Freedom from religion is a human right

[sunshine11]

Glacier, I am getting the feeling that you are not reading nor comprehending what I am saying here, or are being facetious.

I repeat, BECAUSE it is obviously a serious problem around the world. Banning "coercion" would be akin to banning stupidity or a war on terrorism, impossible impractible and subject to all kinds of abuses. How could a police officer operate if coercion was removed from his toolkit? Could you legally jail anyone if such a thing existed? Facepalm

[coffeeFreak]

*off-topic/Jo*

[grammafreddy]

*off-topic/Jo*

[cliffy1]

*off-topic/Jo*

[Sneaksuit]

Sunshine, I'm pickin up what your puttin down but I agree with Glacier's sarcastic? remark "why stop at religious coercion". Shouldn't we abolish all superstitious ideological coercion, such as Harper's religious-like beliefs that tougher sentencing reduces crime or that marijuana is bad? Any policy not grounded in science or academia in general is just belief, and therefore religious.

[sunshine11]

"Unfortunately the UN has about much power as Queen has on Canada.... all symbolic that's it, with few puppet masters USA, Russia & China... minor role Great Britain"

(This was PM-ed to me by someone who would prefer to remain anonymous. I feel the comment is relevant and significant to the conversation, so I posted it here with their permission.)

[sunshine11]

This post was removed by the author since it contained formating that users here thought excessive (using coloured text).

[kibbs]

Should we ban parents from passing on their religion onto children.Should we take away everyones right to the congregate in a spiritual way .
I think it was tried in communist Russia and religion came back with such a vengeance they put kitty riot in jail.
I think the words go "God keep our land glorious and FREE.Oh Canada we stand on guard for thee."

[sunshine11]

deleted by

[Glacier]

Sunshine, tell us about the last time you were coerced.

[sunshine11]

This post was removed by the author since it did not meet posting rules (contained all caps)

[Sneaksuit]

Sneaksuit, please reread my answer to Glacier, as the reply is the same to your position. I appreciate that you "get" what I am putting down. But how does a real response to a real world-wide problem compare to some facetious war on nouns or banning silliness?

Sunshine, I understand your frustration of unclear language with this issue.

I agree with the problems you mention of people suffering and dying because of other people's religious beliefs. No doubt it should be stopped and it can't happen fast enough. The point I was making about political parties forcing their unfounded beliefs on citizens is as serious because it too results in much suffering and death. But judging by posts in this forum where religion is relentlessly attacked, this is often overlooked because many of the same posters defend Canada's politics in their next post in a different forum.

[Captain Awesome]

Or am I allowed to argue for the HUMAN RIGHTS of ALL people in this world?

Is anyone arguing AGAINST human rights of all people in this world?

[sunshine11]

This post was removed by the author since it did not meet posting rules (contained all caps) and contained formatting that users here thought excessive (using Blood Red coloured text).

Sorry. Without support, I'll take my ideas elsewhere.

[Sneaksuit]

Okay, I'll bite: Banning political discourse is silly. Just because it is "not grounded in science or academia in general" does not mean it should be banned.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth, banning political discourse was not mentioned.

Harper was elected to represent his party's platform to the citizens of Canada,[/u] so his position on imprisonment and marijuana is legitimate, if foolish.

Ofcourse Harper's position is legitimate but only because it's legal. What's your point? Does the legal and thus legitimate suffering and death caused by other people's religious beliefs make you content? Legitimacy in the sense of legality is and always has been irrelevant to change.

Do we ban foolishness?

Not foolishness, but as I truly said "unfounded", "superstitious" policies. How is that distinct from your view of religious belief?