comment: >
  
  How would you respond to a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist advocating this exact same system except in favour of their faith?
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. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  What's your plan if someone refuses to comply? >
  
  Religion is not the issue, power is the issue. If people didn’t use religion as an excuse to wield power (i.e., religion in government) it would be something else >
  
  I think religion will always be used as a tool for power, because of the nature of religion.
  The solution would still be to get rid of it. >
  
  What are counting as religion exactly? Is spirituality a form of religion? Are people allowed to be awe inspired by the grand canyon? Can they say bless you after someone sneezes?
  Would you ban anything derived from religion or with religious themes? Lord of the Rings? Star Wars? Would you demolish Stonehenge? Churches? >
  
  freedom of religion is also a cultural thing too. that different religions living next to each other realize if they are not tolerant of each other, then things can get really bad.  this is a much more feasible idea because people believe strongly in their religions and understand that others of different religions have that same strong beliefs.  to disallow religion or choose one religion above all, it takes a strong dictatorial and brutal state.  freedom of religion is practical. >
  
  
  Essentially, all religion really does is limit's people's freedom and/or safety. Too many people devote their entire lives to worshipping something that hasn't even been proven to exist, missing out on years of a better life.
  
  What you said in your second to last paragraph does not line up with your argument. You say too many people worship something that hasn't been proven but also say that people should be able to do whatever they want. You say religion limits freedom while also promoting the limitation of freedom. 
  
  A world where anyone is free to do anything or be anything, with whoever they want.
  
  Anything they want except practicing a religion and having faith? You said people can practice in their homes but people shouldn't have to hide a big part of their identity because it makes you happy. Why can they only be who they want behind closed doors? 
  Would public expression of religion extend to religious garments as well? Because if you look at France, there are ethical issues with banning religious garmets in public spaces.
  
  Without so many needless restrictions, or destructive beliefs that hold back progress. 
  
  Is banning religion not a needless restriction? Why do you get to decide that religion is a destructive belief? Have you read every single religious text out there to determine it hurts humanity? Practicers of religion that use it to hurt others do not encompass the entirety of religious peoples people. Not to mention that governments that use religion for bad don't reflect the people that practice the religion. 
  
  Where everyone is treated equally (or at least much more equally), where no one is rejected or indoctrinated or forced to believe anything.
  
  Getting rid of religion won't solve inequality because people will just use other means to discriminate. Someone who hates queer people would abandon the Hell rhetoric and move to arguing that it's against biology. Someone who hates Muslims would just argue against immigrants. So on and so forth. >
  
  
  What you said in your second to last paragraph does not line up with your argument. You say too many people worship something that hasn't been proven but also say that people should be able to do whatever they want. You say religion limits freedom while also promoting the limitation of freedom.
  
  Think of religion as a drug.
  People use it and become addicted to it, end up becoming dependent on it, and it basically ends up controlling people. Much like religion.
  We stop that by limiting it. By "everyone can do anything" I meant in the metaphorical sense. Anything possible that doesn't go against the law.
  
  Anything they want except practicing a religion and having faith? You said people can practice in their homes but people shouldn't have to hide a big part of their identity because it makes you happy. Why can they only be who they want behind closed doors?
  
  Because religion is dangerous and should be extremely discouraged if not outlawed. I explained that.
  
  Would public expression of religion extend to religious garments as well? Because if you look at France, there are ethical issues with banning religious garmets in public spaces.
  
  They would just be garments. Just decoration, like earrings or necklaces. They would lose their meaning.
  
  Is banning religion not a needless restriction? Why do you get to decide that religion is a destructive belief? Have you read every single religious text out there to determine it hurts humanity? Practicers of religion that use it to hurt others do not encompass the entirety of religious peoples people. Not to mention that governments that use religion for bad don't reflect the people that practice the religion.
  
  I explained how religion is destructive. Most of the questions you're asking are answered in the post.
  The way you phrased the second half makes it difficult to understand but from what I do understand, you're saying people who use religion as a weapon do not represent everyone of that religion. That would be correct, which is why I consider if it should be allowed at home, just not in public, where it can't be used as a weapon but still can be used.
  
  Getting rid of religion won't solve inequality because people will just use other means to discriminate. Someone who hates queer people would abandon the Hell rhetoric and move to arguing that it's against biology. Someone who hates Muslims would just argue against immigrants. So on and so forth.
  
  That is better, because with religion out of the way, we can use science to prove which people are wrong and which people are right, which will stop the fighting. That's the great thing about science over faith. You can actually know who is right and who is wrong, which stops the conflict. >
  
  I could give you some examples where science has been used to justify some very horrible things but no one tries to outlaw that.
  The data is quite clear that active worshipers live better lives on average. Does it matter whether there's literally an all powerful being if worshiping him in a certain way gives a person self discipline and courage and a community and meaning in life? No one criticizes Pinocchio for being literally false when it conveys deep metaphorical truths.
  Sure, there have been and are bad religions but there are also bad companies and bad governments and an argument to be made that neither of those really exist except in our minds either but that doesn't negate their utility or importance in society.
  Look deeper and you'll find that religion underpins our very society. One need to believe in it to recognize that. >
  
  
  I could give you some examples where science has been used to justify some very horrible things but no one tries to outlaw that.
  
  I would actually appreciate those examples
  
  The data is quite clear that active worshipers live better lives on average. Does it matter whether there's literally an all powerful being if worshiping him in a certain way gives a person self discipline and courage and a community and meaning in life? No one criticizes Pinocchio for being literally false when it conveys deep metaphorical truths.
  
