Sure, it was a little bit funny, and of course I never saw it coming , but nonetheless, the point remains valid, and just by FD, wrongly identifying my aim is to take kids from parents, and impose unfair restrictions onto religious people, by making wild misinterpretations, and extrapolations from what I actually said, I have no doubt that he will continue to do so, rather than defend his own claims about religion's inalienable rights.

Sure, it was a little bit funny, and of course I never saw it coming

It seemed pretty obvious to me. If you substitute Judaism for religion, and Jews for religious people, you could take your posts here and bind them together and call it Mein Kampf. You attribute some bitter experiences from your youth to religion, now you spend your life looking for ways to scapegoat religion for societies problems. You can't back up your irrational argument, but instead you chant your little mantra that religion is evil. You are blinded by your own bias against religion to the evil that is welling up within you. The parallels are striking if you can get over your own righteousness.

So Mozz, if religion is so evil, what is your 'final solution' for getting rid of it? I hope you don't expect to get very far just by stealing a few children from uncooperative parents. If anything that will cause your enemies to rise up.

and just by FD, wrongly identifying my aim is to take kids from parents

That may not be your intended aim, but that would be the outcome of your oppressive rules.

and impose unfair restrictions onto religious people

But that is exactly what you propose. You think that you know better than them how to bring their children up and you want to force them to do it your way. You want the government to adopt a policy that religion is evil and start acting on it. You would bring about a new dark of oppression.

FD you really are lost on this.

OK, you are saying that what I have posed equates to some dictatorial assault on people's freedom, and can prove it by merely changing what I say, into what you think I say.
Great argument, have a go at creating my unfair views from my own words, without changing them, and we will see what you come up with.

That's IT.
Come the revolution, you'll be the first to go.

Seriously though, why do you keep saying I want to take children away from their parents?

Not allowing religious indoctrination in schools is hardly forcing anything on them is it?
It is actually the opposite, it is not allowing religious indoctrination to be forced upon them at school.

Quote:


Vee haff vays orf making dem.

It is a little thing called 'The Law'.

You may not be aware but some people don't want to follow the law, and choose to disobey it.
Society gets to choose which laws are appropriate for it.
If they don't like a law they can try and have it changed.

I don't like the law that allows kid's to face indoctrination into "Particular" religious dogmas from the time they enter school, at an age when we consider them to be too immature to make informed decisions.

My contention is that school is the wrong time and place to inflict  a religious dogma on them.

It is hardly revolutionary, merely respectful of childrens' rights to be allowed to freely choose a dogma, when and if they want to, without school being used to validate ONE particular dogma as true and correct, from the age of four or five years old.

Are you on any medication FD?

If so, maybe alter the dosage.

If not, maybe it is an option worth considering.

You are getting ridiculously convoluted in your objections FD.

Religion is not educative.

School is for education.

End of argument.