Je Suis Charlie

You have spun off. I am irritated in the extreme. You have put arguments to me with which I have none. You have put arguments to me with which I have many. All I can see is a cloud of obfuscation.
Communism - where are you going now? I don't think most communist subjects past or present care much of the practice?
Well done - if reducing the thread to your developing mind was your mission - you've succeeded.

Cheers Womble - back on topic at last! A less biased website - more directed at the 'good' christian clergy are dealing to children.
clergygonewild.com

Cynosure -it becomes clear. You are a student. Welcome to the world. Stop talking and start listening . Unless you are studying politics or any of the humanities in which case you are obliged to be opinionated for things you have no concept.

Chunky, you've argued that the practice of religion should be banned. "Why should there be a right to religious practice? Belief - yes - but practice - no."

I've criticised this, from the get go - " in preventing people from practicing their religion (which would also involve prayer, preaching, congregation, pilgrimage, the giving of alms or charity (such as zakat or a tithe), reading or discussing their religion) you would be limiting their freedom of speech."

I have made this clear several times. This is what I'm discussing, because #JeSuisCharlie is entirely about promoting the freedom of speech (all speech) including that which evidently makes Muslims uncomfortable.

I have given this argument to you in several forms, including it's most raw form, and every time you haven't stopped to consider or debate my position. You've not made a single effort in several posts, even when made desperately clear to you that, in my view, your view is essentially draconian. Instead of responding to any criticism of your view with any argument, you chose instead to self-fellate yourself with how much you hate religion, re: "religionofpeace.com; clergygonewild.com".

You're entitled to hate religion, you're entitled to state that. I'm just attempting to better understand your view, which I think I've been quite clear about. The only avoidance I see here is from you. You should work as a spin doctor.

You are now, also, reducing yourself to ad hominem, which is absolutely pathetic. If I were to say, "chunkymonkey, it becomes clear. You are a fisherman. Stop talking and start listening, etc." You would reply with "As a human being with experience and understanding of the matter, I also have a view." But you have made it clear. You are euphoric.

Chunky's argument is full of more holes than Henry's buckey, dear Liza.

1. The main problem is that Chunky is building his entire argument from the fallacy of the single cause: since religion is unfounded by scientific reason and is detrimental to society due to religious-inspired violence, religious practice should be banned by government. More simply stated -- practicing religion causes ignorance and violence.

I shouldn't even need to argue this, as I pointed out already how deeply complex this cycle of violence is intertwined with politics, not just religion. But there are of course also cultural and linguistic boundaries that have established roots as well. Banning religious practice would do little to solve the violence, as it is only one of many causes.

2. The remainder of your claims are rooted in ad hominem attacks against "defenders of religion" who disagree with you, suppose a moral high ground, proof by assertion (and argumentum ad nauseam) and make special pleading that somehow freedom of religious practice is unrelated to freedom of speech. This is special pleading because it is generally agreed upon that religious practice falls under the category of free expression, which falls under the category of free speech. You cannot limit one without intrinsically limiting the other.

3. Finally I would note that your viewpoint is also plagued by the Pyschologist's fallacy. Somehow you make these arguments from the assertion that your view of the behavioral phenomena at play in this complicated issue is objectively unbiased. This is false, as you have made obvious biases apparent in your reduction of the complexity of these social behaviors (i.e. violence, religious practice, etc.) and this bias is that you are clearly anti-theist. As such, your view of the underlying causes and resolutions of said social behaviors is not objective although you argue from the stance that they are.

At the end of the day, you are simply wrong and for someone who seems to want to champion an argument under the pretense that scientific reason and critical thinking are superior to religious practice because they do not incite violence, your argument is ironically severely lacking in both scientific reasoning and critical thought.

Furthermore, Cynosure's point about Communism is 100% on topic, because Communist nations such as the former USSR and China have put into practice the exact religious repression strategies you reason here. Those practices of banning religious practice within ethnic minority communities or states, as demonstrated in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere, failed to do more than temporarily put a stay to widespread violence due more to the boot of State police than the actual repression itself. Upon the fall of the Iron Curtain, Yugoslavia errupted once again into ethnio-political violence with a fervor, demonstrating that not only is your argument critically unsound, it has proved ineffective through historical practice.

You both seem to think that the freedom of speech encompasses every freedom. The freedom to practice religion at least in the UK - is listed thus :-Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
I am not attacking free speech. I am attacking the cause of social unrest and division. You needn't look as far as Yugoslavia for an example of religious intolerance. Northern Ireland is a closer to home example.
The right to practice religion in the theatre of Northern Ireland is in the eye of the Loyalist - the right to march along contentious routes through Nationalist estates. Attempts have been made to curb these processions. A 'parades commission' was set up that weighs the pros and cons of each march and has final say on their go ahead.
Slowly - the marching season is becoming less of an issue.
If the right to freedom to do anything is beyond debate and total - then you don't have utopia - you have anarchy.
I've pasted the link to Richard Dawkins documentary below. If you don't find the interview with faith school students highly disturbing and think this is perfectly acceptable under 'freedom of speech', then you are not an advocate, you are an enemy of freedom you are trying to protect.
http://documentaryheaven.com/richard-dawkins-faith-school-menace/
Let's start by banning faith schools.

You guys are just wasting time. By the way, who's Charlie and what has happened? I don't watch the news a lot.

Cynosure - you are complaining that I haven't acknowledged the good that religion does. I did - I am cynical that help is offered under the guise of religion. I also contend that help does not outweigh the negative aspects.
One 'help' that springs to mind is the refusal of the Catholic Church to endorse the use of condoms to help battle the spread of Aids. That policy has cost millions of lives.
Ever seen a missionary operate in Africa? You can have education but you must convert. to Christianity.
It seems that you think if people stopped worshipping, they would stop caring. That there would be no charity. What a horrible thought! If you truly hold that view - you are insulting me. I don't need a god to do right.
When I said you were sitting on the fence - I meant with regard to your claim of being Agnostic.
My ad hominem attack was thrown because I grew tired of your endless debate - which is why I acknowledged the fact you were a student. Yes you can have an opinion butit is experience that gives your opinion depth.