Dear Christians, Dear Atheists

[Uriel999]

Christians you need to stop correlating all atheists with being communists. Atheists, you need to stop correlating all Christians with being neocons. The belittling on BOTH sides needs to stop.

Not only are we who post here on the same side, think about how many people who visit the forum immediately run away when they see the snide and belittling remarks from both sides demeaning people just because of their faith or lack thereof. We have real problems opposing liberty.

You want to maintain religious debate? Well we need to protect the 1st amendment. To make sure we protect the first amendment we need to unite and not only protect opposing opinions but also make sure we protect the 2nd. Want to protect the 3rd? 4th? 5th? ETC all of these natural liberties recognized by the constitution can easily be legally taken away by us (and the rest of the USA) not working TOGETHER to protect each other. You all have heard by now the classic phrase "1st they came for the communist, but I didn't speak up because I was not a..."

You get the point. STFU with these divisive religious debates and focus on liberty. I have been guilty of this in the past, but consider this, those who enjoy your belittling divisive comments...what if your asshole comments were now illegal? Get over your arrogance for having the "right" metaphysical beliefs as far as religion and philosophy go. You may be right, you may be wrong, but wasting all your time tickling your balls because you "KNOW" you are right and the other asshole is wrong is not promoting liberty...Promotion of liberty is the purpose of this forum. If you want to discuss religion FIND ANOTHER FORUM TO DO SO. There are many of them. If you want to promote and discuss liberty, welcome home.

[disorderlyvision]

..

[sevin]

Jesus loves you. ;)

[Uriel999]

So you are saying we need to protect the first amendment, by NOT exercising our right to free speech. yeah, that makes perfect sense

Way to not catch the gist of the message. The idea is to stop the destructive and divisive bickering by coming together on the ideas we do agree with and actually do something productive. Do you realize how these polarizing threads also serve to dissuade new members from joining because they see individuals posting incendiary remarks by people bashing their particular views of faith or lack thereof?

This forum is here for the advocation of liberty, not religious debate. Get on focus. If you desire religious debate www.google.com will help you find plenty of forums devoted to that.

If you really believe in liberty then you can can accept and coexist with people with different beliefs. The first step towards doing so is on this forum.

Oh and interestingly enough, seeing how this is a privately owned forum your first amendment rights do not actually apply here. If Josh and Bryan so choose they could heavily moderate and rid of all of the divisive religious threads. However, they love permitting as much freedom of speech as possible. I am simply asking you to self moderate yourself and don't be rude or demeaning to others who have differing views of religion and the metaphysical for your own self-aggrandizement.

So once again as seeing as this forum is devoted to advocating and promoting liberty for all, why not actually focus on issues that matter instead of these back and forth endless debates.

[torchbearer]

if you are here to divide you should be permanently IP banned.

[LibertyEagle]

Good idea, Uriel.

[Kotin]

I am with ya, Uriel.

[disorderlyvision]

..

[disorderlyvision]

..

[Uriel999]

That is not what you are advocating

Yes, advocating respect of others opinions is incredibly fascist. :rolleyes:

[sevin]

I don't understand why we can't argue about religion but still unite for liberty.

[Objectivist]

Bill Clinton is a christian so any idiot can be one. Obama is too.

[Original_Intent]

I believe in worshiping God according to the dictates of my own conscience and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how. where, or what they wish.

I believe individual communities can set up whatever standards they wish as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. While the Constitution bars the establishment of a state religion, I believe a community can be set up that establishes a common belief system of all it's members. i.e. you can have a community where everyone is Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Satanist, Atheist, Agnostic, or Wiccan. As long as they are not practicing anything that violates anyone's rights (i.e. child sacrifice, forced marriage of minors,etc) there is nothing wrong with a community that the members voluntarily enter into a binding agreement of their belief system. I am not saying that would be an ideal way of setting up a community, just that there is nothing wrong with doing so for people who only want to associate with others of a common belief.

I think the RPF community should agree to be at the very least respectful of the diversity of beliefs here. Lots on both sides don't do that. One of the biggest things that kill the freedom movement is many people desire to demonstrate that they have the freedom to do something. An example are the people that argue that they should have the right to walk around in their back yard naked. I'll grant you that you have that right, but it is also a pretty lousy neighbor that would do so just to make a point that he had the right to do it, with no regard for how his or her neighbors felt about it.

