Only if I could make it a capital offense!
I'm just a little surprised, what with the frequent reminding us of all the torture, murders, wars, pogroms, genocide, etc., that stamping out religion is so unpopular here. So, let's rephrase the question a bit: if you could stop all religion everywhere in its tracks back in the year 0 A.D., would you? Think of all the death and suffering you could prevent!
If I had the power to change people's minds to 'agree with all atheist thought and suppositions'? Hum, sounds like some twisted extreamist ideologies that I, and expect 'we', have encountered in our travels. Replace the term 'atheist' with Christian, Scientolgist, Moony, Republican, or Democrat, and I think the mind reels in revulsion. I do think a 'healthy' dose of the Green party, might be ok..LOL. The lack of a perfect majority, probably helps to suppress most of the outlyer crazyness. Read this as, 'saving us from ourselves'.
I couldn't bear to ban it. Mankind has always relied on it when reason didn't give them enough knowledge and comfort. We might be better off, but maybe man couldn't live without its crutch. Plus banning it is a total human rights violation and makes us just as bad as the Christians who want to kick atheists and Muslims out of the country.
I have a question for you free thinkers out there. I am not sure I can answer it myself...but have spent hours trying to work out the best answer.
If you COULD ban cancer across the globe... would you?
Thinking caps on guys... this is a big responsibility -our chance to change the world...
look forward to your replies...
Hehe. No but I honestly I wouldn't. Religion is what regulates stupid people and prevents them from doing even more stupid shit. It's like a mind-control scheme for those of limited intelligence. A shepherds dog that guides the sheep in the right direction, if you will. They need it, not for themselves but for the sake of everybody else too. Most religious people get their morals from their books, which basically means two things. One, they have no real morals, and two, they would be too inept to actually figure out morals on their own. Without their books telling them how to behave they'd go on a rampage. Banning religion would be like banning fences from a zoo, the animals would just wreak havoc.
I'm against any form of 'thought police', but I would like to effectively ban superstition/dogma from public legislation/education. Essentially, rather than ban religion, I would like to implement some means of shifting current parliamentary systems away from an argumentative process to an evidentiary process where ever possible.
I would like to put a ban on the sorts of ideas that can be passed on to children, however. Primarily, I feel that no one should have the right to tell their children that a possible punishment might include being burned alive. I also think that it's rude to tell children that they are being watched - even when they think no one is around. This includes Santa Claus as well as gods/angels/boogiemen. While I still believed in Santa, I felt rather creeped out that little elves might be peeking in the windows at any given moment.
I'm with @Heather regarding an evidentiary process in political systems.
Ideally, I'd like some kind of restriction on what can be taught to children. Any religious education (public or private) would have to include all (major) religions - along with the concepts central to agnosticism and atheism.
So, no to the banning of religion, but yes to banning indoctrination of children into a specific religion.
It would be great if we would get to the point where that was followed in the home too - but I do believe parents have some right to share their values, beliefs and traditions with their children. So I guess even if I were queen-of-the-world, I think I'd leave that alone.
If you're going to ban the inculcating of religious tenets from parent to child, you might as well go ahead and ban the religion itself, for in an evangelical faith like Christianity and Islam, it is one's duty to spread the word and inoculate the child (as they would view it) from the evils of the world.
So threatening children with immolation is just one form of child abuse that we must tolerate? No thank you - I'll stick by my desire to ban that sort of behavior.
I suppose it all depends on how one looks at it. I imagine the theist is going to view you as terrorizing children with the threat of no chance at an afterlife.
Yeah, and if I cornered their children and told them all about death, and how once you die "that's it", game over, you don't exist anymore - then I suppose that might be abuse. That's not what I'm proposing, however. Telling children stories, with the intent of scaring the shit out of them, without ever letting on that it's just a story and not to be taken seriously - that's child abuse. What do you suppose a theist might say about that?
I grew up in the Episcopal church, and all I can say is that Hell was almost never discussed. In fact, the only time I can even remember the word coming up is in the Lord's Prayer which claims that Jesus descended into Hell during the period between the crucifixion and resurrection. It's mostly the hellfire and brimstone end of Christianity that spends a lot of time and energy on scaring people with the threat of swimming in a sea of molten lava forever.