Five minutes of hate news

No it’s prohibited by YOUR interpretation of the constitution.

We could just interpret it in a new way where we divide beliefs into cults and religions religious beliefs like Christianity Judaism Islam and Buddhism would be protected, while cult beliefs like satanism or Scientology could be banned.
Define "Cult"
 
Utter rubbish. They do it because they want religion completely removed from any public spaces. So they want to be as annoying and offensive as possible until the public gets annoyed enough to ban everything just to stop them.

It's not in response to anything. Just edgy atheists larping as a offensive religion and thinking they are very clever by abusing the freedom of religion.
It is more than though.
In most places religion has already been banned, except satanism.
 
No it’s prohibited by YOUR interpretation of the constitution.

We could just interpret it in a new way where we divide beliefs into cults and religions religious beliefs like Christianity Judaism Islam and Buddhism would be protected, while cult beliefs like satanism or Scientology could be banned.

This is a very stupid idea. After all it can be used against Christianity since it’s against freedom.

After all true Christianity is not pro constitution, at best it’s neutral but you can argue it’s against it. Actual Christianity that isn’t some new weird Protestant heresy sees enlightenment beliefs as a compromise of society to have peace in diverse places so we don’t have wars killing each other for our sect. But it’s not a good virtue to support or defend the false religions of others.
Some sects of Christians would be labeled as cults, as would sects of Islam.
Then you get into that whole argument again.
Horrible way of thinking
 
That is an issue, who decides what is and isn't a cult?
The govt. genius.

Not everyone is a worthless cuck to "Muh modern interpretation of da constitution!"

Christians can support the govt. adopting their religion, it's not a sin to get power.

While many are condemning the beheading of the satanic statue by citing 'religious liberty', it's worth remembering the following from John Locke—aka "the father of liberalism"—in his Letter Concerning Toleration:

"Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist."

If the pioneer of liberalism and 'toleration' never thought for a second to legitimize atheism, then on what grounds do liberals, libertarians, neocons, etc. claim that defending satanism has any principled, historical support?
 
That is an issue, who decides what is and isn't a cult?
The smart way to do it is directly via supermajority vote.
if 80%+ of the voters say it is a cult, then it is one.

The stupid way to do it is to let the current beurocrats do it. Which will immediately be abused.

I should also note that you don't actually need to destroy the 1st amendment, just apply it equally. Currently satanism gets a pass while christianity is outright banned in any govt location due to "seperation of church and state" argument

There are literally examples of govt entities explicitly banning christians and allowing satanists
 
Probably going to start a fire by saying this, but any religion made post 1700's or something is just a retarded cult. Proper full-fledged religions started a REALLY long time ago and love em or hate em, they're part of traditions for many cultures.

But shit like mormonism and stuff? Jesus christ, stahp! And it goes without saying that 'satanism' is nonsense.
 
Probably going to start a fire by saying this, but any religion made post 1700's or something is just a retarded cult. Proper full-fledged religions started a REALLY long time ago and love em or hate em, they're part of traditions for many cultures.

But shit like mormonism and stuff? Jesus christ, stahp! And it goes without saying that 'satanism' is nonsense.
Age is a good indicator.
This also helps prevent perverse incentive.

Cult leaders create cults in order to exploit their worshippers for their money and 90%+ of the time for sex.

By having an age requirement it means that it can only become a religion after the founder is long dead and thus cannot receive any govt benefits that real religions get.
 
Hot take, but I think in public spaces/within the purview of the state, Christianity Uber Alles isn’t such a bad thing. Bi-cultural societies can only work if there is one dominant culture under which other cultures are permitted to prosper. In private, in their own communities they may do as they wish within reason, but it remains subordinate to the host culture (which they can roast on social media to their heart’s content).

The Constitution was written for a Christian Republic. Even if it tolerates other religions or views of the world, its institutions and public spaces should remain Christian on no uncertain terms.

TL;DR, worship your Gods as you will, but remember to Hail Caesar at the end of the day.
 
Yes also age means it won't need to much interpretation. So the bureaucrats can't use too much power. If it's over 100 yeas it gets religious protection. If it's under then the people can ban it and it will stay banned.
 
Probably going to start a fire by saying this, but any religion made post 1700's or something is just a retarded cult. Proper full-fledged religions started a REALLY long time ago and love em or hate em, they're part of traditions for many cultures.

But shit like mormonism and stuff? Jesus christ, stahp! And it goes without saying that 'satanism' is nonsense.
That would lead to a war with one of the most heavily armed populations in the US
 
Except you can't say it is a fake religion.
Without proof, snd any proof you use will be used against you
King, I don't need to send out my vivisected concept of a religion to figure this out. All religions need believers to exist in real life, and if it's impossible to understand and practice it at the same time because it's fake by its own admission, you can say that it's practiced in bad faith, then it's impossible for it to have believers. It's a practical joke instead of a belief system. The sect in question fits this definition, it's like Pastafarianism if it were based on horror movies instead of 2000s randumb jokes, so it's possible to throw it out of question without hurting any minorities.

That is an issue, who decides what is and isn't a cult?
The dictionary. And it says that all theistic religions and most atheistic ones are cults. If you're even drawing a line between a 'religion' and a 'cult' then you're perpetuating the same antitheistic ideas that lead to this conversation because you are using it as a slur. If you said 'only some black people are niggers' then you'd be called a racist because you're still using a racial slur. Because you're still using a worldview that is formed from a prejudice.
 
What is the definition of a religion and the definition of a cult?
Again, who is to decide in our government
?
did you just not read the therad?
several people here in the thread gave several different answers already.
including pointing out the issue of govt overreach and abuse. And methods to curtail it.

ultimately, we are discussing what is possibly a hypothetical constitutional amendment that would require a lot of careful though and hammering out.
and realistically is not going to even happen.

However, what we CAN do is start to apply things equally. as currently "seperation of church and state" only applies to christianity and nobody else.
 
did you just not read the therad?
several people here in the thread gave several different answers already.
including pointing out the issue of govt overreach and abuse. And methods to curtail it.

ultimately, we are discussing what is possibly a hypothetical constitutional amendment that would require a lot of careful though and hammering out.
and realistically is not going to even happen.

However, what we CAN do is start to apply things equally. as currently "seperation of church and state" only applies to christianity and nobody else.
And Vyor asked for examples
 
Hot take, but I think in public spaces/within the purview of the state, Christianity Uber Alles isn’t such a bad thing. Bi-cultural societies can only work if there is one dominant culture under which other cultures are permitted to prosper. In private, in their own communities they may do as they wish within reason, but it remains subordinate to the host culture (which they can roast on social media to their heart’s content).

The Constitution was written for a Christian Republic. Even if it tolerates other religions or views of the world, its institutions and public spaces should remain Christian on no uncertain terms.

TL;DR, worship your Gods as you will, but remember to Hail Caesar at the end of the day.

You speak of what I see as an envitable future which is ceasarism.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top