The flying spaghetti monster posts, the posts with Christ breaking the cross and saying "F*** this I am outta here." and the "all homosexual's should be killed" posts do nothing to forward our freedom, they just make us look like crackpots to the average person that might be checking the forums out for the first time. People that make such posts, if they are not agent provocatuers or moles, it is certainly hard to conceive of a mole who could do anything more damaging to our stated purpose.

And there is certainly nothing wrong with reasoned debate about religion, homosexuality, abortion, drugs or any of the other hot button issues of the day. It is great to learn from lot's of different perspectives, and it is even appropriate if things get somewhat heated when we are discussing something that we feel passionate about. But the only people who should be made to feel unwelcome here, <IMHO>, are those who are clearly not supportive of liberty, and are clearly only here to "upset the apple cart". Sure they have the freedom to say whatever they want, but let them say it elsewhere. This is why I still regret the banning of Truth Warrior - yes he could be a distraction, yes his idea of liberty did not always match up with mine BUT I do believe he was an honest seeker of liberty, and he presented interesting insights. But that is just my opinion and I don't run the boards. :)

I hope we can all learn to get along and not try to drive people away over differences. The miracle of the Ron Paul Revolution was that people of such varied political and other beliefs could put all of that aside and fight together for liberty - we need to continue that miracle if we are going to save our country and our freedom.

[Uriel999]

i believe in worshiping god according to the dictates of my own conscience and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how. Where, or what they wish.

I believe individual communities can set up whatever standards they wish as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. While the constitution bars the establishment of a state religion, i believe a community can be set up that establishes a common belief system of all it's members. I.e. You can have a community where everyone is roman catholic, southern baptist, mormon, jehovah's witness, satanist, atheist, agnostic, or wiccan. As long as they are not practicing anything that violates anyone's rights (i.e. Child sacrifice, forced marriage of minors,etc) there is nothing wrong with a community that the members voluntarily enter into a binding agreement of their belief system. I am not saying that would be an ideal way of setting up a community, just that there is nothing wrong with doing so for people who only want to associate with others of a common belief.

I think the rpf community should agree to be at the very least respectful of the diversity of beliefs here. Lots on both sides don't do that. One of the biggest things that kill the freedom movement is many people desire to demonstrate that they have the freedom to do something. An example are the people that argue that they should have the right to walk around in their back yard naked. I'll grant you that you have that right, but it is also a pretty lousy neighbor that would do so just to make a point that he had the right to do it, with no regard for how his or her neighbors felt about it.

The flying spaghetti monster posts, the posts with christ breaking the cross and saying "f*** this i am outta here." and the "all homosexual's should be killed" posts do nothing to forward our freedom, they just make us look like crackpots to the average person that might be checking the forums out for the first time. People that make such posts, if they are not agent provocatuers or moles, it is certainly hard to conceive of a mole who could do anything more damaging to our stated purpose.

And there is certainly nothing wrong with reasoned debate about religion, homosexuality, abortion, drugs or any of the other hot button issues of the day. It is great to learn from lot's of different perspectives, and it is even appropriate if things get somewhat heated when we are discussing something that we feel passionate about. But the only people who should be made to feel unwelcome here, <imho>, are those who are clearly not supportive of liberty, and are clearly only here to "upset the apple cart". Sure they have the freedom to say whatever they want, but let them say it elsewhere. This is why i still regret the banning of truth warrior - yes he could be a distraction, yes his idea of liberty did not always match up with mine but i do believe he was an honest seeker of liberty, and he presented interesting insights. But that is just my opinion and i don't run the boards. :)

i hope we can all learn to get along and not try to drive people away over differences. The miracle of the ron paul revolution was that people of such varied political and other beliefs could put all of that aside and fight together for liberty - we need to continue that miracle if we are going to save our country and our freedom.

+1000

[acptulsa]

Yeah I got the gist of your message, and I summarized it quite nicely.

I call b.s. It was a crappy summary and it was rude as hell. There's two definitions of the word 'nicely' where you fail.


put on your big boy pants, this is a political forum, you are bound to run into conversations bout....politics, philosophy, and even religion because it has a big influence on politics.

