Can you logically justify the separation of church and state?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Because the state can be made up of people of various faiths and the church in a theocracy may have bias or outright hostility against other faiths. For an example look at 16th century Spain.

I can't believe this is even a question.

The purpose of the state is to ensure social stability- essentially to ensure the continuance of the state.

The purpose of religions varies from religion to religion, but in precious few is the purpose the continuance of a particular state (that religion of some American conservatives that requires them to worship America's own arse excepted). Only in a theocracy or theonomy do the purposes of the state and the purposes of religions align. Hence, religions and states have separate goals and separate purposes. Hence, they must be kept separate in order to keep from coming into conflict.

Note, for those who think they have a cunning plan to respond to this, that granting freedom of religion (which requires granting religions reasonable accommodation even if they require actions in violation of the law) does not violate the separation of church and state.

I found the problem. You mis-defined religion. Isn't this the reason that Webster fellow decided to write a book with all the words in it so we could stop arguing about what they mean?

irmasterlol:
I found the problem. You mis-defined religion. Isn't this the reason that Webster fellow decided to write a book with all the words in it so we could stop arguing about what they mean?

No, no, don't appeal to dictionaries. Dictionaries are for foreigners and young people who don't know the language. Real dictionaries never tell you the full breadth and nuance of what words mean.

Katatori-kun:

irmasterlol:
I found the problem. You mis-defined religion. Isn't this the reason that Webster fellow decided to write a book with all the words in it so we could stop arguing about what they mean?

No, no, don't appeal to dictionaries. Dictionaries are for foreigners and young people who don't know the language. Real dictionaries never tell you the full breadth and nuance of what words mean.

This shit definition doesn't work either. If we can't even agree on what words mean then the debate will never get off the ground. Dictionaries are for foreigners, young people, and people who want a generally agreed-upon definition of a word in order to discuss the ideas surrounding it.

Danyal:

Do:
-Explain why state and religion should be separated, based on the inherent traits of religion. What's the problem that applies to all religions, but doesn't apply to 'non-religions'?

Because, unfortunately, some people are Jackasses that can turn any good thing into a bad thing.

Take Christianity for example. Jesus taught: love the poor, turn the other cheek, share all your goods with others, and essentially humanity living in one large global community. The people that "represent" (or at least claim to) Jesus the most in politics? The Republican party which just so happens to be: Pro Big Business, Pro Military, Pro "Stand Your Ground", Anti Welfare, and hate communism with such a seething passion that they actually managed to turn the very word Communist into an insult.

Though that's more of an inherent trait in humans rather than an inherent trait in religion.

I guess it could be argued that, with so many religions having beliefs that can, at times, come into conflict with each other. As people have said before, some policies a nation takes based off of religious reasons can harm another person "spiritually" speaking or just be plain inconvenient to the rest of the population.

In studying history, you'll work around religion in trying to piece together your historical picture, not necessarily because you don't believe, but because there's nothing you can do with religion in an academic setting. You want to explain why 1+1=2? It doesn't help to have the choice between a mathematical explanation and a theistic explanation - it likewise doesn't help for us to be allowed to build our policies outside of logical rules. That is honestly the explanation - in academic/political/scientific research, you work with the cards you have and the cards you know you have, religion pre-supposes the existence of other cards, but you've no guarantee that you actually have them to play with, and neither is anyone going to accept your claim that you do - "I do!" - have those cards - not when they can't see them. Political scientists are the most relaxed in this respect - they have a need to get a lot done, and they haven't always got the time to think it through, but we should hardly be letting them bring their religions (which, in logic, equate to little more than gut feelings) into government policy.
Now, I understand there are rational arguments for religion, but, from what I've seen of these, their conclusions either cannot pinpoint an exact religion, or are based not on the reality of God, but on the the importance of believing in God. There is obviously a lot more to say on this, but this should explain the reasoning to you from at least its initial level.

TheIronRuler:
Communism, Socialism and libertarianism(?) are revolutionary movements that either deny government or democracy. I don't think you can equate them to Capitalism as in choosing either they, the people, basically forfeit their right to vote by choice.

What economic policy doesn't deny government and/or Democracy? Capitalism (and its variants), Interventionism.

We've got a Socialist Party in the Netherlands, it's one of the biggest parties in parliament. There are cities that have had communist mayors. We've got a Libertarian party.

And I could totally understand laws that ban anti-democratic parties, but religion doesn't mean anti-democracy nor does non-religion mean pro-democracy.

TheIronRuler:
Religion in government means laws which are governed by a mandate from heaven and un-elected scholars that interpret texts how they see fit. It denies Democracy in its essence as it reintroduces the mandate of heaven to the government.

How would "A majority of communists implements communist-law (collectivization and stuff)" be any less bad than "a majority of Jews/Catholics/Buddhists implements Jewish/Catholic/Buddhist Law"?

And, a lack of separation of church and state doesn't mean that you've got to implement the laws of a specific religion. It could also mean that one specific religion gets funded by the government.

TheIronRuler:
You cannot question laws made by the government concerning a religion as it would be heretical.

In the Netherlands, we've got a law that makes 'opening your shop on Sunday' mostly illegal. We cannot question this? We do, often enough.

