Do we have the right to freedom from religion?

[The Wielding Truth]

I just had a cold call from a woman from a neighboring township who after saying her name and her general location asked me if I believed that there could be world peace. I was thrown because I knew this was a religious "grab you" question. I was so taken back that someone, I didn't know, could call me and question my religious beliefs. I told her that the question was too complicated and would involve my personal beliefs and I didn't wish to be grilled by someone who didn't know me on the phone. She went on about how the bible and I told her that I felt it was too personal and private to me. That it was as though she were asking my bedroom or bathroom habits. I said that she was wrong to push someone into answering a cosmic question only to fill in the blank with her views. My blood pressure is boiling.

Shouldn't we be free from religious harassment?

[Motown_Johnny]

1. Once people stop fighting over religions we could be on a path to world peace

if you had said that then maybe that would have thrown her


anytime someone questions your beliefs you should try and turn it around to question theirs

[speltwon]

15. Which is wrong imo

Religion is a means by which we often justify aggression against others. However, history has proven it neither sufficient nor necessary when it comes to govt.'s committing acts of war, genocide, etc.

There are certainly plenty of examples in recent history to contradict your claim

[Motown_Johnny]

29. I know governments have lots of reasons to go to war, not just religion

which is why I said that if we solved it "we could be on a path to world peace", not that in and of itself it would end all wars.


I just think that people who have decided they have all the answers need to be presented with some new questions. The question should have been turned around on her to see how she would respond.

[speltwon]

42. I revert to the South Park episode "Go God Go"

where in the future there are three societies of warring atheists fighting over what the true name of the Atheists should be. The satire cuts because it emphasizes that belief systems, cults of personality etc. are the result of these differences in searches for power etc, not the cause of them. Certainly, most religious people and most areligious people don't think they have all the answers, and many faiths and branches of faith strongly encourage a path of seeking wisdom and not just accepting rote words in a book. People who are confident they are right and won't listen to opposing viewpoints are always a danger, no matter what the viewpoint, and whether religiously based or not. If one thing is clear, it's that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in anybody's philosophy

[darkstar3]

120. The problem with that episode, and that mindset that "everyone does it",

is the fact that most who espouse atheism/skepticism are quite clear regarding the total tonnage of what they do not know.

BTW, that episode is merely an exercise in equal-opportunity shit-starting, hence its absurdity and poor writing.

[speltwon]

122. A very fair %age of them are quite clear in claiming they

KNOW that God doesn't exist, which is just as much a leap of faith as claiming you KNOW God exists.

Regardless,the fact is that the history eliminates any skepticism. Atheism didn't stop rapacious murderous fucksticks in any # of nations, including several "officially atheist" ones from engaging in the same kind of stuff that has been done in religion's name.

It's a pipe dream and a misunderstanding of human nature to think that if we rid ourselves of religion (and of course we couldn't do that w/o tyranny) that we would necessarily be ANY less violent.

[darkstar3]

125. Oh boy.

First, no one claimed that the human race would be less violent as a whole if we rid ourselves of religion, or at least, not in this subthread. However, the point that WAS made is borne out by history: Religion has been used frequently throughout much of written history as a method to make poor men, who have no real interest in wars for land or profit, to fight on the front lines for the warmongers. It is a tool used quite effectively to motivate people to violence and hatred.

Have you ever tried to perform carpentry without a hammer? Computer repair without a screwdriver? These things CAN be done, certainly, and the human race would find a way to continue building houses and repairing computers if there were suddenly some mandate against the use and manufacture of these tools, but when you TAKE the most effective tool out of a toolbox, you make the job more difficult. Do you see?

Secondly, there is a very CLEAR difference between the following claims:

1. I KNOW God (capital G, referring to the Abrahamic God of the Bible) doesn't exist.
2. I KNOW that there can't possible be any such being that could be described as god-like.

The God of the Bible is a logical contradiction and a clear impossibility, which is why so many people make shit up about him that isn't in the Bible.

[speltwon]

131. Oh boy back at ya

1) actually, the claim was made that " Once people stop fighting over religions we could be on a path to world peace" which is the point I was responding to. I disagree that by taking religion, your concept of the "most effective tool" away would make this fighting stuff any more difficult. And the 20th century proved that point, in the most emphatic way possible. As Columbians say "one learns best with blood".

2) The point I made was this. Many atheists state emphatically - I KNOW NO GOD EXISTS. No ambiguity there. Many theists say I KNOW GOD EXISTS. Those statements are equally a leap. Nobody knows.

Lots of theists, like lots of atheists occupy a ground away from the absolute knowledge of the "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" people and the "GOD EXISTS" people

I;m not talking about the God of any bible. Many atheists proclaim they know that no "higher power" exists, to put it in the most broad, generic terms.