Why don't you put on your big boy pants and admit to yourself that your opinion isn't always constructive, and if it isn't constructive there's no reason in the world to give air to it. Because that's true of all of us.


it is really sad how you guys nit pick everything. "you cant say that! it is bad for the movemnet" "Hey that is not 100% stuck up Ron Paul's ass therefore it has no place here" "people shouldn't open carry it is bad for the movement" "its private property." "all these conspiracy nutjobs are bad for the movement, our masters in the government are far to benevolent to stoop that low." "anarchist are bad" "athiest are bad" "muslims are bad" "your momma"

And accusing someone of being this faith or that in complete ignorance (as I was the other day) is better than nitpicking? And overgeneralizing issues as you have about ten times in one paragraph isn't sad?


You seem to only pay lip service to freedom and liberty. you are just as bad as the opposition. you are for it as long as it is your version of it.

Either that or we're trying to put together a political movement here that is inclusive, not exclusive, and which converts people before it alienates them. And, who knows? Maybe we should even try to get people educated before we alienate them...


Yes, advocating respect of others opinions is incredibly fascist. :rolleyes:

This. Do we or do we not believe that we should fight to the death to defend a person's right to say something, whether we agree with it or not? And if we believe this, why would we show disrespect for a person for having an opinion we don't agree with? Everyone's life experience is different, and most people are deserving of some respect. More to the point, you don't know from one post on a message board if someone is deserving of that respect or not.

So, unless you're incredibly insecure in your life philosophy, you should be able to put on your 'big boy pants' and have respect for the unique life philosophies of others. And if you are that insecure in your life philosophy, maybe just maybe you should stop flaming and listen, and see if you can either get secure or get one that actually works, no?

"Hunt out and talk about the good that is in the other fellow's church, not the bad, and you will do away with all this religious hatred you hear so much of nowadays."--Will Rogers 1923

"We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others."--Will Rogers 1923

No one's advocating a curtailment of discussion here. What is being advocated is comity and respect. What the hell is wrong with those things?

[Theocrat]

Christians you need to stop correlating all atheists with being communists. Atheists, you need to stop correlating all Christians with being neocons. The belittling on BOTH sides needs to stop.

Not only are we who post here on the same side, think about how many people who visit the forum immediately run away when they see the snide and belittling remarks from both sides demeaning people just because of their faith or lack thereof. We have real problems opposing liberty.

You want to maintain religious debate? Well we need to protect the 1st amendment. To make sure we protect the first amendment we need to unite and not only protect opposing opinions but also make sure we protect the 2nd. Want to protect the 3rd? 4th? 5th? ETC all of these natural liberties recognized by the constitution can easily be legally taken away by us (and the rest of the USA) not working TOGETHER to protect each other. You all have heard by now the classic phrase "1st they came for the communist, but I didn't speak up because I was not a..."

You get the point. STFU with these divisive religious debates and focus on liberty. I have been guilty of this in the past, but consider this, those who enjoy your belittling divisive comments...what if your asshole comments were now illegal? Get over your arrogance for having the "right" metaphysical beliefs as far as religion and philosophy go. You may be right, you may be wrong, but wasting all your time tickling your balls because you "KNOW" you are right and the other asshole is wrong is not promoting liberty...Promotion of liberty is the purpose of this forum. If you want to discuss religion FIND ANOTHER FORUM TO DO SO. There are many of them. If you want to promote and discuss liberty, welcome home.

I think you're missing the point. All of the discussions on these forums are religious in nature because each of them stem from the individual's personal worldview about politics, economics, ethics, or whatever the case may be. The two major ones on these forums just happen to be Christian and "atheist" in nature. You're assuming the myth of neutrality when you say we can discuss things like liberty, government, and activism without utilizing a religious tone about them. However, I want to suggest that no human is neutral when he or she discusses any issue, especially those previoulsy mentioned. What one considers to be "liberty" (for example) will ultimately be based on that person's underlying beliefs and assumptions for what liberty is as well as why it should be goal for everyone. That is why we constantly have debates on here about various subjects because people do not share the same views concerning them. So then it becomes impossible to not have any religious undertones involved when having discussions in threads about liberty, government, activism, etc.

I do agree with you that we should be respectful and rational when we argue against the opposing side's view on a given subject. Oftentimes, it's not what is being said that is at issue, but how it is being said. Nonetheless, we should never forget that our religious views (Christians and "atheists" alike) will inevitably come out whenever we seek to explain the topics and subjects which are common on these forums. Sure, sometimes a subject is derailed because someone wishes to make a statement or make someone upset, but the subject which is derailed is still going to be religious. When you tell us that we should find another forum to discuss religious matters and have debates, that sentiment is itself influenced by your own religious views coincerning what the nature of conversation should be on these forums. Yet, somehow you seem to take that for granted.

