Presidential Candidates .. Who Do You Like?

I know, If he was good at it he should go back to it!

You feel Paul is a kook and you supported Cain?

/does not compute

and we care about this why?

When someone mentions the founding fathers, they most likely mean the people noted in your picture.
But perhaps at one time the founding fathers weren't those men slaving over a dozen papers to create a country full of brilliant idealists under the facade of freedom.
Maybe, just Maybe the ones living day by day to ensure we stayed alive, the men and women who strived to keep good morals and a social order so that all chaos didn't break lose. So their families and children and grandchildren could stay safe and have strong values to live by.
In a day and age when life truly was hard and physically demanding.
The (citizens,men,women,people)soldiers who laid their lives on the line to protect a forsaken land of forsaken people. Criminals, Rapists, Murderers, and those who had the strong will to not allow others to force their beliefs on them.
Men who stood under God, Indivisible, For Liberty, And Justice for All.

Here's a quote you can keep. Put my name on it in the history books or give it whomever you seem fit when the time comes.

"The War for Freedom, will Never End." ~Raborn 2012

You can have good morals and strong values without forcing one religion over an entire country and then not even having the guts to call that country a theocracy. All chaos will not break loose if we are not all "under god."

I'm an atheist, and I'm just astounded by the people who couldn't figure out that rape and murder are wrong all by themselves. I'm sorry, but you're sick and depraved if the only reason that you are NOT a rapist or a murderer or causing "all chaos" to break loose is because you worship this god or that god or some other god. Seriously.

That's not even mentioning the fact that the Bible encourages the rape and murder of those who are not "god's chosen ones" and hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by religious zealots in the form of crusades and such. :-(

You speak of the creators of the nation as Atheists to prove a lightly blank point - single quotes from a single moment out of their entire lifetime. Then you argue that a single system of belief is forcing its way down the throats of people and how sick and twisted I am for mentioning that the original settlers that began America were in fact Criminals in their original nation, given a second chance to harvest the "New World" for the "Mother Country" -so said country could profit. Then try to turn my words against me by using your religion (or belief or non-belief, whatever you may see it as) and some common "good" as a way of defining people. When a common good is just as much of a perspective, if not more than a belief in a god or a belief thereof no god.

No one said Man is Good, Man is Great. Humans in their nature do not always do the proper thing. Tell me you've never done something wrong or harmful to someone else and I'll call you a liar.

Anyone who does understand the Christian religion knows that it isn't based on who is the best and most pious, unless of course you are Catholic then you go to hell if you sneeze wrong, but I hear their rules are changing daily now - forgive me if I gave you a chuckle.

I by no means condemn your religion (belief, not belief, whatever), I'm simply making a point that the original founders, or the men and women who actually held the backbone of our country lived under
(regardless of whether it be a facade or veil of) God. Using God as a children's bed time story to keep them in at night or rather create an order. You know, good old fire and brimstone- or maybe you don't.

I make reference in my statement to the Pledge of Allegiance as a jest. It has been changed perhaps well over 4 times, hence "under God" being first as it is clearly the most controversial part of the pledge being stated nowhere in the original draft. Then comes the "Indivisible" part meaning even though we share different backgrounds, beliefs, or we may fight. We'll stand together and strong when threatened, and I would most definitely stand by you if the time came, you clearly have a strong will.
"Liberty and Justice for All" And there's the punchline - referencing back to my "idealist" statement. As Liberty is blind and Justice biased. Both based on a system of beliefs.



I was in no means attacking you or endorsing one religion over all. Simply stating that there are more doors in the hall than just the ones you see. Stating that sometimes its the doors you don't see that are the most important things.

The far right has made a claim that the founding fathers were these hardcore Christian fundamentalists that would stand by their modern beliefs but as we see in many of the fathers writings that just does not add up. Many of the founders were clearly affected by the counter culture going against the oppressive church of their day and with regards to personal beliefs many would fall in the deist camp moving further and further from an anthropomorphic incarnation of God so popular in their own day and again in our own.

These men weren't fundamentalists, they were radical heretics going against the oppressive churches and governments of their day. Thomas Paine anyone?


Good morals? If we stuck to the morals of the 18th century we'd still be enslaving human beings and treating the native population of the Americas like expendable chess pieces to be thrown away at our leisure. I guess we can't do the latter since natives are all but exterminated but I digress. The people of the 18th century had flaws much like we do but the difference is biblical literalism (and those who espouse it) want us to move backwards or stand still rather than learn of the mistakes of the past.

