Secular State: Yay, Nay, or Whatever?

Page 3 of 4 [ 51 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Are You Opposed to a Secular State?

YES! Religion should dictate all political policies and activities.	0%	[ 0 ]
Sort of. Religious institutions should have some political influence.	0%	[ 0 ]
Whatever, as long as I'm safe, secure, healthy, and employed.	0%	[ 0 ]
Not Really. Religious institutions might have some influence, but not always.	10%	[ 4 ]
NO! Religious intitutions should have no special priviledges whatsoever.	90%	[ 35 ]
On Planet X, we have no politics or religions.	0%	[ 0 ]
Other: ________________ (Please Explain Below).	0%	[ 0 ]

Total votes : 39

PM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

05 Sep 2012, 2:51 pm

I'm not sure if this is the correct number, but every year in the US, somewhere in the neighborhood of $73 billion dollars in tax revenue is lost thanks to the tax-exempt status of religious institutions.

_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

05 Sep 2012, 2:51 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

I went with religious institutions having influence sometimes. And that's only because it must be remembered that the civil rights movement had been led by ministers from mostly black churches, and had been inspired by the Christian theology taught in their churches. Other cases of religious institutions lobbying on the part of the poor and downtrodden can be easily rattled off. But I am absolutely the first to say that the political influence of the religious right is harmful to American society in general. -Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

At the risk of being labelled a Conspiricist...

For those who may claim that America was founded on "Christian Values", keep in mind that:

Many of the Founding Fathers were slave-owners.
The Declaration of Independence (DoE) declared that all MEN are created equal in 1776.
The Constitution was ratified by Congress in 1791, without freeing slaves or giving women the right to vote, 15 years after the DoE.
Slavery was made illegal in the U.S. in 1865 by the 13th Amendment, 89 years after the DoE.
Women were granted the right to vote in the U.S. in 1920 by the 19th Amendment, 144 years after the DoE.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (188 years after the DoE) outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities and women.

So, Americans have spent nearly 200 years (or more) trying to correct the iniquities of "Christian Values" imposed on women and minorities by America's Founding Fathers.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,596
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Sep 2012, 6:04 pm

Fnord wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

At the risk of being labelled a Conspiricist...

For those who may claim that America was founded on "Christian Values", keep in mind that:

Many of the Founding Fathers were slave-owners.
The Declaration of Independence (DoE) declared that all MEN are created equal in 1776.
The Constitution was ratified by Congress in 1791, without freeing slaves or giving women the right to vote, 15 years after the DoE.
Slavery was made illegal in the U.S. in 1865 by the 13th Amendment, 89 years after the DoE.
Women were granted the right to vote in the U.S. in 1920 by the 19th Amendment, 144 years after the DoE.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (188 years after the DoE) outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities and women.

So, Americans have spent nearly 200 years (or more) trying to correct the iniquities of "Christian Values" imposed on women and minorities by America's Founding Fathers.

Factually speaking, you'll get no argument from me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

05 Sep 2012, 6:20 pm

ruveyn wrote:

enrico_dandolo wrote:

If anything, religion should be the tool of state. Certainly not the other way around.

Religions and churches should not be part of the State in any way. Government should be religion neutral and not grant any religion or church a privileged status. That means churches should pay taxes just like any other group that does any kind of business.

ruveyn

Of course. I don't disagree with that.

I thought it more the other way: the state setting up common cultual practices for all to follow, strictly for its own cohesion, and strictly under the state, not above nor besides it. A bit like the Byzantine Church. In this case, granting exemptions from taxes is not applicable, since the clergy are basically civil servants -- it would be like taxing a government department. Giving this Church a privileged status is also not applicable, since it would have by right a complete monopoly on the citizens. Seceding from the Church would be perceived by the state (and done by the particulars) as a direct attack on the government.