TheIronRuler:
How are you to vote against a religious law in a religion that you follow?

Are you telling me that it is impossible for Muslims to vote against Sharia? It is impossible for Christians to vote against Old Testament Law?

TheIronRuler:
Are you going to vote against making the consumption of meat on Fridays illegal if you are a catholic and live in a catholic country that embraced the religion in its government?

Are you going to vote against stoning gays if you are catholic and live in a catholic country that embraced the religion in its government?

I don't see why that is impossible.

TheIronRuler:
I disagree. There are laws and mechanism in Democracy that work to preserve the rights of the minority and stop the tyranny of the majority. Wait, is it only in Israel? I find it hard to believe.

We are often told to be nice to minorities but there is no law that makes it juridically impossible to hinders minorities.

TheIronRuler:
Zoophiles, to the plight of many, are not recognizes as a minority who needs protection (Speaking of national, ethnic, religious, racial minorities) from the majority.

Why should bestiality get any more protection if I claim that God commanded me to do it?
I can cut an animal's throat and let it bleed to death slowly and painfully because God commanded me to do it, but I can't give a blowjob to a living animal. Dafuq?!

TheIronRuler:
You can make laws favoring one religions and against the other, forcing a minority to convert to your own religion through legal means. If your religion allowed you to hassle Mormons, could you as a majority pass laws that allow the beating of Mormons on the street?

Can you pass laws that allow you to beat communists on the street?

TheIronRuler:
Communists, by implementing their brand of government, are in essence denying Democracy. How can you vote for the end of your Democracy?

Apparently, you can in the Netherlands.

Witty Name Here:

Danyal:

Do:
-Explain why state and religion should be separated, based on the inherent traits of religion. What's the problem that applies to all religions, but doesn't apply to 'non-religions'?

Because, unfortunately, some people are Jackasses that can turn any good thing into a bad thing.

Take Christianity for example. Jesus taught: love the poor, turn the other cheek, share all your goods with others, and essentially humanity living in one large global community. The people that "represent" (or at least claim to) Jesus the most in politics? The Republican party which just so happens to be: Pro Big Business, Pro Military, Pro "Stand Your Ground", Anti Welfare, and hate communism with such a seething passion that they actually managed to turn the very word Communist into an insult.

Though that's more of an inherent trait in humans rather than an inherent trait in religion.

I guess it could be argued that, with so many religions having beliefs that can, at times, come into conflict with each other. As people have said before, some policies a nation takes based off of religious reasons can harm another person "spiritually" speaking or just be plain inconvenient to the rest of the population.

Ah, you'd love to live here. We actually have a moderate Christian party that represents the values of Jesus as taught by most of the protestant church. They are quite a bit to the left of American liberalism, although theres no chance of them getting any power. I live in the second-most atheistic country in the world and even though they area a reasonable party who only says fairly reasonable things, they tend to get 0-1% of the total votes. I think the only reason they show the number of votes they get doing campaigning is because we still have a state religion xD

Now, im an atheist. As such I should be naturally opposed to it I guess, but as a political party they have good values, and that should be the way that a religious party is voted in (Although I would still prefer if such a party never got power, I fear religion almost as much as Nationalism). Based on their ideologies and idea's of how to fix/rule the country. Not on their religion and how powerful their god is. And how much respect he/she deserves.

OT: Really, I have no issues with the country having a state-religion. And the State-religion's religious buildings being paid for by the state, as long as all religious buildings is paid for by the state. And the country has free speech/free religion.

That being said I 'do' believe my country, being the second-least religious in the world. Having a state-religion is.. Sort of stupid. But whatever.

As for actual 'political' power.. Well, we can see how well its going for Iran, and to some extend Israel. Israel argueably has it better but the religion there doesnt have as much power as it does in Iran. And the people there are pretty much free to worship what deity they want, and take what holiday their deity demands. But their religion and the fact that they have so many very religious people, makes it and its neighboring countries a very bad place to live for a lot of people.

I prefer the Secularism of the West, all those middle-eastern nations can have their petty scrabbles, if it ever gets out of hand I hope Nato will go there to sort it out somehow. 'In the name of free religion' and all that gizz.

Justification: A state implementing a specific religion in any way would infringe on the rights of members not of that religion, violating the idea of equal rights and liberties.

In the interest of fairness, no part of religion should be implemented by the state in anyway, unless that part is universal between religions.

There is very little that is universal between religions, therefore religion and state should be seperated in the interest of maintaining equality.

Batou667:
If we mean "we ought to implement policies that are consistent, unbiased, based on rationalism and empiricism rather than tradition, and are as culture-fair as possible" then the "logical" thing would be to separate church and state absolutely.

Because religion is inconsistent, biased, irrational and 'not-empiric', as opposed to non-religion? That's all in the definition of religion?

Batou667:
Everybody is part of the state, but not everybody subscribes to the majority religion, therefore not everybody is represented by the Church.

Danyal:
Oh no, I'm gonna need paint-skills now.

This, is what you and a lot of other people here seem to think...

image

This is what I think how it is:

image

We're always choosing and using certain systems and ideologies. America's free markets bother some Americans and Europe's social security bothers some Europeans.