I respect the men and women who ground out a tough existence in what to them was a foreign, unfriendly and untamed wilderness but I wouldn't want to live like them because their errors were numerous, cruelties unusual and behavior the result of a time in which the ability to think for yourself was limited. For every achievement made in developing this country, how many slaves stories go untold? how many died because of persecution? how many treated in the most inhumane of ways? Our goal is to learn from this and to make every effort to avoid repeating the failings of our forefathers.

This is my bone to pick with the extremes. History cannot be shaped to fit a narrow worldview and if some are too ignorant to read of how this very country was founded, to learn from the mistakes of days gone by and to avoid concocting the formula by which religion can yet again become a multi-pronged hydra that rains death down upon the citizenry then perhaps they should ask people who actually do historical research rather than fabricate facts to push forward an agenda.

This isn't a blank point. We have in this country politicians who are insisting that our founding fathers were Christian men (that's not so much a problem, it's just ignorance) and then using that statement to deny gays rights and take away the rights of women (that is a big damn problem!) As the point of this thread was asking which presidential candidate I would support, I felt it was worth mentioning that I would not support a candidate who used religion as a scapegoat to deny rights to citizens. This is something I base my support of politicians of off, which makes it a perfectly valid point in this thread.


I know I am more cranky about this than I need to be, so I'm sorry if I come off sounding blunt. But a single system of belief IS forcing its way down the throats of people. Gays cannot marry; why? Because the Bible says it's wrong. Women have a very hard time obtaining abortions; why? Because the Bible says it's wrong. Far right politicians are pushing to make birth control pills and other hormonal birth control methods illegal; why? Because apparently the Bible says that's wrong too. If forcing people to live under the laws of the Bible is not forcing the Bible down their throats, then I don't know what is.

And maybe it's just my family and where I live, but very few people I know in rl know that I am an atheist. I would lose my family over it. I would lose my friends over it. If I was employed, I could lose my job over it. Traveling missionaries are very common here. I've gone to eat on my old college campus, and as soon as I sit down with a tray of food missionaries are there. I've tried opening a book or putting on headphones or both to discourage them. They come anyways. I've been cornered in the bathroom by missionaries. I can't escape their blabber if I am busy trying to relieve myself, I suppose. Maybe it's not as bad where you live, but here, religion is very much forced down throats.

As for calling you sick and twisted, sorry, I didn't mean to. I wrote it wrong. I meant "you" in general, not "you" personally. I should have said that people who can't tell that murder or rape are wrong by themselves are sick, using "people" instead of "you." I apologize.


I don't see where I tried to turn your words against you. I'm sorry if it came off that way. I stated an opinion, you stated an opinion, I stated a counter-opinion. If you mean using the same words as you did, such as you using rape and murder as an example so therefore I used rape and murder as an example as well, that's just how debate works. I'm not trying to turn your words against you, I'm just debating.

I don't believe all man is inherently good. I do believe that man can have laws and societies without the help of an invisible god to do it. In fact, I think if man does need an invisible god to tell him what is right or wrong, then man is very confused. That's all I'm trying to say here, I'm not trying to tell you that being good is a belief, if that is what you are trying to say.


No one in their nature always does the proper thing, religious or not. I don't understand how this makes any difference in the argument.


I was raised in a very strict fundamentalist Baptist home. I do understand that it isn't based on who is the most pious, but I do not understand what difference it makes in the discussion. I'm sorry, it's early and I haven't had any caffeine yet, so I might just be being dense. But I just don't understand what not being pious has to do with not wanting to live in a theocracy.


We can't possibly know if the original citizens read their children the Bible as a bedtime story because we weren't there. We really only have literature and quotes from that time period to go on, and we've already seen the quotes about it that say that whether or not the citizens were religious, the founding fathers intended this to be a land of religious freedom. All that means is that the nutjob right wing politicians who are making the laws I mentioned earlier (and using the founding fathers' supposed religiousness to do it) are wrong.

Anyways, I'm really, truly sorry that I accidentally called you sick and depraved. I honestly didn't mean to!

I know I come across as a bit too blunt on this subject. I have some friends that are homosexual and I am just so sad and angry that they are treated like second-class citizens with sub-par rights, and I have a hard time not blaming the religious right-wing for it, and I'm afraid I'm really just far more sensitive and crabby about the subject than I need to be. /blush

So.... Obama's re-election bid is pretty much toast huh?