[darkstar3]

133. I swear, sometimes I feel like DU is stuck in an infinite loop.

1. Feel free to disagree, but should you study the history of the wars that have happened since Hellenistic Greece, and especially since Rome, you will find a hard truth to accept. Religion is and has been an incredibly effective tool for motivating the masses to war. As for your claims regarding the 20th century, they have been answered time and again on DU. More times, in fact, than I care to count. Go and rehash that debate in one of those R/T threads, if you have the rigor.

2. Show me. Show me an atheist who has said what you are claiming. Then show me how you justify turning one statement you had to scour for into a generalization about the atheist POV.

[speltwon]

138. I have the rigor

and I have yet to see any point made that comes remotely close to negating the point about the 20th century. It would be entirely reasonable, albeit it would be wrong, to assume prior to all the crap that happened this century to believe that "if only there were no religion" that everything would just be hunky dory. I prefer to occupy the reality based community, thanks.

Show you?

ok. Dawkins:
We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
Richard Dawkins

if you deny the existence of ANY god, as he does above, you are saying no God exists. And of course there's my friend David. Who has told me numerous times he is certain there is no kind of God whatsoever.

You are seriously denying that some people deny the possibility of any sort of god whatsoever? Really?

[darkstar3]

140. Sure you do.

That's why you confused this century with the twentieth. That's why you attributed to Dawkins a quote that he took from Stephen Roberts. That's why you use anecdotal evidence to support your claim to "a very fair %age".

Sure...rigor...

I don't deny that there are so-called Strong Atheists. I simply deny that they make up any respectable minority, let alone a majority, as you claim, and further believe that their statements AND rhetoric are often misunderstood and taken out of context for the political gain of believers. You certainly aren't doing anything to disabuse me of that idea.

[JonLP24]

172. One of the creaters

said he found the science explanation of "why we are here" as the most full of shit out of all the religions explanations. Not surprising he would come up with an episode like that.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

78. Govt's only go to war for resources. Every war ever fought was over resources, they just clothe....

them in religion

[buzzard]

118. My thoughts exactly. n/t

[LAGC]

96. If everyone converted to one world religion, wouldn't we then have peace?

Now we just have to figure out which religion...

[darkstar3]

121. Tell that to the Christians.

They're all the same religion, but many minor sects seem to believe they're the only ones heaven-bound. It's REALLY funny to listen to Southern Baptists talk about Lutherans and Methodists.

But then, maybe you meant that everyone should convert to one SECT of one religion? If that's the case, may I recommend Lutheranism? Oh, it's crazy, sure, but the amount of beer consumed worldwide should be enough to create jobs for decades.

[NYC Liberal]

2. I like to tell those people that yes, I do believe their god exists, but

that I refuse to worship or love it...same with Jesus. And that I know I will be punished in hell but I don't care because I'm standing up for what's right...and don't we praise those who stood up to Hitler even it meant being punished or killed?

Let them figure out how to deal with THAT one.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC Liberal]

104. Yep, if a liberal supports Obama well they just must not be a liberal!

You know, I heard the same sort of thing from Republicans after Bush's approval ratings really went to shit. "Oh well he's not REALLY a conservative." Now it's "Liberal Democrats overwhelmingly support Obama? Well they're not REALLY liberals."

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slay]

135. Well at least we know

you are a fan of censorship. How LIBERAL of you. EOM.

[Coyote_Bandit]

3. I Just Tell these Assholes

that I respect their right to believe whatever they choose and that I expect they will extend me the same right. Then I either close the door or walk away or hang up on them.

Engaging them is a waste of time.

[The Wielding Truth]

18. I've had them come to the door before but never had them call. I was not prepared.

Thanks for the post. I was thinking that I was the only one and this was a new thing.

[Rebubula]

4. One phone call = Harrassment?

Just checking the parameters.

Hang up - tell her to piss off - tell stories of sexual exploits - just have fun.

[The Wielding Truth]

20. Our car has been in and out of the shop and I have a relative on the edge . Those

thought were in my head when I answered the phone. Ugh.

[nichomachus]

71. Yup

It is an invasion of my privacy for something that provides no benefit to my interests at all -- only the callers.

[MedicalAdmin]

73. Well... you could try the pig route and ask her to listen

while your 2 wives and your girl friend finish your blowjob... (or substitute a gender appropriate story).

Or you could say that you were hoping some could call so they could witness your death by hanging and then start making gurgling sounds.

Or you could start spouting crazy assed "satan loves you. (killing a chicken sound). "Do you drink blood for satan?"

Or.... the posibilities are endless....

[MedicalAdmin]

74. Does anyone know if this qualifies as a sales call...

... if it's on your cell phone?

[brooklynite]

75. Non-profit group exemption to the DNC registry...

[MedicalAdmin]

83. Well shucks. I guess I'll just have to mess with thier heads then...

[Ozymanithrax]

5. You are free to worship as you choose, free from interference...

by the government. The government can not force you to worship a certain way and that is our concept of freedom of religion. Individuals can harass and try to convert you, because freedom of religion is not absolute. But no freedom is absolute.

