Is Westboro Baptist Church a hate group?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Actually some religious types not only don't forget that, they mention it loudly, insisting that it does not guarantee freedom from religion.

On the other hand, they don't mean the same thing by that phrase that you do. You mean freedom from being bombarded by religious proseletizing, whereas they mean freedom from the existence of religion.

Or maybe you mean that too?

I mean not needing to constantly defend my freedom against claims for more freedom and rights and more influence by religions, based on religious dogma.

I mean it in the way I get angry if companies would call me for advertizing at home and if I tell them I don't want that, they stop for a while, and then they start again or somebody else. Because it is annoying to be expected to take of the telephone three times per day - even if the other side falls silent once you told them they are not welcomed. I insist on my right and freedom to not need to be triggered like this time and again.

I mean that the public space, society, state-run institutions, education, law, and in general: places payed for and maintained by my taxes, should not be tailored and base on demands of religion, but should remain to be free of religious demands. Club rules are for clubhouses and the fenced property around it. Outside the clubhouse, they shall not apply. Nevertheless, they have to - always, in every case - be in conformity with the law of the land.

I play my radio in my rooms that way that my neighbours must not take not of it. If I want to listen to louder music, I take headphones. If I do not wish to use headphones, then I would need to find myself a place that I can afford and where I live all alone so that nobody gets effected if I pump up the volume. If I cannot afford that - then I either skip playing music, or must go back to headphones, or must get used to playing it more silent.

Keep thy music to thy ears. Don't attack others by pushing it down their ears, too, no matter whether they want or not. They may have their own tune.

Some extreme music lovers nevertheless can'T even get it when using headphones. They play it so loud that you can listen to their tune in all the bus or train waggon you sit in. That was when somebody experienced me tapping on his shoulders and giving him a grim look. So far, they got the message then, and turned more silent.

And then it was okay.

Still any doubts on your side regarding what I mean? It is very simple to live in peaceful neighbourhood with me, because I live by a simple physical law: force results in counterforce. Push me, and I push back. Push me more, and I push even stronger.

Don't push me, and don't get pushed by me. Tolerance, and freedom and all that is all nice and well: but I insist on equal terms for all, and reciprocity, and the obligatory nature of some basic rules that even religions should not be allowed to avoid.

Because religious people in no way are the more precious and valuable people. Have you read this year the sociological study where they examined the degree of helpfulness and willingness to help in religious people, and non-believers? The study found religious people to be more limited and rigid, and non-believers to be more willing to help and being more altruistic. The authors assume that it is because a non-believer does not enjoy the luxury of just following a dogmatic set of rules (and how often do these rules show anything by a helpful, friendly tolerant, altruistic mindset when considering how much bad "fate" is considered to be well-earned and God-wanted?) , but a non-believer must form and reflect over moral standards on a far more profound, basic level, since he has no "compass" provided by scriptures to follow, but must plot his own course. Believers often claim, unproven and unfounded, that without religion there would be no moral behaviour. Quite the opposite is the truth. Religions have condensated in the institutionalised format of the big world religions of today despite humans having formed moral standards. And all to often we see in side relgions these moral standards collapsing and being replaced by blind fanatism, hate and intolerance and all the resulting barbary and cold-heartedness towards humans believing in the "wrong colours". Every religion seems to have an exoteric, institutional, dogmatic, profane (= directed at the world, power, control) face, which I always see as negative, and an inner, esoteric level, that can be called mystic, enlightenment, Zen, whatever. As I understand it, free masonry is about that, and is about safeguarding against the dark side of exoteric religion. People of the latter type you can get along with very well, as long as they do not turn into simple-minded new-age dilletants. But the exoterically religious by definition are fundamentalists and fanatics of varying degrees of severity. And these must be confronted and stopped, no matter how, no matter the cost - else they destroy everything else in the name of their "religion". Some are active aggressors, other give passive support by not opposing them and thus giving them the opportunity to unfold. Both are as guilty, however.