Batou667:
If we mean "pragmatically, if we acknowledge the historical and cultural relationship between church and society, and the acceptance, if not overt preference, of the majority" then the "logical" thing would be to rock the boat as little as possible because uprooting the status quo would be demonstrably counterproductive.

Danyal:
Don't:
-Explain to me how it historically made sense - I understand that.
-Explain why it is beneficial - I understand that.
-Explain how it makes sense in dealing with common religions like Christianity and Islam - I understand that.

Do:
-Explain why state and religion should be separated, based on the inherent traits of religion. What's the problem that applies to all religions, but doesn't apply to 'non-religions'?

ten.to.ten:
What you're proposing is also highly impractical considering that people disagree enough on basing a government on capitalist/socialist/communist/etc. economic and social policies without bringing in a whole bunch of splinter groups, where the Christian capitalists have to go up against the Jewish capitalists and the secular capitalists in addition to going up against the Islamic socialists and the Christian socialists and the Buddhist socialists and whatever else. Most countries can only tolerate a certain number of political parties, and it's in their best interests politically to put aside many-and-varied religious beliefs which would endlessly keep splintering people into smaller and smaller groups and to agree to join up to fight for core economic and social principles.

Over here the two major parties have plenty of tensions in them already when it comes to the economic left-social left and economic left-social right factions in the Labor Party and the economic right-social right and the economic right-social left factions in the Liberal Party. If you splintered the factions down further into the economic left-social left-Catholic, economic left-social left-atheist etc. nothing would ever get done.

A lot of the core beliefs of any religion are incidentally also core beliefs of political parties or philosophies, a simplified example would be like how the Labor Party's core belief of social justice and wealth redistribution aligns with Jesus' teachings of helping the disadvantaged and being generous when it comes to charity, whereas the Liberal Party's belief in a freer market and a low-tax-low-spend government aligns with the idea of the Protestant work ethic, where material success on Earth is a sign of God's favour. If these principles are core to the party then it would be redundant to invoke religion, which would probably just end up turning people away.

So your logical justification for the separation of state and religion is that religion and government would create even more discussions, even more debates, even more political options?

algalon:
Here is yet another thread of the "Here's my belief, prove me wrong" variety.

Oh no, debates on a forum! How dare they!

algalon:
99% of people who start threads like this have made up their mind and no amount of facts will change their mind.

Or communication is not effective enough to convince anyone.

algalon:
But I'll follow the hypothesis that this might not in fact be the case. So prove me wrong.

I think I'm open to arguments, but please read the OP first.

Danyal:
Don't:
-Explain to me how it historically made sense - I understand that.
-Explain why it is beneficial - I understand that.
-Explain how it makes sense in dealing with common religions like Christianity and Islam - I understand that.

Do:
-Explain why state and religion should be separated, based on the inherent traits of religion. What's the problem that applies to all religions, but doesn't apply to 'non-religions'?

algalon:
Are you open to facts, including the fact that many people migrated away from Europe in order to escape religious persecution from their government,

I didn't ask you to explain why it historically made sense or how it makes sense in dealing with common religions like Christianity and Islam. Does 'religion' mean 'persecution' and 'non-religion' 'non-persecution'? I don't think so.

algalon:
that the only thing separating the U.S. from third world undeveloped nations is in fact religious freedom?

The thing that separates developed nations from undeveloped nations is technological advances.

algalon:
If my government forced me to join a belief structure based around mythology rather than fact and morality, I would be the first one to claim citizenship to a more enlightened nation. Morality is not a result of religion. It is a result of a nurturing healthy environment and base instinct. Therefore religion has no place in government, period.

"If my government forced me to join a belief structure based around mythology rather than fact and morality, I would be the first one to claim citizenship to a more enlightened nation, therefore separate religion and state. Q.E.D."

1. Does lack of separation of church and state mean that the government forces you to join a belief structure?
2. Does 'religion' mean mythology while non-religion means 'fact'?
3. "I would hate being forced to join Christianity, therefore, ban religion from being involved with the government. I would hate being forced to join communism, therefore, ban non-religion from being involved with the government."

Danyal:

Do:
-Explain why state and religion should be separated, based on the inherent traits of religion. What's the problem that applies to all religions, but doesn't apply to 'non-religions'?

It's less efficient (or so we believe) in producing things we value (happiness, freedom of thought, creativity, whatever) than other ideologies (Humanitarianism, that we all hold dear).
Simple as that. There's nothing "different" otherwise, they have the same traits.
It's just inefficient.

Now, you said "Don't tell me about it being beneficial". Well, what else can I say? We don't want our tax-money going to something inefficient (like a Church) that we don't believe in.
ENough people equates efficiency in generating happiness with "the right thing to do". Church does not equal this any longer, so we don't care for it being part of the state.

Stupid double-post.

Not G. Ivingname:
Alright. There two inherent problems is that no two religions agree on beliefs (if not outright in opposition of each other)

Danyal:

Oh no, I'm gonna need paint-skills now.

This, is what you and a lot of other people here seem to think...

image

This is what I think how it is:

image

We're always choosing and using certain systems and ideologies. America's free markets bother some Americans and Europe's social security bothers some Europeans.