There will always be war and other lesser forms of conflict. Monkeys and apes fight wars, and they have never been seen to worship anything. Many animals are territorial in nature and will challenge and kill another animal that intrudes on their hunting territory or tries to attract their females. Animals have not bee observed in the act of worship. Religion is not the source of war or conflict, just another reason to fight.

[jdlh8894]

7. "Religion is not the source of war or conflict, just another reason to fight."

Never heard of Crusades?
Or the IRA? Or Hitler ?

[Ozymanithrax]

14. As I said, it was a reason to fight, but not the source of wars.

Numerous wars of conquest have been fought throughout history that had nothing to do with religion. Monkeys and great apes have been shown to fight wars for food. resources, and territory, which shows that religion is not the cause of war. People of the same religion have fought each other for conquest, more territory, and war, which shows that religion isn't the cause of war.

Religion, rather than being the cause of wars are more often used to justify wars to citizens.

[The Wielding Truth]

22. So she was allowed to harass me? I hate that.

[Ozymanithrax]

41. She isn't the government...Freedom of religion means the government...

can't make you be a member of a religion.

[The Wielding Truth]

49. Could this a defense from her harassment?

She is selling something and I'm on a no call list.

[Ozymanithrax]

52. Do-Not-Call registry does not prevent unwanted calls from non-profits.

from calling by the no call list law. Political parties are exempt from those laws.

National Do Not Call Registry

Consumer Factsheets on FCC Do-Not-Call Rules.
Consumer Factsheet: Unwanted Telephone Marketing Calls
Consumer Advisory: The Truth About Wireless Phones and the Do-Not-Call Registry

Summary of Recent Developments


Has your evening or weekend been disrupted by a call from a telemarketer? If so, you’re not alone. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been receiving complaints in increasing numbers from consumers throughout the nation about unwanted and uninvited calls to their homes from telemarketers.


Pursuant to its authority under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the FCC established, together with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a national Do-Not-Call Registry. The registry is nationwide in scope, applies to all telemarketers (with the exception of certain non-profit organizations), and covers both interstate and intrastate telemarketing calls. Commercial telemarketers are not allowed to call you if your number is on the registry, subject to certain exceptions. As a result, consumers can, if they choose, reduce the number of unwanted phone calls to their homes.

Do-Not-Call Registry



You can register your phone numbers for free, and they will remain on the list until you remove them or discontinue service – there is no need to re-register numbers.

The Do-Not-Call registry does not prevent all unwanted calls. It does not cover the following:

calls from organizations with which you have established a business relationship;

calls for which you have given prior written permission;

calls which are not commercial or do not include unsolicited advertisements;

calls by or on behalf of tax-exempt non-profit organizations.

Unless she told you that for only $9.95 a month she could sell you salvation, a call about religion falls under non commercial and/or tax-exempt non-profit.

[The Wielding Truth]

87. Darn! She did want my soul ,but no money was offered.Thanks for the research.

[Recursion]

58. There's an interesting little button on your phone

It resets the virtual circuit the calling station has leased, informs the trunk to stop billing, and ends the call.

[The Wielding Truth]

91. Okay. I get it. I will probably use it if she calls back.

[damntexdem]

30. We have freedom of and from religion -- unfortunately not from assholes.

Including assholes who cold call you like this one did.

[Ozymanithrax]

43. Exactly...very well put.

[Fuddnik]

111. I'd almost rather have a call from a religious nut than the Florida State Trooper Assn.

Now there's harassment! They never let up, and call several times a day at certain times of the year.

[Petrushka]

114. They stopped calling when I said "Can't talk right now. Please put your request in writing.Thanks."

. . . and hung up the phone.

[darkstar3]

124. And a reason to fight would be what, exactly?

Perhaps a cause of war? You ever heard of casus belli?

[el_bryanto]

6. Should have just hung up right away

The moment she pushed it. I mean witnessing or evangalizing is part of some religions; and if they feel duty bound to do it, the best thing is to just be firm and say no. But if they push it, well, than that's harassment.

Bryant

[CTyankee]

164. Any call asking for personal information gets the following answer from me:

"I don't answer such questions from complete strangers. Goodbye."

If I am feeling particularly snarky I hang up while they are in mid sentence....

[brewens]

8. "My first amendment freedom from religion rights, give you the

right to keep your superstition out of my face!" I'm thinking of getting that put on a t-shirt.

[jdlh8894]

13. It's not "from" religion rights

It is FOR rights to ANY religion!

[speltwon]

17. Correct. It's also a restriction on govt, not people

Thus it doesn't prohibit Mormons etc. going door to door or proselytizing on the coomons

[BillStein]

33. It's not so simple

or so clear. If you read the background information, like Jefferson's letters, or Madison's, they clearly favored freedom FROM religion.

