exercise Clause.

Though each of these clauses originally applied only to the central US government, the Fourteenth Amendment extended the scope of the entire First Amendment to all levels of government, including the state level,[1] thus compelling states and their subject schools to adopt an equally detached approach to religion in schools.

I don't care what hollywood says or do. The day hollywood makes a church and parents of kids take the kids (in most cases until adulthood) to get their brain washed on fact-less propaganda then we can talk.
And to your final point. Education is far more successful than violence to get rid of brainwashing and superstition. Take for instance North Korea, one of the things that have made it so successful of a regime is by preventing internet access to the public (a way of acquiring education). Islam is another example of this, prevent education and look... you get 1.6 billion fanatics. This is why it is so dangerous that religious fundamentalists are trying to meddle with US educational system.

All I see is rants that ignore the main point, the Soviet Union brutally persecuted religion but it did not manage to eliminate it, how are you going to eliminate it? When you have Hollywood already working against it, you have a State that is prohibited from respecting it, you have public schools banned from conducting prayer. You have good internet access. Seems like all your suggestions are already in place and your arguments are moot.

[XogGyux]

@noemon
http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-t ... titutions/
https://ffrf.org/outreach/item/12601-ta ... f-churches
https://secularpolicyinstitute.net/numb ... n-schools/
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/e ... ism-104934
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism ... Allegiance
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/ ... christian/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientolo ... properties
http://fortune.com/2015/04/08/scientology-tax-exempt/

Provide evidence and context for all non-profit organisations in the US. Non-profit organisations are not taxed anywhere in the modern world.

The church is not really a non-profit. All profit in followers. Some even profit on money. That is not to mention that a large number of non-profit organizations are just a very large scam. The whole concept need to be re-designed or scrapped altogether.

It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath, or in their acceptance of the oath, as neither is required by law

That is precisely why I said "to the HIGHEST standard." If they want to swear on the bible, they can buy with their own money another televised event where they can do a ceremonial activity where they can pray and hold the bible and have some sex with christ if they so wish. Mentioning god/religion in official business should not be appropriate.

All I see is rants that ignore the main point, the Soviet Union brutally persecuted religion but it did not manage to eliminate it, how are you going to eliminate it? When you have Hollywood already working against it, you have a State that is prohibited from respecting it, you have public schools banned from conducting prayer. You have good internet access. Seems like all your suggestions are already in place and your arguments are moot.

Everything you don't like is either a rant or a genocidal manic. Have you heard of the pledge of allegiance?, have you seen american dollars?

[noemon]

Unless you quote from this selection of sources where the majority deals with scientology, they remain irrelevant.

Just because a gay-person wants to force churches to recognise gay-marriage by pressuring them with the tax-exempt status that is not an actual argument against the tax-exempt status of non-profit organisations.

The church is not really a non-profit. All profit in followers. Some even profit on money. That is not to mention that a large number of non-profit organizations are just a very large scam. The whole concept need to be re-designed or scrapped altogether.

You are arguing against the tax-exemption of non-profit organisations, not just religious non-profit organisations. If you make an actual argument instead of merely ranting perhaps you can be taken seriously.

From one of your sources:

It is important to point out that the Supreme Court has spoken on this question, finding it constitutional.

"The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its 'moral or mental improvement,' should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for nonpayment of taxes. It [397 U.S. 664 , 673] has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. The State has an affirmative policy that considers these groups as beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life and finds this classification useful, desirable, and in the public interest. Qualification for tax exemption is not perpetual or immutable; some tax-exempt groups lose that status when their activities take them outside the classification and new entities can come into being and qualify for exemption."

That is precisely why I said "to the HIGHEST standard." If they want to swear on the bible, they can buy with their own money another televised event where they can do a ceremonial activity where they can pray and hold the bible and have some sex with christ if they so wish. Mentioning god/religion in official business should not be appropriate.

You want to prevent the elected Presidents of the USA from publicly expressing their faith? Why stop at the Presidents? You could ban everyone from expressing their faith and then sit here arguing that you are not arguing for persecuting anybody and that you respect people's free speech.

Everything you don't like is either a rant or a genocidal manic. Have you heard of the pledge of allegiance?, have you seen american dollars?

You are not answering the questions:

All I see is rants that ignore the main point, the Soviet Union brutally persecuted religion but it did not manage to eliminate it, how are you going to eliminate it? When you have Hollywood already working against it, you have a State that is prohibited from respecting it, you have public schools banned from conducting prayer. You have good internet access. Seems like all your suggestions are already in place and your arguments are moot.

[XogGyux]

Unless you quote from this selection of sources where the majority deals with scientology, they remain irrelevant.

The majority don't deal with scientology, or televangelists (another big one). Furthermore, both are religion, so why are you so quick to dismiss them?. In fact there is also articles there about almighty god presence in our schools and government. But I understand why you'd want them dismissed.

Just because a gay-person wants to force churches to recognise gay-marriage by pressuring them with the tax-exempt status that is not an actual argument against the tax-exempt status of non-profit organisations.