First off I'll say that religion has no place in ruling government... That being said you will never escape it though... elected officials have their own beliefs and our beliefs tend to be at the core of our person and will no doubt roll over into our daily lives... We should not use religion to base our reasoning though... Using religion to say you can or can't do something undermines religious freedom in which we pride ourselves on here in the states... None of these things should be based off faith... Faith is something personal and while it may guide some... you can't/shouldn't force someone else to abide by the rules which you have embraced on a personal level.

As for what the founding fathers wanted? Does it really matter? they lived in a different time and what could almost be construed as a different world... they allowed things to go on that we wouldn't today... as much as some would like to fight against it... times change and you can't always reference back and say well this and that was done then... sure we use history as a tool to learn from and to help not repeat our mistakes but what was right once isn't always right now... Do you honestly think gay marriage would have been supported back then? I'm unsure of what the situation was like with abortion... You speak of them preaching freedom from an oppressive church state but they still would not support the things you speak of... My history is a little rusty but it works for both sides too... I mean I don't think many of them were very faithful to their wives either... So I don't get where the sanctity of marriage plays in... even today divorce rates are high and well at least with Catholics you can only get married once in the church unless death has parted you from your spouse... Yet people just go get remarried elsewhere... So I don't get where the sanctity of marriage that is so highly defended is lived...

As for people that try to push their religion on others... I dislike it but I've come to a better understanding as to why some of them do it... I was volunteering at a senior center not too long ago when a man began to talk to me about faith and such... I sat there and listened to him for over an hour and one of the things he said really stuck with me... he said something like that he has an obligation to pass on his knowledge to help me... to see the light of god and to help me find the right path... that if he didn't that would fall on him as a sin for not taking any action... for being able to do something and doing nothing... While I may not agree with the methods or the belief... It gave me insight as to why people do what they do sometimes... they may actually believe that they would be doing you and themselves wrong if they didn't try... I can see that being especially so with family... I have uncles that are somewhat pushy on stuff like this so I know how it can be but... I can see where they are coming from as well... gives me a little more patience and tolerance for them...

Ultimately I believe we all live in our own little worlds... myself included... We see what we see and process that information in a way that only we can and the result is individuality... even those that allign themselves on the same side of the fence differ on many different ideas... All sides push their own ideas for the world... what is good... what is bad... what we should or shouldn't do... We all have our own opinions on this and they all differ to a degree... What defines what is actually right? Is it pure majority? Is it something we find that shows us what is actually right or wrong? Is it subjective? Is anything ever truly black and white?

Obama still has a shot... God I hope Romney doesn't win lol..

A bit old but related. I half thought I found it in this thread, but I back read and well, if it was there it's not anymore.

i voted for ron paul, my dad said i wasted my vote :|

And yet individuals use their religion to oppress others on a daily basis. We know that this behavior is not "American" in the sense of how we define ourselves a country free for religious practice of almost any kind but it still happens and worse we now have one group that has hijacked a political party and takes it upon themselves to rewrite history in order to shape a future justified by their one specific interpretation of the world around them.

I don't expect individuals to do anything other than believe whatever it is they believe (atheist, deist, pantheist, polytheist or monotheist alike) but what I do expect is to keep that sort of thing to your lifestyle and out of public legislation where it can negatively affect others. When individuals do cross the line they deserve to be called out on it because as history and politics has shown is that once religion entrenches itself in government, the bloodshed isn't far behind.


It is important to define the fathers because what they did in their time was to challenge the status quo of their day. Of course they borrowed these ideas from contemporary writers, had personal stakes in bucking the trend and had numerous personal failings (who doesn't?) but the point I'm trying to home in on is that these men weren't the "conservative" God-fearing men that some individuals would have them out to be and it's important to recognize that because some of their very own writings prove this.

These were men living in the wake of violent religious oppression, tyrannical governments backed by religious entities and theo-political constructs such as the Inquisition designed to root out anyone who would question the might of one interpretation of Christian doctrine. Some of what these guys had to say in their day could have had them killed and it's apparent from some of the writings that some feared to go as far as they did against the establishment.

Thomas Paine was destroyed as an individual because of what he had to say about the status quo of his day.


Was gay marriage a major issue in the 18th century? No. Bringing that up is akin to asking leaders of our age about their thoughts on advanced AI being able to think for themselves or the morality behind uploading human brains to artificial platforms. It just wasn't an issue and that is why we hear nothing of it.