[speltwon]

38. That may be true.

However one remembers there are a lot of differing opinions in the letters, speeches, etc. of various founding fathers. In many cases, these differing opinions were mutually exclusive. In the give and take bargaining compromising that went on prior to codifying the BOR, not everybody got what they wanted. It's actually fascinating to study this process and see how different our constitution could have been if different personalities had won out or different compromises made. There was even a push not to have a BOR at all, since the belief was the unenumerated rights should have been clear enough without explicit BOR's protecting them. In retrospect, that would have been a disaster, as even with a BOR, the push from govt./courts etc. is to try to minimize their impact.

[jdlh8894]

44. Are the "letters" in the Constitution? As LAW?

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. Excellent point... but if they can be used to bolster a certain point, they'll be held as gospel.

Pun intended.

[14thColony]

95. No, but...

Courts (to include SCOTUS) have held in the past that the writings of the original founders can be used as sources to clarify or illuminate the meanings or original intentions of sections of the Constitution. Therefore they do have legal standing as supplemental information.

[jdlh8894]

97. Supplemental Information?

Kind of like "hearsay evidence" in court?

Can't be used?

[14thColony]

98. 200 years of U.S. jurisprudence says otherwise

Using just one example of works by the founders; the Federalist Papers were cited in a Supreme Court decision as early as 1789 (Calder v. Bull), and have been quoted nearly 300 times just in Supreme Court decisions since then, not counting citations by lower courts or citations of other works by other founders. Just three examples of the Federalist Papers being cited as providing illumination to a SC decision:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Federalist_papers
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/99-401.html#FN3.2
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/98-963.html#fn5.9
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=415&page=728#728

[PatentlyDemocratic]

108. I agree, but legislative history isn't controlling.

It doesn't matter what a select few thought, even if they were the drafters. We matters is what those who ratified it thought. Since we're not mind readers, we can only assume that the text of the Constitution is what is controlling. The text reflects the compromises made.

Sorry for sounding like Scalia. Yuck!

Keep in mind that the Constitution also states that no religious test shall be given for government office, so there is freedom from religion in one sense.

[brewens]

31. I know, but my way pisses religious wack jobs off more! :) n/t

[stuntcat]

9. we do not have it

It's a pitiful Shame, but the whole world will always be affected by humans' fight over religion.

Our dominion over the entire world and all the animals is like religion too, to me. Humans setting themselves far above the rest of the life and then actually calling themselves "pro-life" with their hands on Bibles as they screw the planet to death, giving a pathetic sad future to the babies they wanna keep squirting out. That is religion to me, and I can never get free from it. The day I die I will thank religious people for the raped & plundered state of the world, I'm not kidding :hi:

[RKP5637]

11. +1, n/t

[RKP5637]

10. These people think it's their destiny to shove religion in others faces as

they operate from a robotic script, and they think it's not your right to tell them to F off. They use religion as a shield for their insecurities and work to force others to believe as they do. We've seen it throughout the ages with religions, same old shit and the resulting death and destruction.

Some humans are very insecure IMO and religion gives them a prop. If you're not "just like them" it makes them more insecure, so they try to force you to be just like them. And often a dominate egotistical male heads the flock who claims to have special conversations with a god.

In short, IMO, religion is all about dominance, politics, money and megalomania.

[The Wielding Truth]

24. I don't have the right to tell them not to call me?

[RKP5637]

37. Of course you do. Did I mis-word something? Maybe I did ... I'll check. n/t

[RKP5637]

39. Fixed my mis-wording. Thanks! n/t

[Nevernose]

112. Some of them are well-meaning in their efforts

They're not just doing it because it's their "destiny;" they're doing it because they genuinely believe the ridiculous stuff they've been told since they were babies. My aunt's one of these people. She just wants to help people, and sometimes that means helping the body (e.g. feeding homeless people) and other times it means helping souls. What a lot of us atheists forget sometimes is that some (I don't believe most) of these people actually believe that shit. Hell is a real danger in their minds, and a bigger one than anything on planet Earth.

But everything else you wrote? About the propping and the insecurity and patriarchy and all that? I wholeheartedly agree.

[RKP5637]

155. Yep, I agree with you, some are well-meaning in their efforts. n/t

[kctim]

12. No. We have the right to freedom of religion

[JonLP24]

173. We have both

The right to choose any religion or no religion at all.

[lapislzi]

16. Congress is prohibited from endorsing a specific religion.

However, individuals are under no such restrictions. Anybody can get in your face at any time and attempt to preach to you. That doesn't mean you have to sit still for it. You are free to tell the proselytizer anything you like, short of threats of bodily harm.

I am also free to endorse atheism loudly and often. I don't avail myself of this right, because I think it's impolite to annoy people with questions of religion, but I could if I so chose.

In the interests of a more harmonious world, I think people should keep their beliefs to themselves. If I want to know about your god, I'll ask.

[jdlh8894]

40. Well said.

My mother (79) gets ticked at me for not going to church on sunday.
Tell her I go to my church every morning.
5:00 AM Make coffee --5:30 to 7:00 watch the sun come up.
Know it's a new day !!!!

