comment: >
  
  
  Liberty is more important than safety
  
  Religion restricts both
  Also, it may seem banning religion makes people more religious at first, but if it is taken out of politics, education, business, etc and discouraged in all places, it could help get rid of it.
context: How exactly do you outlaw an idea?
  Gonna start throwing people on concentration camps if you catch them praying?
  Gonna start burning bibles? >
  
  
  Gonna start throwing people on concentration camps if you catch them praying?
  
  I see what you're doing there. No.
  I haven't planned out a whole legal system, but a quick idea is: the first step would just be to remove it from all politics, education systems, businesses, news and most TV channels of any kind, etc, and to shut down churches.
  Afterwards, it would be heavily discouraged, but allowed inside home. Outside home (group gatherings, door-to-door, trying to convert people on the street or something) would be given a warning first, then a day or two in a special rehabilitation center (they could leave any time they like after a session or two, it's not forcing them, and it works as free therapy), and if it continues, stricter schedules with a rehabilitation center.
  
  Gonna start burning bibles?
  
  No, that would just fuel it because it gives religious people a clearly hostile enemy that will be the center of media hate. >
  
  ugh, it’s scary there are people that even think like you lol >
  
  I honestly do not understand why I am being downvoted.
  It is a simple draft of an idea of how it could be enforced.
  It also doesn't harm anyone, and confines them much less than most criminal punishments.
  I thought it was a very good solution because it would be what most people consider moral.
  I'm not an expert on morals, though.
  What was wrong with it? (genuinely asking) >
  
  You're being down voted because your solution is fascist in nature and down right scary. >
  
  Why?
  Like I said, I tried to make it as moral as possible.
  I think it would benefit humanity/ >
  
  Doesn't matter if you give them board games and a pool table. It's still a re-education camp where they can't leave and there movements are monitored. Can't you see the possibility of abuses there? 
  
  I think it would benefit humanity/
  
  Cool. A lot of shitty people thought throwing all Asians on the west coast in the 40s was a positive for everyone as well. >
  
  
  My proposal is no religion. I think it should be outlawed, or at the very least, discouraged and banned from politics, business, and pretty much anywhere other than your own home.
  
  That's not "no religion", that's "no religion in public". Also, in the age of post-lockdown, "at home" includes work, church services, funerals, classes, hangouts, and city council meetings. So all of the places you don't want religion, it'll be there. >
  
  That's a good point, I'll have to think of a way around that
  I might get back to you later >
  
  so you're thinking of a way to modify your view yeah? Does that mean it changed, even in part? >
  
  I think all you've done is alert them to a loophole in their new world order. >
  
  I think the difference between "practice religion only at home" and "practice religion but only without anyone noticing alone with no communication leaving your room" is more than a loophole. >
  
  Shh, let them figure that out >
  
  
  First of all, the quote I started with describes the views of a 18th century English Philosopher named Voltaire, 
  
  Are you open to changing your view on Voltaire’s nationality? >
  
  French* >
  
  Indeed. One view already changed. :) >
  
  Not changed, I just accidentally wrote English because I had seen the word right before I wrote it >
  
  Without a dictatorship (or similarly impressive regime) how do you outlaw religion? >
  
  The same way we outlaw other crimes (although I have views on how I personally think other crimes should be punished)
  We would shut down all public usage of it, create a law, and monitor how it's used.
  Think of it as drug control, but instead of drugs, it's religion. >
  
  
  Think of it as drug control, but instead of drugs, it's religion.
  
  OP, drugs are a physical object. Religion is a set of beliefs.
  Are you aware of the past precedence of trying to ban a set of beliefs? >
  
  Physical or nonphysical, they are very similar.
  Yes I am, and I believe most if not everyone who has tried did it incorrectly. >
  
  “A world where anyone is free to do anything” Lol >
  
  In a metaphorical sense.
  Clearly, I meant anything that doesn't break the law or defy physics. >
  
  “Freedom is clearly just about anything that doesn’t break the laws of physics. I am very smart.” >
  
  Ok, lets imagine that the government decides that everyone must become Christian by law. To be anything else is illegal and you will be punished for anything less than blind devotion.
  This is the world you propose. >
  
  No. That is the opposite of the world I propose.
  The world I proposed was NO religion.
  I explained how it is different.
  It is also not blind devotion. People would just be encouraged to put science and logic before faith. >
  
  There is no scientific proof that there is no god. It is impossible to make any falsifiable hypothesis on the (non-)existence of a divine being. So you can't use science as an argument for your state atheism. >
  
  Freedom of religion is the same as freedom of thought. You are not allowed to physically break a law in the name of religion. If this wasn’t the case, and the law allowed Muslims to kill gay people because of “religion”, then obviously this wouldn’t be a debate. However I’d argue that freedom of religion is simply a specific version of the basic human right for thinking freely. 
  People should be allowed to believe or think whatever they want, long as they don’t break a law. >
  
  It can cause harm and destructive without breaking the law, though.
  For just one example from my post, abandoning or intentionally mistreating LGBTQ kids. >
  
  Religion is just a fancy way of saying a set of beliefs.
  Just because you get rid of conventional religion, people will always have beliefs that you or may not like.
  You also only highlight the negatives of religion. Go to some countries and you see religion is what keeps the communities tied together. The concept of actually caring for your neighbour, where in the western world nobody even cares for their neighbours name anymore. >
  
  This has already been done in Albania. It did not go well.
  “Father Ernest Simoni Troshani, an Albanian Catholic priest, is recalling the post-World War II period in his country, when the regime led by communist dictator Enver Hoxha launched a crackdown on clerics and religious believers.
  After Troshani held a mass in memory of US President John Kennedy when he was assassinated in November 1963, he was arrested on Christmas Eve and went on to spend 28 years in prison.” >
  
  so you would take the peace we have now, with religion, and turn it into a civil war that would surely end the country? how is this a good idea? what problem are you solving? >
  
  As I stated, there is no peace now, and I explained how I believed abolishing religion would bring peace, safety, happiness, etc. >
  
  
  there is no peace now,
  
  which factions are at war in america right now? who is being killed consistently for their religion?
  
  how I believed abolishing religion would bring peace, safety, happiness
  
  you say bad things happen because religion, and if you made religion everyone would get along great. 
  
  where no one is rejected or indoctrinated or forced to believe anything.
  
  so progressivism is also going to be banned? >
  
  
  which factions are at war in america right now? who is being killed consistently for their religion?
  
  A lot of religions are hostile to people who believe other things, and while not many people are being killed, many people are being shunned, abandoned, hated, etc because of their religions. My idea would get rid of all that.
  
  you say bad things happen because religion, and if you made religion everyone would get along great.
  
  No, I'm saying without religion the world would be better.
  
  so progressivism is also going to be banned?
  
  I do not understand how you connected those things or what you mean by this. >
  
  But how I worship and how you worship are very different then how I do, even if we go to the same church. Forcing people to abandon their deep down personal feelings of faith, to adopt one that the govt chose for us. Yeah, that'll go over big. >
  
  Liberty is more important than safety, and banning religion only makes people more religious.