main
  about us
  news
  topics
  author
  euroletter
  news from other sites
  links
 
 
 Libertarian Theory
  General
  Anarchism
  Capitalism
  Democracy
  Minarchism
  Nationalism
  Rights
  Socialism/Communism
 Economy
  General
  Austrian School
  Business Cycles
  Gold Standard
  Inflation
 Education
  General
  Private education
 Environment
  General
  Climate
  Energy
  Greenhouse effects
  "Greens"
 Government
  General
 Health
  General
  Abortion, Euthanasia, Suicide
  Alcohol, Tobacco and Drugs
  Cloning
  Cryogen suspension
  Food and Medicine /Right to choose your own
  Regulation
  Health Care
 Individuals
  General
 International Relations
  General
  Development Help
  Europe and EU /Uniting Europe without the Union
  Globalising
  Migration
  Secession Right
  War on Terrorism
 Interviews
  General
 Miscellaneous
  General
 Politics
  General
 Previews
  General
 Rights
  General
  Gun Rights
  Human Rights /Emancipation
  Property Rights
  Self Defence
  Speech Freedom
  Values and Norms
 Rights, Justice
  General
  Punishment and restitution
  Punishment
  Security
  War on Drugs
 Taxes
  General
  Taxes
  Social security
  Subsidies
 Communication
  General
  Censoring
  Internet Freedom
  Privacy and Encryption
 Religion
  General
  Islam
  Internet
  Investment
  War
  Politicians
  Redistribution
  Waste
  Police
 Repression and Police State
  General
  Database State
  Torture
 Activism
  General
  Conservatism
  Unclassified
 
Today: Mon, September 15 2014  -  Last modified: April, 26 2007
 Religion
08 February 2014
 
 
Jesus and Mo: it's time to pick a horse
by Charles Kiendjian
 sub-topic» General

Itís tempting to think this is a difficult legal or moral conundrum. It isnít. There are difficult legal and moral issues out there but this is not one of them. The question before us is very simple: do we have the right to depict Mohammed? Itís a simple question and so it deserves a simple answer. The answer is either yes or no. My answer is yes. If your answer is ďyes, butĒ, then sorry thatís just not good enough. If you have to pause for thought before answering the question then youíve probably already decided the answer is no.

 more» 
11 January 2014
 
 
Why Not Force People to Attend Church?
by Jacob G. Hornberger
 sub-topic» General

Most Americans would undoubtedly oppose a law requiring everyone to attend church. They would say that whether a person attends church or not is his business, not the business of the state or the majority. They would also say that freedom entails the right to not attend church, not worship God, and not even believe in God. They would oppose such a law even if they were convinced that the law would produce good results.

 more» 
07 December 2013
 
 
My Religion: Liberty!
by Timothy J. Taylor
 sub-topic» General

Thatís right! My religion is liberty! At least I believe in the concept of liberty just as much and just as fervently as any Catholics or Protestants believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. And I am just as offended and aggrieved as they are when the government forces me by law to comply with mandates which clearly violate my right to liberty.

 more» 
01 June 2013
 
 
How Strongly do Believers Believe: Hostorical Evidence
by David Friedman
 sub-topic» General

For those of us who do not believe in religion, it is tempting to see other people's belief as only semi-real, as more like my belief in the world of Lord of the Rings (the book, which I read early enough so I had to wait for the second volume to be published, and have reread many times since) than my belief in Australia. It is tempting to interpret our picture of how religious people were in the past as an artifact of filtered data, our sources for the relevant history largely consisting of accounts written by clerics, a point made by Georges Duby, a prominent medieval historian, in a book that used a rare secular source to provide a balancing picture. But it is hard to see how one can give a complete account of history, or even of the present world, without concluding that for a substantial number of people Heaven really was, or is, as real as Australia.

 more» 
30 May 2013
 
 
Pope and State: No Separation
by Timothy J. Taylor
 sub-topic» General

With all due respect to Pope Francis, his philosophy regarding money sounds like a typical socialist/communist rant demanding a worldwide redistribution of wealth from the haveís to the have notís; the producers to the takers; the hard working to the lazy; and the ambitious to the complacent.

 more» 
31 December 2012
 
 
Social Conservative Pharisees
by Paul Green
 sub-topic» General

But it is religious social conservatives who, with misplaced faith have glorified, empowered and bowed down to the state as a divine instrument for imposing morality.

In doing so, they have helped create a rod for their own backs. Now, the masquerade is being lifted to reveal the raw tyranny of the secular state. This was always the end result of the social conservative message and why it is and always has been a losing message.

 more» 
14 August 2012
 
 
Elephant in the room
by Timothy J. Taylor
 sub-topic» General

Religion is the problem.

Everyone knows that the problem is religion, but no one wants to mention it.

Weíre still fighting the crusades of the Middle Ages by proxy in the 21st century. If you take the imaginary man in the sky out of the equation all the problems would be solved.

The Islamic countries Ė the Muslims-- have to get over the fact that Israel is a legitimate state. The Jews and the Christians have to reconcile the fact that the Muslims still have to some extent a legitimate claim to parts of Jerusalem.

Diplomacy is the one and only answer.

Religion is the elephant in the room.

 more» 
16 February 2012
 
 
Liberty through a lens
by Kent McManigal
 sub-topic» General

I stand up for people's religious views, and their right to hold those views, on a regular basis. Even though I think it is silly to believe in things that are beyond any sort of detection, experimentation, or objective observation.

But, I see a fairly common trend that disturbs me. It is when someone who views liberty through the lens of their particular religion demands that everyone view it the same way. Or when some aspect of the State only disturbs them when it ruffles their religious feathers. Such a narrow focus is dangerous.

 more»