[Pacifist Patriot]

60. +1

[krabigirl]

19. Well, even if I don't have a "right" to have freedom from religion...

doesn't mean I still don't let people like that have it. I can't stand bible thumpers and evangelicals, and I let them know before shutting my door if they try to come and attempt to convert me.

[JohnnyRingo]

21. I find the answers to all my questions in the funny papers:

If not answers, then at least solace:

[The Wielding Truth]

27. I love this. Thanks. I needed the lighter side.

[RKP5637]

34. +1000 +++ n/t

[ReggieVeggie]

23. I would have said "Thanks. Not interested"

[The Wielding Truth]

28. It's the question of world peace. I get so introspect. I will try next time.

[The2ndWheel]

25. Could just hang up

[csziggy]

46. Better, say "Do NOT call me again" THEN hang up

If the same group keeps calling after that, you have a case (in Florida) for charging them with telephone harassment.

[Dappleganger]

26. If you wish to ask me cosmic questions...

be prepared to buy me a drink, first.

[The Wielding Truth]

32. Yea. That's my problem,soulmate.

:toast: :kick: :hug:

[cali]

35. yeah. it's called hang up the phone. duh. your delicate sensibilities

should not interfere with my freedom of speech.

[The Wielding Truth]

50. opps wrong thread.

[darkstar3]

129. Why should your freedom of speech interfere with my right to privacy?

I'm aware of what is legally acceptable. I'm not talking about the letter of the law or a court case. I'm talking about the old principle that was espoused by so many in my old stomping grounds: "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." Why should any one of your rights trump one of mine in a socially acceptable fashion? Why should you be allowed to invade my personal space through phone call or door knocking to ask me incredibly personal questions about my life? The First Amendment may technically give you that right, but what gives you the sheer arrogance?

(For the record, I don't mean you personally, but people who beleive that it is entirely acceptable to god-bother. It's a more plural "you".)

[onenote]

169. do you have a listed phone number?

If so, what exactly is your "privacy" interest? If your number is published, you have invited calls. If you don't like a particular call, then hang up. And then get an unlisted number so no one who you haven't give your number can't invade your "privacy."

[darkstar3]

170. I have a cell phone and no land line, but that's beside the point.

UL numbers cost money. Why should I have to pay extra to achieve any right to phone privacy in your eyes? Again, it's not a question of whether you legally CAN call me, it's a question of why you feel you have the privilege. When the spirit of the law clearly shows that I have the right to privacy in my own home, what gives you the gall to intrude?

[BillStein]

36. I wonder...

I never answer the phone if the number's blocked, or doesn't display. If this person was a neighbor, and her phone number was displayed, could I call her back and insist that she listen to me try to convert her to agnostocism? Can I claim my freedom to preach?

[RKP5637]

54. I never answer the phone either for the same reasons. Caller ID is the best ever, and if

I miss someone because I didn't recognize their Caller ID, I figure if one can't leave a message it wasn't that important. Now, I wish we could end robo calls from politicians. The republicans here love to call cell phones, leave a voice mail and run up the minute charges. Some of their messages are endless.

[Dr. Strange]

45. No more than you have the right to freedom from speech.

[Shandris]

55. Agreed.

While not religious myself, I don't see anything wrong with someone talking about religion around you (the generic 'you'). How else is someone going to try to convince other people who aren't religiously-knowledgeable about their beliefs? You never know, I may be waiting for an 'answer from God' and that person is the one who has what I'm looking for. While I personally think its' silly, I don't have the right to shut them up because it might make me uncomfortable. If that were the measure we tested things by, gay rights would never have even BEGUN to get off the ground and slavery would still be legal.

It's easier, and more consistent, to simply ask them to quit or whatever. If they refuse to do THAT, then that's another case entirely and yes, it should eventually constitute harassment.

[demosincebirth]

47. You ever think of hanging up on her? Problem solved...then space on DU

would have been used for some real issues

[timtom]

94. +100!!

[darkstar3]

127. Like what?

Moon bombings?
Uninformed claims regarding energy policy?
Bashing the president?
Bashing the president-bashers?
Telling west-coast residents to drink iodine?

What exactly, in your mind, would be a "real issue" undertaken whole-heartedly by the GD forum lately?

[demosincebirth]

171. Yeah, any of those would be better. Maybe it didn't register in his brain...hey, why don't

I just hang up on her. Or maybe he just wanted to start a bashing thread on religion, which most likely was his intent.

[barbtries]

51. i think we should.

i tend to be less...civil than you apparently were, when someone tries to proselytize me. i refuse religious handouts, not always graciously. my sons and i had a discussion about just that this past weekend. they insisted that these people mean well. i insisted that anyone who thinks they have a line on what my soul is all about is not respecting me and therefore i feel no compunction to treat them with respect.

you're just way nicer than i am.

[Snoutport]

53. i want that! nt

[bobbolink]

56. Of course you have the "freedom" and you already know that. What you don't have is the right to

ridicule DUers who do practice their faith.

[darkstar3]

130. And where would that ridicule be, exactly?

How does this OP in any way ridicule other DUers, religious or not? Show me.