His motives are unimportant to me. What he is saying is. Miss ad hominem.

You are arguing against the tax-exemption of non-profit organisations, not just religious non-profit organisations. If you make an actual argument instead of merely ranting perhaps you can be taken seriously.

For now I only care for the scum of the scum. Churches. If you want to also talk about others go ahead make a thread.

You want to prevent the elected Presidents of the USA from publicly expressing their faith? Why stop at the Presidents? You could ban everyone from expressing their faith and then sit here arguing that you are not arguing for persecuting anybody and that you respect people's free speech.

Like I said. I don't care you or the president expressing their faith. Don't do it in official, federally-funded events. Swear without mentioning god on the official event. Go home and make another event with your own money (incidentally, take god out of the money as well) and pray all you want. Do you think it would be appropriate for the US press secretary to end his address to the press like "and by the way, I love coca cola"? Off-course not (and this is one of the MANY things that makes Trump such a shitty choice for president because he violates this). So why would a god be any different.

You are not answering the questions:

Most of that are statements not questions. The only question is "how are you going to eliminate them" and I already addressed that.
Having an argument with a religious person takes quite a lot of energy! No wonder people like Richard Dawkins have made millions of this!

[noemon]

The majority don't deal with scientology, or televangelists (another big one). In fact there is also articles there about almighty god presence in our schools and government. But I understand why you'd want them dismissed.

I don't want anything dismissed, I want you to quote the relevant parts. We have already seen that your claims that:

a) Federal taxes subsidise prayer in Public schools is false.
b) US Presidents are not required to swear in any religious text.

His motives are unimportant to me. What he is saying is. Miss ad hominem.
For now I only care for the scum of the scum. Churches. If you want to also talk about others go ahead make a thread.

What he is saying is clear, "force all churches to recognise gay-marriage or remove their non-profit status".

Like I said. I don't care you or the president expressing their faith. Don't do it in official, federally-funded events. Swear without mentioning god on the official event. Go home and make another event with your own money (incidentally, take god out of the money as well) and pray all you want. Do you think it would be appropriate for the US press secretary to end his address to the press like "and by the way, I love coca cola"? Off-course not (and this is one of the MANY things that makes Trump such a shitty choice for president because he violates this). So why would a god be any different.

Federal-funded events, federal-funded buildings, federal-funded salaries....So public officials cannot express their religious faith anywhere since they are likely to be within a federal-funded building receiving a federal-funded salary within a federally-funded event. The US Constitution is clear, it does not protect and it does not prohibit. You want to prohibit; which violates the very Freedom of Speech clause you are supposedly defending.

Most of that are statements not questions. The only question is "how are you going to eliminate them" and I already addressed that.Having an argument with a religious person takes quite a lot of energy! No wonder people like Richard Dawkins have made millions of this!

Indeed it does, your atheist religion is preventing you from addressing the important argument you have made. You persist on wanting to eliminate religion allegedly without persecuting anybody and without undermining anyone's freedom of speech.

You have made an argument which claims that:

If the "In God we trust" were removed from the dollar bills and churches lost their tax-exempt status, religion would be eliminated.

You also claimed that Presidents should be forbidden from declaring their religion in public events and you also falsely claimed that federal-taxes subsidise prayers at public-schools.

Even if for the sake of argument we accept your President argument and your erroneous prayer arguments, you still have to show that this is enough to eliminate religion, when we know that states who actually tried to eliminate religion by severely persecuting their adherents and they still did not manage to and you are pretending that you are going to do it without stepping on anyone's rights?

[Besoeker]

No, you did not. In fact, you completely avoided anwering the question.

"No" is about as direct as I can be. Did you miss that?

[Pants-of-dog]

"No" is about as direct as I can be. Did you miss that?

So you no longer believe that atheism is just a lack of belief. Excellent.

[Besoeker]

So you no longer believe that atheism is just a lack of belief.

I don't see how you can colude that but is incorrect.

[Pants-of-dog]

You answered no when I asked you if you still believe that. So I guess you still believe your incorrect generalisation.

[Besoeker]

You answered no when I asked you if you still believe that.

It isn't what you asked.

[Pants-of-dog]

It isn't what you asked.

Yes, I definitely asked that.

Were you responding to another question?

[Besoeker]

Yes, I definitely asked that.

Post your question again. Verbatim. Word for word. Pretty please.

[Pants-of-dog]

Post your question again. Verbatim. Word for word. Pretty please.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=167530&start=240#p14759864

....

Do you still think that all atheists have only a lack of belief? Yes or no?

[Besoeker]

https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=167530&start=240#p14759864

Still no.

[Pants-of-dog]

So I guess you still believe your incorrect generalisation.

[Besoeker]

So I guess you still believe your incorrect generalisation.

I don't.

[Pants-of-dog]

So you no longer believe atheism is just a lack of belief?

[Besoeker]

So you no longer believe atheism is just a lack of belief?

An absence of belief.

[Pants-of-dog]

So you no longer believe atheism is just an absence of belief. Got it.