Obviously, I don't think such a system could be made to work nowadays, but in theory, it can be a good idea.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Sep 2012, 12:09 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:

I thought it more the other way: the state setting up common cultual practices for all to follow, strictly for its own cohesion, and strictly under the state, not above nor besides it. A bit like the Byzantine Church. In this case, granting exemptions from taxes is not applicable, since the clergy are basically civil servants -- it would be like taxing a government department. Giving this Church a privileged status is also not applicable, since it would have by right a complete monopoly on the citizens. Seceding from the Church would be perceived by the state (and done by the particulars) as a direct attack on the government.

.

That is the moral equivalent of a State religion. A religion does not have to be theistic. If the State mandates a religion that makes the State the Supreme Being it is still religion. Maximillian Robespierre, the master of Terror in the French Revolution wanted to do that. Fortunately he was overthrown and his head was removed swiftly.;

ruveyn

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,596
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Sep 2012, 2:46 pm

ruveyn wrote:

enrico_dandolo wrote:

I'm sure you've heard of the myths that had grown up around the late Kim Jung Ill, about how he had been born on a holy mountain, and did not ever defecate or urinate. School children sang his praises for creating rainbows. The god of an absolutist, theoretically atheist state.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

06 Sep 2012, 3:07 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

enrico_dandolo wrote:

State opposition to (theistic) religion as a diversion from their own power hardly constitutes an "atheist state", nor can it be equivocated with secular government in general.

Atheist government is oxymoronic, as atheism by definition denotes not a belief but a lack of it.
It's no more a dogma for governance than non-feminism or non-capitalism- meaningless except for what it is not.

_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,596
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Sep 2012, 4:05 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

enrico_dandolo wrote:

Granted.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

06 Sep 2012, 5:53 pm

ruveyn wrote:

enrico_dandolo wrote:

The problem here, however, is the oppressive nature of the regime, not the unsound relationship between state and religion. It could theoretically be done better than what the French did: in the case Greek and Roman civic cults, for example.

ruveyn wrote:

That is the moral equivalent of a State religion. A religion does not have to be theistic.

I don't like the word "religion". I think it is very loosely defined and used without any rigour. I try to avoid it as much as possible, even when speaking of Christianity and the other "world religions", which is why I said "cultual practice" and "Church".

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Sep 2012, 9:09 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:

Religion is any sort of steady and repeated practice or custom. Consider the sentence He practiced piano religiously. That means he practiced regularly. Religion is not necessarily bound to the worship of deities and spirits. Budhists practice a religion and they do not worship a god.

ruveyn

YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

06 Sep 2012, 9:37 pm

Quote:

Religion is any sort of steady and repeated practice or custom. Consider the sentence He practiced piano religiously.

If I say, "I jumped rope furiously," does that mean I was angry?
Or perhaps, like "furiously", "religiously" has a different meaning than "religious"?
:wink:

ADoyle90815
Deinonychus

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 325

06 Sep 2012, 10:14 pm

I remember a bumper sticker that sums it up. "The last time religion and government were combined, people were burned at the stake."

thewhitrbbit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,124

06 Sep 2012, 10:18 pm

I think there are good things we can take away from religion and some things that should never be part of government.

With so many of the founders being free masons, there has to be some roll for religion. Free masonry requires a belief in God, but it doesn't specify which god.

What I dislike is when the government favors one religion.

AspieRogue

06 Sep 2012, 10:23 pm

Fnord,

please change the title words past the colon to: Yay, Nay, or Whatthehay

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,851
Location: London

07 Sep 2012, 11:30 am

ADoyle90815 wrote:

I remember a bumper sticker that sums it up. "The last time religion and government were combined, people were burned at the stake."

Actually they were hung, but whatever.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

07 Sep 2012, 11:32 am

The_Walrus wrote:

Actually they were hung, but whatever.

And for more recent examples, we can look at the Republic of Ireland post-independence. Humongous fail all round, really.

Page 3 of 4 [ 51 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Secular State: Yay, Nay, or Whatever? Post Reply New Topic

Secular State: Yay, Nay, or Whatever?