Sparhafoc wrote:

thenexttodie wrote:I agree. The problem is that people like you tend to force people to send their childern to secular or state run schools.

People like me, thenexttodie?

And what kind of people are they?

Have you been going through my dustbins? If not, if you don't have some special access to my inner thoughts, or a functional crystal ball... perhaps you might want to try asking me what I think rather than telling me. Unless, of course, you just enjoy rehearsing prejudice publicly.

Yes I know its annoying when people do this. Happens to me all the time.

thenexttodie wrote:How would you force schools to submit to your views concerning educational guidelines?

Errr... all schools already do submit to educational guidelines imposed by the department of education - in fact, they are obligated to follow a pre-designed curriculum. That's how schools work - normalizing and standardizing knowledge.

thenexttodie wrote:Yes I know its annoying when people do this. Happens to me all the time.

I am supposed to take that as an apology then?

Visaki wrote:Short answer: Yes.

(Waiting for theist screams to die out).

As I was weeding my carrots and listening Seth Andrews' (The Thinking Atheist, whatever he might say) podcast about punching Nazis an idea came to me; In a secular world view religion should have no special treatment. Freedom of religion is a special treatment since it elevates religion above other ideas and ideologies giving it a special privilege. In a world where we strive for equality Freedom of religion is not equal, but it discriminates against other ideologies. So instead of Freedom of religion we should have Freedom of ideology. My opinion that religions are a special case of ideologies should be self evident.

Can you imagine a World where religious people try to explain why they can wear a turban/ cross/ hijab etc but the Nazi can't wear his swastika armband?

P.S. Everyone should have a mandatory vegetable patch. That would be the first thing I would decree as The Ultimate Emperor of All of Mankind.

Which atheistic state would you like to live in, where there is no real freedom of religion?

thenexttodie wrote:Which atheistic state would you like to live in, where there is no real freedom of religion?

As I've said, and clarified a few times, my argument is that we shouldn't have "freedom of religion" as a thing, but "freedom of ideology" that also covers religions as they are ideologies.

That being said I would like to live in a secular state, not an atheistic one.

thenexttodie wrote:Which atheistic state would you like to live in, where there is no real freedom of religion?

There are no atheistic states. Never have been, probably never will be. A state where people do not put religion into primacy is a secular state, and one of the key historical descriptions of secular states is their equitable treatment of all religious groups, favouring none. This is exactly akin to the oft-repeated error by theists that atheism is a position that has arguments, rather than simply being 'not theism' as it truly means.

Of course, you can point to Stalin or Pol Pot and try to pretend that they are atheistic states, or say that this shows something essential about secular states, but then you'd have to ignore the clear political ideology repeatedly stated by the relevant states explaining why they did X, and that motivation for doing X is not what you are talking about, so is irrelevant.

Instead, when we look at secular states, we see the most efficient, modern, and humane states in the world. Nordic countries, for example.