On issues that were relevant to their age, the founders were pretty clear on issues of church and state needing to be separate because in their time it was clear that once the two merged, state sanctioned persecution wasn't far behind. The very notion of the fathers bringing up how dangerous the church can be lends itself to the argument that these men would not speak fondly of the push to make America "Christian" - whatever the heck that means.


I understand why Genghis Khan invaded Europe, why the Europeans conquered the New World, why Julius Caesar was such an effective military tactician and why slavery was such a entrenched system for centuries but does that mean any of it is appropriate in our time?

If the older gentleman in your story had talked to me, I would have pointed out that while he feels it is his obligation to educate me on the boons of Christ, it is my obligation to him to point out the historical precedent of a country where one religion attempts to force itself upon a varied populace not only for the sake of his fellow Christians but also for every other citizen out there trying to squeak out an existence.

A simple jaunt through history shows this and there is no reason that this time would be any less bloody as the architects of this theocratic push have already dismissed simple American history among every other warning sign that this cannot end well.

Another point of note is that many Christians believe that this nation would be better off "under God" but what they fail to realize that once a theocracy has entrenched itself and the obvious enemies have been dealt with, guess who's next to be fed to the ravenous beast? The very people who call themselves the most ardent supporters of Christianity. Or are we so naive to believe that all the flavors of Jesus would be accepted in this new order?


Everyone has their worldviews and while many come into conflict with each other things have worked out best when nations endorse no one specific faith overtly and such matters are left to the free market of ideas for individuals to confirm/deny. It would be unrealistic to dream of world where everyone gets along but religions tend to get along best when they are kept personal, private and out of leaders hands where ever possible.

The moment that we begin down the road of openly persecuting specific groups of people is when what makes this country great (the variety of individuals, faiths and ideas) will be lost to the fires of conflict, bloodshed and hysteria.

You kinda did depending on where you live, and if the race was close or not. Elections aren't really about who you want but more about who you don't want (IMO anyways).

Obama's move today, only show his despiration. His campaign is going to boil down to the interests groups VS the rest of us. He's written off the traditional american family and is hedging his bets that the people who take and suck off the system are going to outnumber the people who produce for them. Seriously, we're not going to deport illegals anymore, we're gonna give them work permits instead? Next time you get turned down for that job, make sure you thank the commander in chief for dumping hundreds of thousands new young workers into the pool.

eh i don't mind if i "wasted" my vote or not. I voted for the person that shard most of my views

Yeah but by going with the guy who's with you 90% of the time instead of 60% (or whatever) you ended up with the guy who's with you 20% (or whatever) of the time.

Because Americans really want to do some of the jobs (like picking fruit for a pittance) that illegals currently occupy at the microscopic rates they are being paid. Amusing. Nevermind illegal immigration has all but stagnated with the condition the global economy.

Look, I see some of the points you're trying to make but stop acting like anyone on public assistance is a leech upon society who doesn't want to work. It just isn't that simple.

If you would rather suck off government welfare than take a job that an illegal immigrant would jump at, then you ARE nothing more than an entitled leech and are contributing virtually nothing to the country.

The mere notion that any vote is nothing more than for the sake of appearances was dashed most recently in the 2000 presidential election. There are so many checks in place to keep your vote from counting it's absurd, and that's even if you just vote red or blue. Hell, the red blue dichotomy itself is but an illusion.

Since people generally frown upon the "voting is for suckers" position, I've adopted the more favorable "waste your vote how you want to" to preserve this ancient formality. I'll be voting for Paul, even if I have to write it in.

You mean the same government welfare you may have been paying into before the economy collapsed? That makes you an entitled leech? How amusing. Your sweeping definitions for a myriad number of situations completely ejects the complexity of reality for black and white statements.

Look, bottom line is in some cases taking the government handout may be more productive than working on a farm/slave-tier job making enough to halfway feed yourself nevermind the family you may have. We're talking in many cases pay below minimum wage which may in some states may make you unable to even house/clothe/feed/maintain yourself. Did I mention some people who work (full-time) and are still on welfare? Screw those people, they just aren't working hard enough.

Many of the immigrants only take these jobs because they fear the harsher realities of their home nations. I could throw in other situations where physical labor may not be possible due to health/physical conditions but that'd be muddying the waters further.

If you want to point out the welfare queens who do nothing but game the system that's fine but don't try to write off the numerous Americans who take public assistance while they try to right their personal issues or wound up in unsavory situations despite doing it mostly right. Much like it's stupid to write off the entire financial system for what happened (individuals gaming the system) in '08, it's equally stupid to write off welfare because some people are cheating the system.

