Cocaine itself is harmless. It's when people take too much of it and particularly when they act whilst high on it when it gets dangerous.

Religion in itself is equally as harmless. However, it's certainly a direct catalyst to a lot of the problems that still cripple the entire humanly populated globe.

There are bans on cocaine due to it's effect on the human body and actions, so in theory there can exist restrictions for religion.

Perhaps the slogan could be, 'Believe in moderation.' Or perhaps an Australian drink-driving campaign slogan rip-off, 'If you believe in miracles, you're a bloody idiot.'

Heheh, much more to the point, I feel.

BravoLima wrote:

QUOTE:
Cocaine itself is harmless. It's when people take too much of it and particularly when they act whilst high on it when it gets dangerous.
Religion in itself is equally as harmless. However, it's certainly a direct catalyst to a lot of the problems that still cripple the entire humanly populated globe.
There are bans on cocaine due to it's effect on the human body and actions, so in theory there can exist restrictions for religion.
Perhaps the slogan could be, 'Believe in moderation.' Or perhaps an Australian drink-driving campaign slogan rip-off, 'If you believe in miracles, you're a bloody idiot.'
Heheh, much more to the point, I feel.

Ridiculous as usual.

Religion is not a substance that you take. To treat it as if it were makes you look like a complete fool.

You cannot base laws on cocaine on what peoples perceptions are of it in the same way that you cannot base laws on religion on what 'amounts' people take.

That was a rubbish metaphor, I think you can thin of a better one.

Fucking hell, crampo.

Even a fool knows that you have to look for the similarities in a metaphor. Picking away at the differences defeats the point.

How about this metaphor.

People who are religious defend their religion like drug addicts defend their drug addiction.

No, no, ridiculous as usual, I bet.

The metaphor is fine, unfortunately they rest upon the ability, or in your case, inability to interpret them meaningfully.

BravoLima wrote:

QUOTE:

People who are religious defend their religion like drug addicts defend their drug addiction.

I agree with that statement.

So about coming up with a proper argument?

'So about coming up with a proper argument?'

For what?

for myself i would say that the major reason i've got difficulties settling on a religion is because most of em (save buhdists, and shinto) all tend to be intolerant of others 2 a degree and for me 2 say that they should be baned would be intolerance 2 the xtreme, thus making me a hypocrite. So although i do think that the world would be better off without religions ppl should come 2 that decision on their own. If there's 1 thing religion has tough moi it's that true understanding can't be forced upon some1.

Let others believe what they want to believe, just strictly enforce the separation of church and state. Turkey was doing very well with it, but they're having problems now, but it's not that hard to do, you just don't give religion any power.

Church and State, unfortunately, cannot be seperated. The Church's influence on society as a whole effects politician's decisions. The Church may inflict upon the politicians themselves, and do. Unfortunately, as long as there are major religious establishments broadcasting their sentiments and receiving a large audience, politicians - the biggest sheep of all - will fall in line.

No, we should not, because just as we have a right to be homosexual, they have a right to believe what they want.

Religion isn't the cause of problems, people are.

Well religion is indeed a personal right. But the word is personal. Personally if someone becomes a fundamentalist loony around me, I reserve the right to be the firm Atheist that I am. I think faith is a good thing to have, but NOT religious faith. Religious faith implies that you
have lack of confidence in life, and must resort to a higher power to achieve stability. The good kind of faith, is faith in a partner or friend to help achieve happiness. I would also argue that moderate religion fuels fundamentalism. I also believe that Buddhism is a beautiful faith to have, it is peaceful, and could not be defined as a true 'religion' at all. So on a personal level, I believe that religion should be allowed, but not on a widespread fundamentalist level.