About sins and «finger pointed» :

Obviously they will be disagreement about what is right or wrong on moral and ethical maters. It'n normal. The key is RESPECT.

We must have the right to say: «I think this, what you say, what you do, what you believe,...is not right» But always respecting that another may think differently.

By: dymastaj on 23 December 2016, 3:51 p.m. I agree with SirCedric. Freedom of Speech, freedom of religion should be an unchangeable right in our constitution. Naturally, I would want blocks on religious influence on government activities and possibly lobbying type things, but if it's run like a private enterprise, there should be no reason to ban it.

So you would agree with businesses and people having the freedom to refuse service to any certain group based on their religious preferences?

By: dymastaj on 23 December 2016, 3:51 p.m. Also to address people fearing being pointed it at and shamed for their sins, this should be considered harassment and would be dealt with accordingly.

And how would you propose to do that with the protection to do just that encoded in your system of government?

Here's the thing. The drive to proselytize is built into every religion. Either as an obvious statement or sub rosa force. The gist of this entire thread is just that. The underlying premise being, "we have to tell people" whether that telling is to gain points with whatever supernatural force they claim to represent or to gain followers to strengthen their particular supernatural's forces power. You can't handle the idea of being asked to keep it to yourself or within your brand of religion. I, personally, don't care what you do within your own mind or within your collection of social support mechanisms. I do care that you seem to think that other people telling you to mind your own business is some kind of repression.

The rule should be simple: No religious pressure in the public sphere. You can pray all you want within your private sphere, but that's where it stays.

To CDnelly

I don't know how to quote in this forum, but you're right at some point: being religious bring the need to share your faith. Not to impose.

Obviously any faith become with ethical principles. To give an example: most of the religion tells us that killing someone is bad.

So let's take a debate example: death penalty. In this case a lot of religious people will come against death penalty. We can obviously have an open debate on that point, that's the hearth of a democracy, but you can't just say to religious organisations :« JUST SHUT UP» on a so important point for human being.

So no religion must have privilege I'm totally agree. But, like every citizen, they must have the right to express themselves, without having any official power of course. It is the bases to freedom of speech. Religion must have no more and no less rights than any civil organisation.

Religions only bring hatred, they hate each other, we must keep that out of Asgardia.

So Fartese you just want to restrain freedom of choice and of expression... What a kind mentality... intolerant and disrespectful. Which kind of Chapter advocate you must be...

Well, I'm not here to judge people, just opinions, but saying that religions are about hate shows a total misunderstanding of what is really a religious belief.

I don't know why you're trying to correct him Cedric, religions are divisive through hatred.

Freedom of religion will need to be avoided in the constitution.

Rather, we should go ahead and act towards a secular, religion free community. No religion in politics, no religion in business. No public houses of worship. No public displays of religion and no religion garbs/dresses.

To allow even an inch of religious freedom brings with it the risk of corruption. The drive to recruit or share religion is how religion attempts to enter other spheres of the public. We need to be vigilant and fight against religious freedom at each opportunity during the foundation of Asgardia.

By: SirCedric on 24 December 2016, 4:58 a.m. Well, I'm not here to judge people, just opinions, but saying that religions are about hate shows a total misunderstanding of what is really a religious belief.

Not here to judge people. Really. What do you call this:

By: SirCedric(Asgardian) on 21 December 2016, 5:24 p.m. https://asgardia.space/en/forum/forum/general-discussion-14/topic/any-physicist-or-scientist-worried-as-i-am-602/?post=1541#1541

When I read some (much) interventions of some citizen whose concerned are "weed"legalization, promote "free"sexual tendencies, prohibit religious freedom of citizens,... I'm quite worried. I don't want to see this amazing project become dominated by misfit people who only cares about these things and nothing about Science and Human achievement.

By: SirCedric(Asgardian) on 23 December 2016, 5:18 p.m. No, a religion is not an ideology. A religion is based on people really searching for thruth. An ideology is based on a decided principle around with is constructed a doctrinal corpus. The difference is in the premices. Ideologies don't search for truth, they just want to make their principle accepted by people.

Religion is a search for truth. They why do so many of them refuse to accept scientific discoveries that contradict their religious beliefs? Religions are not interested in truth, they're interested in confirmation. How many answers to scientific questions are "God did it" when it comes to the religious. How is this a search for truth?