  Define "better" lives.
  
  Sure, there have been and are bad religions but there are also bad companies and bad governments and an argument to be made that neither of those really exist except in our minds either but that doesn't negate their utility or importance in society.
  
  "Good" and "bad" are subjective. I use the words helpful and destructive/harmful.
  I don't fully understand what you mean by this paragraph. Like I said in the post, I do not believe religion helps society in any way, and the only "importance" it has is the negative impact on people.
  
  Look deeper and you'll find that religion underpins our very society. One need to believe in it to recognize that.
  
  I think that is inaccurate. >
  
  
  Many religions is the same as two religions
  
  Then no religion would be the same as one religion. In the same way that support for a single faith requires an authoritarian and arbitrary approach to other religions, a national policy of outlawing all religions would require the same because it is not the absence of religion but rather an ideology to replace it. Unless you are painting a picture where everyone freely gives up on the idea of religion, the state would have to force religious people into following the state ideology. To me that doesn't sound much better than certain religions that force people to convert and punish those who don't, regardless of how well-intentioned the reasoning is.
  Much like many democratic ideals, allowing people the freedom to choose, even if you feel they are the wrong choices, is preferable to allowing a single person or small group of people to decide what is best for everyone. >
  
  
  Then no religion would be the same as one religion. In the same way that support for a single faith requires an authoritarian and arbitrary approach to other religions, a national policy of outlawing all religions would require the same because it is not the absence of religion but rather an ideology to replace it. Unless you are painting a picture where everyone freely gives up on the idea of religion, the state would have to force religious people into following the state ideology. To me that doesn't sound much better than certain religions that force people to convert and punish those who don't, regardless of how well-intentioned the reasoning is.
  
  One religion and no religion are completely different things. I explained this in better detail in the post. No religion means we can base most things off science and logic instead of faith, which means we can prove things right or wrong, and it has no unnecessary restrictions, unlike most religions.
  
  Much like many democratic ideals, allowing people the freedom to choose, even if you feel they are the wrong choices, is preferable to allowing a single person or small group of people to decide what is best for everyone.
  
  That is debatable
  I would be fine with people voting and choosing, but as I said, religion influences everything, and as it goes against science and logic, it can lead to destructive decisions. It is better to remove it. >
  
  Religion does more than add tension. It gives people hope, it creates a sense of belonging and community. There are other positives. Also, just because you follow a religion dosen't mean you're missing out on a better life. I grew up in the church, then went a bit wild in my wallet adult years and honestly wish I would've adhered to my young self a bit more. The stuff I did was fun, to an extent, but I could've lived a good life having not done it as well.
  That said, look at the US. It's not perfect, but compared to our historical counterparts. There's a fairly diverse amount of believers here all getting along peacefully - for the most part.
  Personally I don't think it is religion that causes all those things but human nature in general. Religion is just the outlet or current focus of some. 
  But at the end of the day, people have fought over just being on the "wrong" side of a fence or river. People fight war over races, political ideologies, social media posts e.t.c.. 
  My basic TLDR point is that just because you outlaw something that creates division, dosen't mean you've removed that from people altogether. They'll just focus it into something else. >
  
  The problem is religion is not well defined. In some religions, it is mostly a set beliefs. Another religions, it includes actions, and sometimes those actions affect others what would make the most sense as to allow religion, but only insofar is that you are allowed your beliefs, to wear a religious garments, and to have a place of worship. I also think there should be legal protections about what parents can put their kids through in the name of religion as well. Basically, as soon as your religion starts affecting others, it should no longer be allowed. >
  
  Define religion. >
  
  You want to make your religious beliefs the mandated ones, but if we say that the government gets to set rules around the practice of religion why do you think it's going be your beliefs reflected in those rules? Through much of US history it would have been atheism that was outlaws, not Christianity. Freedom of religion protects your right not to practice a religion. >
  
  I think there is a disconnect between your title and your explanation/replies. Your title suggests that we should outlaw religion, but your proposed solution is to discourage religion at every turn. Discouraging something is not the same as taking that freedom away. >
  
  Not here to change your view actually, because I couldn't read until the end when I read the word outlawed. Very fascist/communist in nature. Then also, you'd have tons of people, me included, who would see this over their dead bodies, so congrats, you would literally have to commit crimes against humanity to see this through, because you're not instituting this law peacefully. >
  
  'Essentially, all religion really does is limit's people's freedom and/or safety. ... , missing out on years of a better life'
  You argument is based on the premise that religion has negative effects on society, hence it should be banned. But you argument completely ignores the benefits religion has on human society in general. 
  Religion at its core gives humans meaning, a sense of purpose. It is very often seen today, young people feel no sense of purpose, lack direction, have no meaning in life. Yes, sure they can devote themselves to a life of charity, to service to the state/party, or to academia. 'I feel empty inside' is most common ailment in society. Perhaps you don't feel it, but you can't deny it is happening. Religion is the free, easy to use band-aid solution to this. Religion is the cheap, pre-existing mass therapy network. 
  Of course, not all religions are created equal, not even the practitioners of the same religion are created equal. Gay kids have been forced to suicide and mass suffering alleviated all in the name of the same God.  
  Religion is imperfect, but it fills in the gaps where an imperfect society leaves behind.  A well of educated white-collar person or someone living in Stockholm with social welfare does not need the institution of religion, but the poor black person in rural Alabama or huddled children in war torn regions of the world. A perfect society won't need religion, but those don't exist yet, at scale at least.