Not G. Ivingname:
and religion is going to always favor policies that will favor that religion.

"X are always going to favor policies that will favor X"
X=communists, socialists, libertarians, blacks, whites, humanists, secularists, environmentalists, capitalists, collectivists, individualists

Not G. Ivingname:
Say religion X is officially part of the government. Part of their beliefs is that you cannot work on X day of the week. The government makes this a law. Religion Y, however, believes you cannot work on Y day of the week. You can see how this can put religion Y at an economic disadvantage compared to those who follow religion X. This is not even an actively malicious law.

In the Netherlands we've got separation of church and state - and you can't work on Sunday.
Living in one culture always means that you're going to hinder people who are not from that culture and refuse to integrate. Our clocks display 24 hours. We drive on the right side of the road. We use the metric system. We speak the Dutch language. Children have to go to school by day.

If you can only 'read' clocks that display 52 hours, if you drive on the left side of the road, if you don't use the metric system, if you don't speak the Dutch language, if you are awake at night instead of by day - you're disadvantaged in the Netherlands.

Not G. Ivingname:
What would prevent religion X, with there LEGAL influence of the government, from making witch hunts of religion Y.

"What would prevent ideology/system X, with there LEGAL influence of the government, from making witch hunts of ideology/system Y."

How is 'religion' in that situation any more relevant than non-religion?

Not G. Ivingname:
Religions are institutions run by humans, who are prone to corruption and misuse of power, just like any other organization, or believe in their deity enough to kill others in their name. Some would seek to rid the world of religion Y, or anyone who fails to submit to their god/s, or others will seek to eliminate those who are not giving them "donations."

And some vegetarians oppose meat-eaters, some environmentalists oppose capitalists, some collectivists oppose individualists and vice versa. X wants to rid the world of Y. I don't see how religion is relevant.

Realitycrash:
It's less efficient (or so we believe) in producing things we value (happiness, freedom of thought, creativity, whatever) than other ideologies (Humanitarianism, that we all hold dear).
Simple as that. There's nothing "different" otherwise, they have the same traits.
It's just inefficient.

Don't you think that should be left to the democratic voters? "You can vote for anything you'd like, except for... religion, communism, socialism, etc"

I think communism is less efficient for producing things we value. In my ideal political system, I oppose this by guaranteeing individual's rights. I'm not banning 'non-religious ideologies'.

Realitycrash:
Now, you said "Don't tell me about it being beneficial". Well, what else can I say? We don't want our tax-money going to something inefficient (like a Church) that we don't believe in.
ENough people equates efficiency in generating happiness with "the right thing to do". Church does not equal this any longer, so we don't care for it being part of the state.

Separating church and state basically means saying to 'religion': 'no entry'. We could say the same to 'left-wing ideologies' and 'blacks' or 'women'. Merely "well it works" or "it's beneficial" doesn't seem to be enough.

Danyal:
So your logical justification for the separation of state and religion is that religion and government would create even more discussions, even more debates, even more political options?

I wasn't arguing anything, I was giving a few examples as to why religion and politics being treated in the same class is impractical and how a widely understood separation of church and state seems to me to be the logical conclusion.

But I'll reiterate what I touched on before. Having, say, a Catholic government instead of a capitalist or socialist or whatever government wouldn't work because a political movement is not the same thing as a faith you have concerning the ultimate supernatural truth of the universe. A political ideology is about how society should function while religion is a claim about how reality does function. They're just not the same thing. The spectrum of positions you can have on political issues is minuscule compared to the unlimited potential of religion, too.

Religious beliefs can be highly nuanced and personal, any party that bases its platform entirely on religious beliefs probably wouldn't even gain a majority of followers of that particular religion.

Blatherscythe:
Because the state can be made up of people of various faiths and the church in a theocracy may have bias or outright hostility against other faiths. For an example look at 16th century Spain.

&

Shaoken:
Justification: A state implementing a specific religion in any way would infringe on the rights of members not of that religion, violating the idea of equal rights and liberties.

In the interest of fairness, no part of religion should be implemented by the state in anyway, unless that part is universal between religions.

There is very little that is universal between religions, therefore religion and state should be seperated in the interest of maintaining equality.

->

Danyal:

Oh no, I'm gonna need paint-skills now.

This, is what you and a lot of other people here seem to think...

image

This is what I think how it is:

image

We're always choosing and using certain systems and ideologies. America's free markets bother some Americans and Europe's social security bothers some Europeans.

Katatori-kun:
The purpose of the state is to ensure social stability- essentially to ensure the continuance of the state.

There are multiple Europe-loving parties in the Dutch parliament that would love to see 'The Dutch State' disappear and join the 'European State'.

Katatori-kun:
The purpose of religions varies from religion to religion, but in precious few is the purpose the continuance of a particular state (that religion of some American conservatives that requires them to worship America's own arse excepted). Only in a theocracy or theonomy do the purposes of the state and the purposes of religions align. Hence, religions and states have separate goals and separate purposes. Hence, they must be kept separate in order to keep from coming into conflict.

Libertarians want to 'delete' most of the state. Communists want the same - in the end, there should be no state. The same goes for anarchists.