[Recursion]

57. No more than religious people have a right to freedom from atheism

Screen your calls if it bugs you.

[nichomachus]

59. Yeah, those damn atheists and their proselytizing cold calls

:rofl:

[Recursion]

70. It usually comes up in the context of billboards (nt)

[nichomachus]

72. Well, we should ban all billboards then -- not just the ones from atheists

[Recursion]

81. I would much rather we let people put up billboards

And stop acting like somebody trying to convert us to their point of view is this horrible, unendurable imposition.

[Quantess]

146. Oh! .......BLEACH MY EYES!!!

Atheism on a billboard?!
:cry: :argh: :cry: :argh: :cry: :argh:

[Recursion]

148. It's as silly as freaking out over a missionary cold-calling you (nt)

[Quantess]

150. I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not.

Hello! :hi: I'm your friendly, garden variety agnostic.

I really don't have time for religious nonsense. Sorry, why are you calling me?

[Recursion]

153. I was talking about the OP (nt)

[Quantess]

154. Oh, that's good!

:)

[eShirl]

61. You could just hang up.

You don't owe her a response or a justification for not responding.

[OwnedByFerrets]

62. Only in my very bestest dreams

[nichomachus]

63. Treat your religion the same way you treat your penis

(for those who have penises)

Don't wave it around in public -- and don't shove it in people's faces (unless, of course, they ask).

[lapislzi]

69. I love this.

Almost makes me wish I had a penis. Almost.

[timtom]

76. I don't see any Christians shoving anything in my face on this board

or anywhere for that matter.

I DO, however, see a whole lot of anti-Christian and anti-religious evangelism thrown in my face. I just pull up my big boy panties and keep on keeping on.

[darkstar3]

132. The board tends to be anti-proselytizing-asshole.

If you can't tell the difference between that and anti-Christian sentiment, you're either not trying hard enough, or you're in the wrong sect.

Oh, and BTW, "big boy panties"? Way to win friends and influence people.

[timtom]

149. Oh. I see YOU'RE an accomplished master

at conciliatory rhetoric. Your post was nothing more than annoying.

[The Wielding Truth]

89. Good policy.

[BillStein]

156. that is absolutely perfect nt

[slackmaster]

64. You chose not to exercise your freedom to not answer the phone

I was so taken back that someone, I didn't know, could call me and question my religious beliefs.

I have no problem with someone being able to do that. I don't understand WHY someone would choose to spend time doing that, or why a person who doesn't wish to receive that kind of call would put so much effort into dismissing it. I believe that getting upset about things is often a choice.

I just hang up on unwelcome solicitation calls.

Shouldn't we be free from religious harassment?

As I said in my Subject line, you are free to not answer the phone.

[lapislzi]

82. The telephone is a convenience for ME

I rarely feel compelled to pick it up or even check the caller ID just because it's shrieking for attention--unless I'm waiting for a call.

Or, as I said to my husband once when the phone rang during dinner (and he wondered aloud whether one of us should get up to answer it), "if someone's dead, they'll still be dead after dinner." If I owe someone money, chances are I'll still owe it tomorrow. If someone doesn't care enough to leave a message, then I probably didn't want to speak to them anyway.

I made peace with the telephone years ago, and I am happier for it.

[The Wielding Truth]

167. I hear ya. Just don't pickup, if I do hang up.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

65. I am personally of the belief

that people passing laws solely on the basis of the religious views of a particular group of individuals is an abridgement of everybody else's freedom.

[slay]

66. Watch James Spader as Alan Shore from Boston Legal make this exact same argument:

and he wins! Of course it was just a tv show - but AWESOME. Only 2 min long clip - check it out --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TegIxJUsE0

[The Wielding Truth]

84. Gee. I enjoyed this. Thanx, slay.

[slay]

102. No prob - me too. By chance I just happened to be re-watching that episode last night

you should check out some of his other ritchous rants as well.. man I miss Boston Legal - made the point so eloquently in only 2 mins. If you want to watch the full ep it's from season 3 episode 5 called "Who's God Is It Anyways?" :)

ABC's Boston Legal (Speech on America by Alan Shore) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYzeyQGE6yU

Alan Shore on Euthanasia and Alzheimer's -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQd80NisXJ0

[Modern_Matthew]

67. I don't answer the phone if I don't recognize the number. Problem solved. nt

[WildEyedLiberal]

68. No.

You have a right to be free from governmental proselytizing or establishment of a religion. You do not have the right to prevent private citizens from being religious, talking to you about religion, or "shoving" religion in your face. In short, you don't have the right not to be made uncomfortable by other people's beliefs, or even by other people being obnoxious about those beliefs.

[Skittles]

109. bullshit

[WildEyedLiberal]

110. Read the Constitution

You have no "right" to not be confronted by things you find uncomfortable. You have the right to not be forced to join a church, or to have the government decide that one religion is better than another. You do not have the right not to encounter obnoxious proselytizers in your daily life. You DO have the right to tell them what you think of them, but you don't have the right to shut them up or make them go away.