To CDNelly: A technical question: How do you do to quote like this? TY for your help To ALL:

Now about the post. I'm not judging anyone. but I try to warn against some attitudes that can harm the future of Asgardia in itself. Don't misunderstand me. I don't have any personal problem for example to have a debate on subjects like marijuana legalization at a scientific, moral, economic,... level, but, correct me if I'm wrong, that's not the kind of debate I've seen on FB page. Well, for most of the post, some were interesting indeed.

I maintain the opposite posture to that of daiwa34. Religion and philosophy are part of what human being is. Even atheism is a philosophical option (I insist, it's philosophical, not scientific, and I'm not here denying any importance to philosophy). Lots of human choices for their own development is made using what they deeply believe about human nature, human life, the universe,...

Now I'm agree that some religious fundamentalist deny scientific facts. Fundamentalism is a plague, in this I agree, but you can't condemned all the believers of the earth just because of a few nuts and ignorant. It's a bit like If I say that all nuclear physicists are war criminals because of the invent of the A-Bomb.

To use terms of syllogistic logic: You can't reach a syllogism using a I-type proposition(Particular positive) to reach a Universal conclusion. So here:

A =Some people deny science fact because of metaphysical beliefs (particular) B= All of these peoples are believers. (universal) C= all the believers deny science facts .(universal) You CAN'T DO A+B =C .It's not a logical conclusion. You can never reach a universal conclusion using a particular premise

SirCedric: No. Fear doesn't come into the equasion. I have no concern about people having religions. What would bother me is having to deal with anything that arises because of their beliefs. That's their problem, not mine.

What does come into the equasion is protecting them from my response when I simply cannot ignore what is being unavoidably thrown in my face. Not to say there will be anything intrinsically wrong with my response, but deluded people seem to have problems when someone bursts their bubble and uses that which they have devoted their time, faiths, and beliefs into as tool to highlight it's own failings or simply outright refusual to entertain various notions is enough for most of them.

If they have their freedom of expression, then equally, I have mine. This is something to be mindful of. I'm prepared to keep from them contraversial things they may have issues with - but equally they must be prepared to afford me the same.

I agree mostly with Ann, up until the point of suggesting that jokes be considered a negative thing. Targetted abuse shouldn't be tollerated, certainly, but if you can't laugh at yourself you've no right to be laughing at anyone else - and you'd really want to live in a world without humour?

I oppose religion, period! You want to believe in God find keep that to yourself. This is Asgardia, for once let there be a place WITHOUT RELIGION. A society based in reason, science, logic, engineering, and not superstition.

Ronin: Wanting to ban religious thinking because you think they're all superstitions is completely dictatorial. Judging that the uttermost majority of mankind as "superstitious and retarded" is more than presumptuous. Imagine someone wanting to propose to ban atheism because this is philosophical non sense not to recognize a Creator. Unacceptable isn't it? As it is to propose to ban religious thinking.

Asgardia must be a place of dialog and openness, not close minded individuals thinking that their way of seeing life is far superior than others...

To EyeR: I understand that some people doesn't want to listen or read what someone says. It is also a right. Look at every Parliament in the world: The majority of the debates are not follows by everyone. I'm agree that no one has to right to force others to listen and take party in any debate. But restraining freedom of expression because I don't like someone idea... That's another kind of thing.

would i be able to expect to be free from the encroachment of others belief systems into my personal space? will i be expected to patiently endure the unwelcome approaches of others on the basis of their religious belief? may i expect to be able to believe how i wish without others trying to sway me to believe as they do? may i be allowed to have a belief without the expectation of sharing that belief with others?

As much as I will get in trouble for saying this, religion is not a search for truth at all. Many religions throughout the years have claimed to have the truth already, no more research needed. For example the Catholic Church has a huge library of documents they refuse to release because they don't contain the "truth" they have built. No need for peer review, no need for revision. Add in the inability to correct for translation errors, contradictions and religious leaders on the local level trying to shut down debate etc. And you have something that actively discurrages the truth as an aspiration.

As much as I will get in trouble for saying this, religion is not a search for truth at all. Many religions throughout the years have claimed to have the truth already, no more research needed. For example the Catholic Church has a huge library of documents they refuse to release because they don't contain the "truth" they have built. No need for peer review, no need for revision. Add in the inability to correct for translation errors, contradictions and religious leaders on the local level trying to shut down debate etc. And you have something that actively discurrages the truth as an aspiration.