And how will you stop an indivdual from believing in something? All throughout history, even in America, specific groups have been openly persecuted... after time things usually change... laws evolve... and people move on... for the most part at least hatred still burns pretty deep in some people... To me you target religion and tell people well ok you can do this but you can only do it this way because to do it otherwhise would infringe on my rights... You expect people to isolate parts of themselves and expect to not let anything pour over the sides into any part of their lives... it's unrealistic...

You can try to home in on the basics... but the country is a whole new beast now... like you have even said... things that are issues now were non-issues then... not that there weren't people that were gay but just that it wasn't talked about at all... also, you portray them in a confusing way... You look to them as revolutionaries who remade something great and pushed for something even greateer and then cowards who couldn't stand up to the big bad church in the same sentance... Some of the founding fathers even participated in things that we would consider attrocious nowadays...

Was it not an issue or was it a time that didn't even allow people the courage to approach someone else about it? If something is a non-issue at one point in time then we can't use it to argue something in a different time? Are you saying that no one at that point in time wanted to be openly gay and have the possiility of getting married or that they were just so oppressed at the time into thinking that it was an impossibilty that they hid from it? It's still like that in certain places... But you make my point for me... things are not the same... what we deal with is light years ahead of them just as you used the example of us dealing with an issue light years ahead of our own time...

I think you missed the point... even if we feel they are misguided or wrong... a little understanding goes a long way... why do people do the things they do... why do they feel the way they do... why do they beleive what they do... if all sides don't approach the table and take the time to understand the other then we're in trouble for sure... Also are you sure you didn't have a hand in writing the bible? You take a nice little fire and brimstone approach to this situation... almost seems like you think there's going to be a cleansing if things don't change...

There never will be a world where everyone gets along... or sees things the same way... at least not any time in the near future... I don't know where you've been... but all throughout our history as a nation we have persecuted specific groups publicly... sad but true... things eventually end up changing as the world changes around it... If you think religion is the only problem we face well then you're completely missing human nature...

either way... I had already agreed with you in that there should be a seperation of church and state... Something should not be made legal/illegal because of one group's faith... Personally I have a chuckle to myself when someone comes up and says oh god says gays shouldn't marry... and I'm like well he also says you shouldn't get divorced three times or have children out of wedlock... should we make that illegal... which just goes further to prove my point... religion is just a tool used by bigots to push an agenda... they don't want things that they don't want... human nature man...

Yes. Welfare is there for people who CANNOT care for themselves, not for those who would rather not work manual labor. Unemployment is there to help you out while you look for a replacement job. You don't actually pay for it, your employer does as a cost of employing you. I'm not suggesting that taking advantage of the safety net automatically makes you a leach, but if you pass up a job - or - pass up looking for a job because you deem it to be "below your level of dignity" you are in fact leeching off the system. Do we really live in so much denial that we cannot admit this to ourselves?

Also stop comparing low skilled jobs to those of slavery, you really have no clue how bad slavery really was if you think you can accurately compare it to working a low skilled job. I'm not talking about jobs that pay illegal wages to illegal workers. If the workers are legal (which now they will be) they will not be filling the jobs that pay illegal wages, but rather legal ones.

I target religion? No, no my friend religion (fundamentalist Christianity to be specific) has targeted anyone who disagrees with it in a country that espouses religious freedoms. I'm not knocking down doors demanding religion be outlawed, burning texts or trying to slip through legislation that bans the worship of Jesus, Allah, Buddha among the numerous religions that exist out there but what I am highlighting is that you cannot legislate your specific faith across everyone because it's un-American and has historically shown to be a formula for widespread chaos and death.

There are numerous sects of Christianity that have gotten over the homosexuality thing and guess what? The rest can too. Much like society got over burning people alive, sacrificing animals and making property out of other human beings this too can be changed through yet another interpretation of the texts. Just yesterday I noticed that on the subway two churches were both advertising their gay-friendly agenda and welcome LBGT members to join the ranks.

Do I believe them at face-value? Not really.
Do I believe religion can evolve like everything else on this planet? You bet.

The only question left to us is if we want to allow a backslide (to fundamentalism) or if we want to tell people to suck it up and find something else to do (like reinterpreting the texts) other than stripping the rights from one group of individuals because "the bible tells me so."