[jmdrake]

Yeah I got the gist of your message, and I summarized it quite nicely. You know what I do... I tend to IGNORE those threads.

put on your big boy pants, this is a political forum, you are bound to run into conversations bout....politics, philosophy, and even religion because it has a big influence on politics.

it is really sad how you guys nit pick everything. "you cant say that! it is bad for the movemnet" "Hey that is not 100% stuck up Ron Paul's ass therefore it has no place here" "people shouldn't open carry it is bad for the movement" "its private property." "all these conspiracy nutjobs are bad for the movement, our masters in the government are far to benevolent to stoop that low." "anarchist are bad" "athiest are bad" "muslims are bad" "your momma"

You seem to only pay lip service to freedom and liberty. you are just as bad as the opposition. you are for it as long as it is your version of it.

People have a first amendment right to be rude. The OP has a first amendment right to ask them not to be rude. You have a first amendment right to express the fact that you don't care what he thinks.

I agree that no topics should be off the table. I think the self censorship some have tried to impose was more counterproductive then the speech they were trying to prevent. But I do think we'd be better served if we discussed these topics more civilly. And I'm putting myself in that "we". I know it's tough sometimes. It's not just the subject matter. A lot of discussions that have beocome arguments would have been more civil done in person. Then again someone did recently get his finger bit off at a health care rally.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[phill4paul]

I got into a coupla religious debates a while back. Not gonna happen again.
In fact this is the first religious themed thread I've posted on in a while.
This will probably also be my last for awhile.

[Uriel999]

I think you're missing the point. All of the discussions on these forums are religious in nature because each of them stem from the individual's personal worldview about politics, economics, ethics, or whatever the case may be. The two major ones on these forums just happen to be Christian and "atheist" in nature. You're assuming the myth of neutrality when you say we can discuss things like liberty, government, and activism without utilizing a religious tone about them. However, I want to suggest that no human is neutral when he or she discusses any issue, especially those previoulsy mentioned. What one considers to be "liberty" (for example) will ultimately be based on that person's underlying beliefs and assumptions for what liberty is as well as why it should be goal for everyone. That is why we constantly have debates on here about various subjects because people do not share the same views concerning them. So then it becomes impossible to not have any religious undertones involved when having discussions in threads about liberty, government, activism, etc.

I do agree with you that we should be respectful and rational when we argue against the opposing side's view on a given subject. Oftentimes, it's not what is being said that is at issue, but how it is being said. Nonetheless, we should never forget that our religious views (Christians and "atheists" alike) will inevitably come out whenever we seek to explain the topics and subjects which are common on these forums. Sure, sometimes a subject is derailed because someone wishes to make a statement or make someone upset, but the subject which is derailed is still going to be religious. When you tell us that we should find another forum to discuss religious matters and have debates, that sentiment is itself influenced by your own religious views coincerning what the nature of conversation should be on these forums. Yet, somehow you seem to take that for granted.

I agree with you overall on your statement, and with what I do disagree with I see your perspective and where you are coming from. That is fantastic and all well and good, I was just angry by time I was concluding the thread and just a bit fed up. I've just in the last several months really realized that many of us (myself included) really need to mature and grow up. Society is finally starting to pay some attention to us. They are listening. We need to polish up our speaking skills, our conversational skills, become even more educated on the issues we face today so that we can simplify complex subjects for people. If we cannot be civil amongst our brethren, how can we deal with others?

[tremendoustie]

duplicate

[tremendoustie]

So you are saying we need to protect the first amendment, by NOT exercising our right to free speech. yeah, that makes perfect sense

Did he advocate the government arresting people for what they say? No, he did not.

1st amendment: Congress shall make no law.

Advocating that people do not speak foolishly is not advocating for a violation of the free speech clause of the first amendment, any more than trying to convince people not to join the KKK would be advocating for a violation of the free association clause. In fact, even if he supported permabans for anyone mentioning anything religious, it wouldn't be support for a violation of the first amendment, because the admins are not congress, and this is private property. I would hope people here could get the difference ...