Is this really such a difficult concept?

[BillStein]

157. They can say whatever they want

On TV, on a soapbox in the park, or in print. They most certainly do not have the right to say it in my home, where my right to privacy* prevails.

*Right to Privacy being explicit in my state constitution

[WildEyedLiberal]

159. Calling your phone isn't saying it "in your home"

Especially if you have a publicly published phone number. Solicitors have as much "right" to cold call you as they do to knock on your door. You, of course, have the perfect right to hang up on them or tell them to leave your property immediately.

[BillStein]

160. if they have the "right"

to call, why do we have a DNC list? By your logic, that abrogates their rights. This is a question of balancing the right to privacy v. rights of free speech.

My condo assn posted a "No Solicitors" sign. Does that abrogate the "right" of evangelists to knock on my door?

[WildEyedLiberal]

163. If they didn't have the assumed "right' there would've been no need for the DNC in the first place

The entire concept of the DNC is predicated on the idea that solicitors have the right to call your private phone number. Even now you have to opt-in to the DNC, or you did at its inception at any rate - I'm not sure now. But now we're getting into the territory of laws vs. Constitutionally guaranteed liberties - essentially, you have no Constitutional right to keep solicitors from calling you or knocking on your door. However, your state, or the US Congress, can always pass a law changing that, hence the DNC list. (By the way, the DNC list only applies to private for-profit business solicitations. I know because I was a university fundraising telemarketer and had to deliver that spiel many times to angry alumni who threatened to sue me for violating the DNC list.)

My original point was that no, there is no broadly defined "right" to prevent religious people from soliciting people. The manner in which they may do so can of course be regulated by local laws, but there is nothing in the Constitution that says religious organizations can't cold call random people and deliver a spiel. The First Amendment right to freedom from religious prohibits the government from endorsing any religion or coercing you into observing any manner of religious practices. It doesn't really have anything to do with interactions between private citizens.

[BillStein]

165. I'll concede this point

I was in a forest and trees thought process there :dunce:

[WildEyedLiberal]

166. No worries!

Yeah, laws can absolutely change the playing field with regard to what kinds of solicitations are permitted or not. I didn't even know DNC did not apply to nonprofits and charities until I worked for university fundraising. But generally speaking, the First Amendment will be construed in favor of people's right to advance their beliefs.

[Posteritatis]

168. There's a mature, cogently argued riposte based in a clear grasp of the Constitution for you.. (nt)

[Taverner]

77. I think so, but the fundies don't

They think every word they say should "Glorify Jesus"

Of course, my thought is they're just making him and his movement look like an ass

[MedicalAdmin]

79. For a while I would just start asking questions when they called.

Hi, who are you? What's your name? How do you spell that? WHere are you calling from? Why do I ask, because I'm not talking to someone who is from our of the US? Are you a muslim? Where do you live? Are you married? Do you have kids? Have you ever had an abortion? Is your husband circumcized? Is he a good lover? Have you ever cheated on him? When did you lose your viginity? Do you masterbate? Are you naked right now?

I start with innoculous and general and work my way up to obnoxious and non of my business. IT's surprising how much info you can get once you get them in the habit of answering...

[The Wielding Truth]

162. I should copy this and have it by the phone. I'm a bit embarrassed

reading them now, though, and I think I wouldn't be able to get through them. I wish I could show them how uncomfortable their phone call has made me.

[badtoworse]

80. You're always free to hang up. If you were pissed, why did you continue listening?

[TheKentuckian]

85. Of course not. You have freedom the government dictating religion and the freedom

to worship as you please, including not at all.

How would you possibly be free of religion and anyone else have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or indeed freedom of religion themselves and be somehow obligated to ensure you have a religious free existence?

Asking to be be free of religion is like expecting freedom from stupid, freedom from the offensive, or freedom from boring. Ain't gonna happen in anything approaching a free society.

[Arkana]

86. Yes, absolutely--in accordance with the First Amendment.

Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion. It's right there, in black and fucking white.

[Obamanaut]

123. A 'cold call' by a believer is not governmental establishment of religion, but

it is free speech. Likewise, telling someone you want no part of it is free speech.

[bigmonkey]

88. I really don't see the argument for freedom from exposure to certain ideas.

I really can sympathize when it comes to dealing with an evangelistic Christian, but I can't really say I'm in favor of outlawing certain ideas.

[lynne]

90. You say you had a "cold call". WHY did you answer the phone?

The phone is for your use and you are not required to answer any call. I normally do not answer numbers that I don't recognize including cold calls, political queries and sales calls.

You have a right to not answer your phone. That will protect your right to be free from "harassment".

[demwing]

92. Hang up the phone

and you are free

[demwing]

93. Here's an idea

Invite the Church lady over to discuss religion, tell her to bring her Pastor.