The bible says alot of things and we've come to ignore much of it so why should the challenge of our day be any different? This isn't even a theist/atheist thing as theologians have dismissed literal interpretations of scripture and have come up with various explanations that explain away many of the more troubling parts of the text.


I already pointed out that the founders have failings much like any human being (consequences of their time) and I don't agree with everything they had to say but on the dangers of religion polluting government very little has changed since the 18th century. People will be persecuted (on superstitious grounds), the blood of the innocent will spill, progress will stagnate and eventually the very individuals who facilitated the fusion will either meet the sword or be destroyed by their own creations. Some will gain but most will lose.

This is a formula for the ruination of the one advantage this country (other than a military that makes the world blush) has over most other nations - the willingness to accept various peoples of storied backgrounds, races and creeds.

On my commentary about the founders not going far enough? I was pointing out the notion that some of what the founders thought were written to friends and acquaintances and not to the public precisely because they had fears for their own well-being and social standing. Human ignorance is powerful and grows even more power when religious institutions work their indoctrination upon the masses. In my Thomas Paine example I gave you someone who was ostracized by society towards the end of his life precisely because he crossed the line other founders straddled.


It wasn't an issue in the 18th century for the founders precisely because there were bigger fish to fry. How are you going to tackle gay marriage in a time period when even scientific inquiry or criticisms of the religious institutions could warrant death? The largest and most invasive issues were targeted precisely because these were issues that were being raised across Europe as people tired of the overbearing crowns/churches, the oppression of Rome and the lack of progress caused by bureaucratic machines trying to preserve themselves.

I compare because in the case of the founders they were fighting against tyrannical leaderships propped up by religious institutions denying freedoms and today people fight for LBGT/women/minority issues against resurgent religious institutions attempting to make a power grab. Different issues, same root problems.


I understand much of the motivations of people who push forth their religion as the only solution to the problem and I'm sure there are infinite arguments I haven't heard but that is besides the point as I'm not advocating for the destruction of religion but the separation between church and state. You are free to believe whatever you want so long as that does not negatively affect people who do not believe but naturally my opponents feel that they have the divine right to change the rules and harm people in the process.

Fire and brimstone? My very intention is to prevent these things from happening if you haven't noticed but I do acknowledge that it can happen. What I speak of is right there in the historical texts and those too ignorant to realize what happens when a religious institution takes control of government can go take a look at parts of the world where religion is enforced and the outliers are dealt with harshly. It's happening today, it happened in the past so what makes you think given where some want to take this country that it couldn't happen again?

Yes, people will die if we truly go full-tilt on this notion to pushing America further and further down the road of "Christian" nation. The cleansing will come from the "faithful" and the blood will spill just like it does all over the world when people try to create "pure" nations. Many of the Christians spouting the desire for a nation "under God" will be the first to be accused once the battle against the gays and the blasphemers has ended.



Id rather face new problems than rehash the same failed policies of the fundamentalist right. I already acknowledged that there is no perfect world and the mistakes of the past but we do have the solution to this specific problem and it is to keep church and state separated at all costs. Loony legislation and denying civil rights is the path backwards into conflicts that have already played out in history.

It was human nature to enslave people just two centuries ago, immigrant races have been trashed for centuries and it was also human nature to treat women as property to men right up to 50 years ago in this country but we've proven that societies can change if we make an effort to. We have females running the most powerful companies in the world, we've got a black guy as president, immigrant groups now wield considerable power, (some) people grow more tolerant with regards to other religions, peoples and cultures daily and there is so much more work to be done.

Countless problems no doubt await us in the future but the last thing we need is to undo all of the wonderful progress we've made simply because some people cannot tolerate a world that deviates from their worldview.

I would like to point out that religion is garbage, plain and simple. It is egocentric superstition, and it is worthy of disdain, scorn, derision, contempt, ridicule, and yes, "targeting". Religion has done very little to produce a better world when a better world is the expressed promise of every religion. Instead we get genocide, child molestation, rape, physical mutilation, and when agnostics point it out we're "intolerant". *** religion. I know a few people who have nuanced faith and generally express great shame when the topic of dogma or the actions of their churches comes up, but for the most part people who believe are knuckle-draggers who bring down the quality of life for us all.

If religion were illegal nothing of value would be lost.

If religion was illegal then the people's freedom to choose would be lost. As much as I dislike religion, that cannot be allowed to happen.

If religion never existed, nothing of value would be lost.

That sounds a bit extreme lol. But yes religion is becoming less and less important these days.