'Religion' does not mean 'oppose the state'...

Romans 13

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

...nor does 'non-religion' mean 'pro-state'.

Katatori-kun:
No, no, don't appeal to dictionaries. Dictionaries are for foreigners and young people who don't know the language. Real dictionaries never tell you the full breadth and nuance of what words mean.

Well, present your own, better definition.

When a 'new planet' past Pluto was discovered, we had to define what a planet was. We had never done that before.
Scientists created a logical, proper definition of 'planet', but this meant that Pluto was no planet anymore. If we hadn't done that, we had to allow a tenth planet to 'join our system', but there was no way we could have justified nine planets.

Unless you say "fuck definitions, the nine we have are planets, others are not and will never be". That seems to be the current situation with religion. There is no definition that allows us to accurately determine what religions are and what they are not, so we just say 'religion is what it currently is and what closely resembles it'.

That's okay for a word that merely tries to describe something, but using this definition in legal discussions means you get quite arbitrary laws.

Danyal:

Realitycrash:

Don't you think that should be left to the democratic voters? "You can vote for anything you'd like, except for... religion, communism, socialism, etc"

I think communism is less efficient for producing things we value. In my ideal political system, I oppose this by guaranteeing individual's rights. I'm not banning 'non-religious ideologies'.

I do, and we did. Church of Sweden separated from the state in 2000. We had an election in 1998, and one in 2002. I can't remember if the The Christ Democrats (right wing bible-thumpers, but still a pretty nice bunch compared to some extremes in the US) made it a major deal or not, but they got about the same votes as usual (around 4%). And yes, people were aware of this going down in 2000.
You can also vote for Communism here. In fact, the Communist Party have been close to getting a foothold (not a major one, but at least a few seats) in some Regional Elections for quite a awhile now. I think they have one or two seats in my Region.
Same goes for the outright Nazis, but noone votes for them..(yet you can).
The Swedish Constitution says that it is open to being changed, no matter how you want to change it. You can even remove "right of free speech" from it, should you manage.

How do manage? First, you must be clear and vocal in your intent to do so, and well ahead of time of a national election. You must say "If we win, we will revoke The Right of Free Speech". Then you must win (good luck with that), then you must wait 4 years and win ANOTHER election, THEN you can change the constitution.

Realitycrash:
Now, you said "Don't tell me about it being beneficial". Well, what else can I say? We don't want our tax-money going to something inefficient (like a Church) that we don't believe in.
ENough people equates efficiency in generating happiness with "the right thing to do". Church does not equal this any longer, so we don't care for it being part of the state.

Separating church and state basically means saying to 'religion': 'no entry'. We could say the same to 'left-wing ideologies' and 'blacks' or 'women'. Merely "well it works" or "it's beneficial" doesn't seem to be enough.[/quote]

Sure, we can, and there is no difference. And if it really were beneficial, and you could convince people on such a deep level that this is true (the kind of conviction people hold in secular states about religion), then we can go ahead and ban it.
However, it doesn't seem to be. In fact, it seems that the more mixed viewpoints in a society, the more ideas are tried and interchanged, and the better said society does. So curbing freedom is rather counter-productive.

Danyal:
Unless you say "fuck definitions, the nine we have are planets, others are not and will never be". That seems to be the current situation with religion.

If a religion was elected to govern a state, this is EXACTLY the kind of law that they'd make.

Realitycrash:
How do manage? First, you must be clear and vocal in your intent to do so, and well ahead of time of a national election. You must say "If we win, we will revoke The Right of Free Speech". Then you must win (good luck with that), then you must wait 4 years and win ANOTHER election, THEN you can change the constitution.

However, it doesn't seem to be. In fact, it seems that the more mixed viewpoints in a society, the more ideas are tried and interchanged, and the better said society does. So curbing freedom is rather counter-productive.

So, do you support or oppose 'separation of church and state'? And do you think it can be logically justified?

ten.to.ten:

Danyal:
Unless you say "fuck definitions, the nine we have are planets, others are not and will never be". That seems to be the current situation with religion.

If a religion was elected to govern a state, this is EXACTLY the kind of law that they'd make.

But we are doing it right now with religion. Instead of...

Religion:
-at least X followers
-does Y
-ideas are Z

... we are like ...

Religion:
-Christianity
-Islam
-Buddhism
-Anything that closely resembles it

That's not a logical definition and using it in the law seems to be pretty arbitrary.

Danyal:

Realitycrash:
How do manage? First, you must be clear and vocal in your intent to do so, and well ahead of time of a national election. You must say "If we win, we will revoke The Right of Free Speech". Then you must win (good luck with that), then you must wait 4 years and win ANOTHER election, THEN you can change the constitution.

However, it doesn't seem to be. In fact, it seems that the more mixed viewpoints in a society, the more ideas are tried and interchanged, and the better said society does. So curbing freedom is rather counter-productive.

So, do you support or oppose 'separation of church and state'? And do you think it can be logically justified?

