Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

tomp

(9,512 posts)
20. the research is sketchy and "balancing" is different from banning.
Sun May 7, 2017, 08:20 AM
May 2017

we need to do three things:

1) strictly enforce separation of church and state.

2) ban certain religious practices that may involve harm to people (like genital mutilation).

3) educate people such as yourself to the difference between religiosity in general and the abuses of institutionalized religion.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Is this why peeps with substance abuse problems find god. Throck May 2017 #1
peeps with substance abuse problem are sent to God. ileus May 2017 #7
Yes, exacty! mountain grammy May 2017 #24
that and greed gopiscrap May 2017 #58
It's not simple to find a recovery group that is not based in religion. irisblue May 2017 #76
In the 1970s one of my college students said to me, tblue37 May 2017 #26
One Toke Over The Line Sweet Jesus Mendocino May 2017 #63
One of my college roomies did the same thing CanonRay May 2017 #47
The Steven Baldwin syndrome. maveric May 2017 #68
Also explains the intersection of RepubliCONs & evangelical christianism. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #2
Brain Damage. Ligyron May 2017 #3
Confusing fundamentalism with religiosity is an error, research doing so is subject to question. TheBlackAdder May 2017 #4
agreed. nt tomp May 2017 #10
It does NOT make that confusion. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #27
His prior interest has been in neuromorality. rug May 2017 #39
So? And? That means he's confused? No. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #40
It means he leans toward sociobiology. rug May 2017 #41
Nothing wrong with the concept of sociobiology. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #45
There's been plenty wrong with sociobiology since E.O. Wilson. rug May 2017 #53
Again you provide no cogent arguments or facts and refuse to take a clear stand. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #56
Makes sense. Why would so many people be hell bent on shooting themselves democratisphere May 2017 #5
Because 3-stage Evangelicals believe that Baptism w/Holy Spirit is a one-time event, and get cocky. TheBlackAdder May 2017 #8
Ah, yes, the "Get Out Of Moral Responsibility Free" card hatrack May 2017 #19
I grew up in single state baptism and you are spot on... paleotn May 2017 #31
God loves them? Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #46
You've got 'em. Spot on. paleotn May 2017 #69
"Stage 3". I like that. Great classification system! LOL. nt Ilsa May 2017 #78
Lol BigOleDummy May 2017 #6
Why we still allow religions in America is beyond me...we've progressed past that. ileus May 2017 #9
the idea of banning religion outright is insidious, unconstitutional, and quite narrow-minded. tomp May 2017 #11
Read the post....religious people are brain damaged. It's not me..it's in the article. ileus May 2017 #13
the research is sketchy and "balancing" is different from banning. tomp May 2017 #20
No. The article does NOT say that. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #30
"We can't be a truly progressive country until we snuff out all the sky daddy believers." hrmjustin May 2017 #37
That's because it is. rug May 2017 #42
I'm an atheist, and I strongly disagree NastyRiffraff May 2017 #77
I think ileus is due his opinion HAB911 May 2017 #16
He can have his opinion since thought not a crime. If it was, he could outlaw religion AND himself Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #35
You supply an excellent statement of outlook on life that I would like to adopt. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #36
His study proposes attitudes toward belief are based on brain structure rather than experience. rug May 2017 #43
Some attitudes. Your flat bald binary statement is not a fair characterization of his study. . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #48
Many attitudes. rug May 2017 #55
That's NOT an attitude. It is a factual statement supported by research. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #57
+++++ HAB911 May 2017 #17
Wow. You are intolerant. Sanity Claws May 2017 #25
Yes, you are right. And not even all fundamentalists. Just some. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #49
So I shouldn't be allowed to practice my faith because you say so? hrmjustin May 2017 #28
We MUST allow religion if we allow Freedom of Thought, Speech, and Association (and we need those) Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #32
that would require a police state treestar May 2017 #61
So we've progressed beyond the Liberal Quakers? moriah May 2017 #62
So how did all these people get brain damage? milestogo May 2017 #12
Fell down and bumped their heads? ileus May 2017 #14
It is easy to read the article and see that you are wrong. . .nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #50
obviously, it's an epidemic mdbl May 2017 #18
Being raised in a strict religious family? paleotn May 2017 #33
Repeatedly smacked in the head by Benny Hinn? hatrack May 2017 #38
They read post #9 and collapsed laughing. rug May 2017 #44
Would there be liability? moriah May 2017 #66
No, we all assume the risk of reading posts. Caveat lector. rug May 2017 #70
Or caveat bibitor, in drinking and DUzys. ;) moriah May 2017 #71
Read the article. :eyes: The answer is in the first few paragraphs. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #51
I understand that they were working with combat veterans in this research milestogo May 2017 #59
Oh, you're asking about them. First it is important to know what the article does NOT say. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #67
Probably extreme in a number of ways, I would think. Honeycombe8 May 2017 #15
but aren't humans supposed to be able to separate fantasy from reality? mdbl May 2017 #21
It depends on the brain, as the article states. nt Honeycombe8 May 2017 #23
Where did you ever get that idea. Think of all the people who cannot distinguish tblue37 May 2017 #29
It seems as if relgious fundamentalism is a form of addiction meow2u3 May 2017 #22
Makes sense to me. paleotn May 2017 #34
And the money they spent on the addiction is now given to the church milestogo May 2017 #60
I think that too treestar May 2017 #65
it was previously known that epilepsy in the same region mopinko May 2017 #52
Previously "known" loyalsister May 2017 #72
i dont understand your question, but yes, it has been shown mopinko May 2017 #73
I have epilepsy loyalsister May 2017 #74
it wasnt meant as an insult. mopinko May 2017 #79
It's only an important distinction in a few ways loyalsister May 2017 #80
I once worked for a non profit........... mrmpa May 2017 #54
Sadly... I know an example of this. But only one out of the many... moriah May 2017 #64
More ableism loyalsister May 2017 #75
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2017 #81
An UNSECURE site, JoshuaBE. Can you summarize? Hortensis May 2017 #82
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Brain damage linked to re...»Reply #20