The same night, invite two Mormons, two Jehova's Witnesses, two Hare Krishnas, and two Atheist. When they all arrive, tell them they can wrestle for it, and the winning team get's you as a convert. Then strip to your undies and bring out a bottle of baby oil and a camera...

I guarantee that you'll get crossed off the "Friendly to Call" list real quick...

[sarcasmo]

99. Caller ID has done wonders for me. If I don't recognize the # I don't answer.

[Lucian]

100. We should be absolutely free from religious harassment.

I would've told that caller off and to quit harassing me.

Why didn't you?

[Texasgal]

101. I thought it was

freedom OF religion. meaning that we can CHOSE what we want to believe.

It's not FROM. It's OF.

[darkstar3]

134. "From" is implicitly required for "of" to be possible.

[Xenotime]

106. We need a freedom from hateful, violent speech as well.

[Toucano]

107. You have the right to live in a vacuum, free from the ideas of anyone but you.

I hope you find that place.

Until then, peace be with you.

[Quantess]

115. Wow, that's kind of uncalled for.

Doesn't it go the other way as well? That bible thumpers may get a little disagreement when they go soliciting? I certainly hope so.

[Toucano]

119. Excuse me? Do you seriously think you have a RIGHT to live "free" of any idea

you find objectionable?

Why is religion any different than any other idea?

ABSOLUTELY it cuts both ways!! The same natural principle is why the Bible thumper who objects to...I don't know...women wearing trousers, for example can be told, "Suck it up!"

Avert your eyes, for the love of Zombie Jesus, if you don't like it.

Hang up the phone.

Turn the corner.

Cross the street.

Plug your ears, sing a song, or dance a jig.

But to think that anyone who lives freely among other humans has a RIGHT to be "free" of ideas they disagree with is, mildly put, juvenile.

[Quantess]

141. What, exactly, in the OP inspired those interpretations of yours?

just asking.

[Quantess]

113. Yes. Also....you are too patient with solicitors.

;)
Actually, I might have said something similar before abruptly ending the call. I probably would have said something even more blunt. I like to mention something about "separation of church and state" when put in that position. They should expect a blunt reply, when cold calling people at home.

[killbotfactory]

116. No, everyone must have religion.

I think it's part of the ten commandments with George Washington en-scribed into clay tablets at the beginning of the Jesus revolution which gave everybody unicorns and puppies and happy thoughts.

[Quantess]

143. Where the puppies eat the skittles that were shat out by unicorns.

[BillStein]

158. I think

when Washington was roaming through New Hampshire, he came down from Bunker Hill with the clay tablets containing the Constitution and its original ten clauses.

[H2O Man]

117. ha!

[hfojvt]

126. somehow, after perusing this thread

the world seems like a meaner and dumber place.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. That's when you say "hold on" & dig out your DVD of "Rocco Goes To Prague"

Leave the phone next to the tv speaker, and go get lunch.

[darkstar3]

136. Do you feel better

now that you made me Google that?

I take it, from the easy oblique reference, that your copy is well worn?

[Warren DeMontague]

139. Worked for a chain of indie Video Stores in the 90s.

Believe me, there are worse titles.

[DeSwiss]

137. Yes.

Which would technically make someone who is free from religion a: "Blankarian".

Although there are some blank sects that prefer the term: "Nullostics". And there are fewer still who call themselves: "Zerolics.

- But they're the real weirdos......


K&R

[LAGC]

142. LOL, nice picture in your sig.

It does make you wonder what kinds of religion other species might engage in, not just on our planet either.

[Quantess]

151. Aliens like to feast on the blood of Republicans.

Vampires told me so.

[LAGC]

144. Clearly, its time for non-believers to fight back!

Enough of this one-way proselytizing bullshit! Its time for us to man the phone banks, by Goddess, and interrupt religious people during THEIR dinner-times. Give them a piece of OUR minds.

They want to shove their religion in our faces, its time we shoved some reason back.

Enough of this passive routine.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Quantess]

152. You could also do this yourself.

You could scoop up some fecal matter, roll around, weeping, and maybe you could get lucky and invoke the spirit of Glenn Beck.

[JoeyT]

145. Meh.

Just tell them to piss off and hang up. They usually get the message.

There's a certain amount of silliness I'll tolerate, but only from people I like. I don't like people that feel the need to knock on my door or call me and pester me. When a random person calls you on the phone you owe them nothing, and that includes civility.

[undeterred]

161. Join the Freedom from Religion Foundation

It doesn't really have anything to do with that kind of phone call, but a lot to do with the larger issues of church and state in our society: http://www.ffrf.org/

[etherealtruth]

174. Phone solicitation is a pain in the a$$

....but you weren't harassed by anyone .... and at no point were your rights impinged on.

I think one can successfully argue that limitations and conditions set forward by legislative bodies limiting a womans choice is a violation of "freedom of religion." I have never heard a valid argument against abortion ... I've only heard arguments based upon person belief systems (religion).

Again, you received an annoying phone solicitation .... nothing more.,