You are going to have to define what you mean by "logically" here. Can it be "rationally" justified? (where "what is rational?" is "the most efficient way of reaching your goal)?
Yes, as I already explained. With a goal of efficiency towards generating certain values, removing Church from State seems quite rational (though I don't have any data if so is the case. It might actually NOT be the most efficient way, but people seem to think it is, and without any major study in a controlled environment, that is all we have to go on)

But "logically"?
Definition in this context, please.

@ Daynal, Socialism and Libertarianism is not discrimatory, Communism is mutually exclusive to the others and is unobtationable due to human nature, and Capitalism is not a system of governence, therefore it is not a how it is.

Realitycrash:
You are going to have to define what you mean by "logically" here. Can it be "rationally" justified? (where "what is rational?" is "the most efficient way of reaching your goal)?

Well what I mean is...

Danyal:
Do:
-Explain why state and religion should be separated, based on the inherent traits of religion. What's the problem that applies to all religions, but doesn't apply to 'non-religions'?

Danyal:
But we are doing it right now with religion. Instead of...

Religion:
-at least X followers
-does Y
-ideas are Z

... we are like ...

Religion:
-Christianity
-Islam
-Buddhism
-Anything that closely resembles it

That's not a logical definition and using it in the law seems to be pretty arbitrary.

Shaoken:
@ Daynal, Socialism and Libertarianism is not discrimatory,

And 'religion' is?

Shaoken:
Communism is mutually exclusive to the others and is unobtationable due to human nature, and Capitalism is not a system of governence, therefore it is not a how it is.

Okay?

[00

Danyal:

Realitycrash:
You are going to have to define what you mean by "logically" here. Can it be "rationally" justified? (where "what is rational?" is "the most efficient way of reaching your goal)?

Well what I mean is...

Danyal:
Do:
-Explain why state and religion should be separated, based on the inherent traits of religion. What's the problem that applies to all religions, but doesn't apply to 'non-religions'?

Danyal:
But we are doing it right now with religion. Instead of...

Religion:
-at least X followers
-does Y
-ideas are Z

... we are like ...

Religion:
-Christianity
-Islam
-Buddhism
-Anything that closely resembles it

That's not a logical definition and using it in the law seems to be pretty arbitrary.

Shaoken:
@ Daynal, Socialism and Libertarianism is not discrimatory,

And 'religion' is?

Shaoken:
Communism is mutually exclusive to the others and is unobtationable due to human nature, and Capitalism is not a system of governence, therefore it is not a how it is.

Okay?

There are none inherent facts that can't be found in other ideologies, if pushed far enough. One thing though is that Religion is based on faith, while the rest of the world have moved forwad on a Scientific paradigm, and we prefer ideologies that have a at least somewhat decent footing in empiric knowledge.

Danyal:

Shaoken:
@ Daynal, Socialism and Libertarianism is not discrimatory,

And 'religion' is?

In one word; yes.

In a series of words, implementing a religion into law would be discrimatory against non-members of that religion. For example if Christianity was implemented into law and the state, marriage would be exclusively for the purposes of reproduction and therefore couples who cannot (gays, infertile couples) or will not (couples getting together for tax reasons) procreate are barred from marrying and divorce is illegal, only Christian holidays would be legally regonised by the state, Christian Priests would be allowed to marry individuals but Rabbis, Muslium Clerics, Buddhist Monks etc. etc. would not be allowed to, as in this hypothetical scenario Christianity is the one true religion and therefore no other religion has the legitimacy to perform marriage, etc. etc. Ultimately the amount of rights you have boils down to what religion you belong to.

Whereas with Socalism and libertarianism who you are is irrelevant, as you're treated the same.

Shaoken:
Communism is mutually exclusive to the others and is unobtationable due to human nature, and Capitalism is not a system of governence, therefore it is not a how it is.

Okay?

You're attempting to pass off an opinion as fact. I'm pointing out how your opinion is not, in fact, an objective fact, and just because you play word games doesn't make you right.

Realitycrash:
One thing though is that Religion is based on faith, while the rest of the world have moved forwad on a Scientific paradigm, and we prefer ideologies that have a at least somewhat decent footing in empiric knowledge.

In most democracies, you've got a 'house' that designs the laws and a 'house' that checks whether those laws don't discriminate, don't violate the constitution, don't clash with others laws, etc. Shouldn't we just give them the duty to check whether something is grounded in scientific fact or mythologic hearsay?

Shaoken:
In one word; yes.

In a series of words, implementing a religion into law would be discrimatory against non-members of that religion. For example if Christianity was implemented into law and the state, marriage would be exclusively for the purposes of reproduction and therefore couples who cannot (gays, infertile couples) or will not (couples getting together for tax reasons) procreate are barred from marrying and divorce is illegal, only Christian holidays would be legally regonised by the state, Christian Priests would be allowed to marry individuals but Rabbis, Muslium Clerics, Buddhist Monks etc. etc. would not be allowed to, as in this hypothetical scenario Christianity is the one true religion and therefore no other religion has the legitimacy to perform marriage, etc. etc. Ultimately the amount of rights you have boils down to what religion you belong to.

Whereas with Socalism and libertarianism who you are is irrelevant, as you're treated the same.

1.

Danyal:
Don't:
-Explain how it makes sense in dealing with common religions like Christianity and Islam - I understand that.

