<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: War of the fundamentals</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.reasonabledissent.com/war-fundamentals/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.reasonabledissent.com/war-fundamentals/</link>
	<description>Open-minded thoughts on atheism, religion, theism and science.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:19:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: TravisKERI21</title>
		<link>http://www.reasonabledissent.com/war-fundamentals/comment-page-1/#comment-304</link>
		<dc:creator>TravisKERI21</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 May 2010 16:26:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reasonabledissent.com/?p=230#comment-304</guid>
		<description>Set your life easier get the &lt;a href=&quot;http://lowest-rate-loans.com/topics/credit-loans&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lowest-rate-loans.com&lt;/a&gt; and everything you require.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Set your life easier get the <a href="http://lowest-rate-loans.com/topics/credit-loans" rel="nofollow">http://www.lowest-rate-loans.com</a> and everything you require.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl</title>
		<link>http://www.reasonabledissent.com/war-fundamentals/comment-page-1/#comment-261</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:51:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reasonabledissent.com/?p=230#comment-261</guid>
		<description>I go back and forth about this issue too. On one hand, I don&#039;t have a problem with anyone believing what they want, and if they want to fork over their paycheck to a religious scam that&#039;s their business. Freedom of religion doesn&#039;t necessarily have to mean preferential treatment for them (though it very obviously does in this country). But on the other hand, I agree that the important parts should be covered by our freedom of speech. Implying that they get to wiggle around taxes and laws because it&#039;s part of their religion is terrible. I&#039;m tired of exceptions being made to accommodate someone&#039;s religion when an atheist would have gotten no such leniency.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I go back and forth about this issue too. On one hand, I don&#8217;t have a problem with anyone believing what they want, and if they want to fork over their paycheck to a religious scam that&#8217;s their business. Freedom of religion doesn&#8217;t necessarily have to mean preferential treatment for them (though it very obviously does in this country). But on the other hand, I agree that the important parts should be covered by our freedom of speech. Implying that they get to wiggle around taxes and laws because it&#8217;s part of their religion is terrible. I&#8217;m tired of exceptions being made to accommodate someone&#8217;s religion when an atheist would have gotten no such leniency.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: His Lordship</title>
		<link>http://www.reasonabledissent.com/war-fundamentals/comment-page-1/#comment-258</link>
		<dc:creator>His Lordship</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:03:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reasonabledissent.com/?p=230#comment-258</guid>
		<description>Freedom of religion is dangerous, because the craziest lunatics hide behind its protective barrier to justify defrauding gullible masses from their donation money, evade taxes, and indoctrinate the youth and other susceptible individuals.

Atheism not being a religion does not benefit from this same protection, and is only granted the protections normally granted to freedom of speech and of the press. Religion on the other hand, provides an additional barrier, the breaching of which is considered taboo. As a result, an atheist cannot discriminate against someone&#039;s religion, but a religious person has a much easier time discriminating against atheists.

This is what makes many atheists angry. It&#039;s almost as if we have to defend ourselves against bigotry with hands tied behind our back. It&#039;s simply unfair. 

Therefore, freedom of religion was the Founding Fathers&#039; biggest mistake. Free speech should have been enough.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Freedom of religion is dangerous, because the craziest lunatics hide behind its protective barrier to justify defrauding gullible masses from their donation money, evade taxes, and indoctrinate the youth and other susceptible individuals.</p>
<p>Atheism not being a religion does not benefit from this same protection, and is only granted the protections normally granted to freedom of speech and of the press. Religion on the other hand, provides an additional barrier, the breaching of which is considered taboo. As a result, an atheist cannot discriminate against someone&#8217;s religion, but a religious person has a much easier time discriminating against atheists.</p>
<p>This is what makes many atheists angry. It&#8217;s almost as if we have to defend ourselves against bigotry with hands tied behind our back. It&#8217;s simply unfair. </p>
<p>Therefore, freedom of religion was the Founding Fathers&#8217; biggest mistake. Free speech should have been enough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl</title>
		<link>http://www.reasonabledissent.com/war-fundamentals/comment-page-1/#comment-247</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:32:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reasonabledissent.com/?p=230#comment-247</guid>
		<description>As crazy as it sounds, I&#039;ve heard it justified that it&#039;s supposed to be &quot;freedom of religion&quot; rather than &quot;freedom from religion&quot;, so that must obviously mean that you have to pick one. 

Also, I like your question, though I think the parallel between sin and religion would be lost on most people. I&#039;m guessing they&#039;d defend it by saying that religion (arguably) isn&#039;t the same because all sin is bad, but &quot;mine is good.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As crazy as it sounds, I&#8217;ve heard it justified that it&#8217;s supposed to be &#8220;freedom of religion&#8221; rather than &#8220;freedom from religion&#8221;, so that must obviously mean that you have to pick one. </p>
<p>Also, I like your question, though I think the parallel between sin and religion would be lost on most people. I&#8217;m guessing they&#8217;d defend it by saying that religion (arguably) isn&#8217;t the same because all sin is bad, but &#8220;mine is good.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Big Blue Frog</title>
		<link>http://www.reasonabledissent.com/war-fundamentals/comment-page-1/#comment-246</link>
		<dc:creator>The Big Blue Frog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:26:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reasonabledissent.com/?p=230#comment-246</guid>
		<description>If &quot;freedom of religion&quot; means that we have to choose from one of the available religions, does &quot;being free of sin&quot; mean we have to choose from one of the available sins?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If &#8220;freedom of religion&#8221; means that we have to choose from one of the available religions, does &#8220;being free of sin&#8221; mean we have to choose from one of the available sins?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