Do:
-Explain why state and religion should be separated, based on the inherent traits of religion. What's the problem that applies to all religions, but doesn't apply to 'non-religions'?

2. Okay, so your version of Christianity is discriminatory. But Nazism is discriminatory as well. And I don't think Buddhism is discriminatory. If you're opposed to discriminatory systems/ideologies, oppose those, not religion. A ban on discriminatory systems/ideologies could be fully justified, but it's not the same as 'religion'.

Shaoken:
You're attempting to pass off an opinion as fact. I'm pointing out how your opinion is not, in fact, an objective fact, and just because you play word games doesn't make you right.

What opinion?

Danyal:

Realitycrash:
One thing though is that Religion is based on faith, while the rest of the world have moved forwad on a Scientific paradigm, and we prefer ideologies that have a at least somewhat decent footing in empiric knowledge.

In most democracies, you've got a 'house' that designs the laws and a 'house' that checks whether those laws don't discriminate, don't violate the constitution, don't clash with others laws, etc. Shouldn't we just give them the duty to check whether something is grounded in scientific fact or mythologic hearsay?

..Well, if we did, Religion would be found to be "based on mythologic hearsay" or being "impossible to verify", which would probably lead to the recommendation that Religion have no sway over how we regulate the laws or govern our country.

Danyal:

Shaoken:
In one word; yes.

In a series of words, implementing a religion into law would be discrimatory against non-members of that religion. For example if Christianity was implemented into law and the state, marriage would be exclusively for the purposes of reproduction and therefore couples who cannot (gays, infertile couples) or will not (couples getting together for tax reasons) procreate are barred from marrying and divorce is illegal, only Christian holidays would be legally regonised by the state, Christian Priests would be allowed to marry individuals but Rabbis, Muslium Clerics, Buddhist Monks etc. etc. would not be allowed to, as in this hypothetical scenario Christianity is the one true religion and therefore no other religion has the legitimacy to perform marriage, etc. etc. Ultimately the amount of rights you have boils down to what religion you belong to.

Whereas with Socalism and libertarianism who you are is irrelevant, as you're treated the same.

1.

Danyal:
Don't:
-Explain how it makes sense in dealing with common religions like Christianity and Islam - I understand that.

Do:
-Explain why state and religion should be separated, based on the inherent traits of religion. What's the problem that applies to all religions, but doesn't apply to 'non-religions'?

Because the whole fucking point is maintaining equality. If you can't implement Christianity and Islam on the grounds of equality, it's hypocritical to try and implement Buddhism; you are making Buddhism legitimate and at the same time declaring all non-Buddhist religions illegitmate.

You either implement all into law or implement none, there is no middle ground on the equality front.

2. Okay, so your version of Christianity is discriminatory. But Nazism is discriminatory as well.

Nazism is a form of Facism. We're talking about democratic republics. Robot-dictatorships are discriminatory but that's not the point, it's just another word game by you.

And I don't think Buddhism is discriminatory. If you're opposed to discriminatory systems/ideologies, oppose those, not religion. A ban on discriminatory systems/ideologies could be fully justified, but it's not the same as 'religion'.

Buddhism itself would oppose becoming the state. The point is equality; making any religion apart of the state is inherrently discrimitory against all other religions. The state would be endorsing one Religion which would nessitate excluding all others.

There is no way to rectify a union of church and state with equality.

Shaoken:
You're attempting to pass off an opinion as fact. I'm pointing out how your opinion is not, in fact, an objective fact, and just because you play word games doesn't make you right.

What opinion?

That Socialism, Libtarism, Capitalism and Communism is comparable to Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judasism, and Taoism.

Realitycrash:
..Well, if we did, Religion would be found to be "based on mythologic hearsay" or being "impossible to verify", which would probably lead to the recommendation that Religion have no sway over how we regulate the laws or govern our country.

1. Is 'religion' the same as 'impossible to verify'? Does every 'government-religion-interaction' need 'verifiable facts'? Is non-religion the same as 'scientifically verified'?

My answers: no, no, no.

2. If you are afraid that inverifiable things will influence your government, just oppose these, not religion, it's something different.
3. 'Separation between church and state' means too, as far as I know, that the government can't support a religion. They can't say "Christianity is the best!" and support churches and donate money to Christian organizations. But the government can give money to theaters and sports, for example.

Why would...
"I pay taxes for my neighbour's evening in the theater"
or
"I pay taxes for my neighbour's solar panels"
or
"I pay taxes for my neighbour's sports"
or
"I pay taxes for my neighbour's children"
or
"I pay taxes for my neighbour's intercultural project"

....be any worse than "I pay for my neighbour's church"?

Shaoken:
Because the whole fucking point is maintaining equality. If you can't implement Christianity and Islam on the grounds of equality, it's hypocritical to try and implement Buddhism; you are making Buddhism legitimate and at the same time declaring all non-Buddhist religions illegitmate.

Wait what?!
Christianity is discriminatory thus we prevent Christianity from influencing the state. -that's your claim.
Buddhism is not discriminatory thus we do not prevent Buddhism from influencing the state. -that's my claim.

And now I am discriminatory?

"Non-religious ideology/system X is discriminatory, thus we have to separate all non-religious ideologies/systems from the state or else we are discriminatory!"

Shaoken:
Nazism is a form of Facism. We're talking about democratic republics. Robot-dictatorships are discriminatory but that's not the point, it's just another word game by you.

Who said we were talking about republics?!

Shaoken:
Buddhism itself would oppose becoming the state. The point is equality; making any religion apart of the state is inherrently discrimitory against all other religions. The state would be endorsing one Religion which would nessitate excluding all others.

Is making any ideology (capitalism, communism, socialism, libertarianism) a part of the state inherently discriminatory against all other ideologies?
If yes, should we outlaw this?
If no, why does it not work for non-religious ideologies/systems but does it work for religious ideologies/systems?

Shaoken:
That Socialism, Libtarism, Capitalism and Communism is comparable to Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judasism, and Taoism.

I say that non-religious ideologies/systems are comparable to religious ideologies/systems. You don't think so? What's the big, inherent difference?

Danyal:
[quote="Realitycrash" post="528.383451.15174196"]
2. If you are afraid that inverifiable things will influence your government, just oppose these, not religion, it's something different.
3. 'Separation between church and state' means too, as far as I know, that the government can't support a religion. They can't say "Christianity is the best!" and support churches and donate money to Christian organizations. But the government can give money to theaters and sports, for example.

Why would...
"I pay taxes for my neighbour's evening in the theater"
or
"I pay taxes for my neighbour's solar panels"
or
"I pay taxes for my neighbour's sports"
or
"I pay taxes for my neighbour's children"
or
"I pay taxes for my neighbour's intercultural project"

....be any worse than "I pay for my neighbour's church"?

They can give money, as far as I know. They just don't (well, actually, they do. I believe a recent Mosque built in my city got some tax-payer funding. I could be wrong, and it probably wasn't much, but I'm fairly certain they got some.), because it isn't important enough on the agenda.
Why was a Mosque important? Cultural Diversity, which we value. And oh, I believe the state will step in and provide funding if it is for restoring an old church, if agreed that the church is a Cultural Heritage.

So in short; Some cultural projects are more important than others. The Government decides which to give the go-ahead, and if you don't like it, you can vote for the guys that want to promote the culture you prefer, be it a culture that never gives money to something even remotely associated with Religion, or one that gives to only Religion A, or one that gives to all religions.

Edit: http://avpixlat.info/2012/05/18/efter-ugs-moskegranskning-statliga-bidrag-kan-dras-in/

In Swedish, but the state has a committee (the SST), which provides tax-payer money to different cultural institutions.
(And the article mainly deals a sad case of women being mistreated in the Muslim community, by the way, but that is a different topic altogether)

Danyal:

Not G. Ivingname:
and religion is going to always favor policies that will favor that religion.

"X are always going to favor policies that will favor X"
X=communists, socialists, libertarians, blacks, whites, humanists, secularists, environmentalists, capitalists, collectivists, individualists

Not G. Ivingname:
Say religion X is officially part of the government. Part of their beliefs is that you cannot work on X day of the week. The government makes this a law. Religion Y, however, believes you cannot work on Y day of the week. You can see how this can put religion Y at an economic disadvantage compared to those who follow religion X. This is not even an actively malicious law.

In the Netherlands we've got separation of church and state - and you can't work on Sunday.
Living in one culture always means that you're going to hinder people who are not from that culture and refuse to integrate. Our clocks display 24 hours. We drive on the right side of the road. We use the metric system. We speak the Dutch language. Children have to go to school by day.

If you can only 'read' clocks that display 52 hours, if you drive on the left side of the road, if you don't use the metric system, if you don't speak the Dutch language, if you are awake at night instead of by day - you're disadvantaged in the Netherlands.

You got to admit, people who have a different religion is a bit more common then ones that can't read a normal clock or who can't ever take the bit of time using the metric system. Also, people are moving across borders and living in other countries at an increasingly common rate.

Not G. Ivingname:
What would prevent religion X, with there LEGAL influence of the government, from making witch hunts of religion Y.

"What would prevent ideology/system X, with there LEGAL influence of the government, from making witch hunts of ideology/system Y."

How is 'religion' in that situation any more relevant than non-religion?

Because most constitutions from states with freedom of religion state you cannot make laws that favor or hinder any religion in either way.

Not G. Ivingname:
Religions are institutions run by humans, who are prone to corruption and misuse of power, just like any other organization, or believe in their deity enough to kill others in their name. Some would seek to rid the world of religion Y, or anyone who fails to submit to their god/s, or others will seek to eliminate those who are not giving them "donations."

And some vegetarians oppose meat-eaters, some environmentalists oppose capitalists, some collectivists oppose individualists and vice versa. X wants to rid the world of Y. I don't see how religion is relevant.[/quote]

There haven't been as many bloody wars over the enviroment or economic systems as there have been over religion. Besides, how would you feel if the socialist party, or the Green party, or the hippy party, or the Libertarian party, and one party, was the only one legally apart of the government? Choice of the voter has been nullified about how they vote is more or less gone, and the government did rid the world of other opposing ideologies.

I fail to see how legally letting that happen is a good thing.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked