Role of Religion in Government/Society

[Thermodolia]

I don't believe in a coercive state structure, so this question is rather difficult since I fundamentally disagree with Christians who try to use law as a bludgeon.

However, I think that these Christians have a fundamental right to freely express their views. The state isn't obliged to turn their views into law, but freedom of speech demands that they can at least say their opinions without persecution.

They totally have the right to say what they want to say.

But if ultra-conservative Christians could stop trying to re-illegalize abortion, re-illegalize gay marriage, keep those who aren't Christian out of the country, turn the country into a Christian theocracy, etc... That'd be great.

Or we could and honestly should, curb stomp the ultra-conservative borderline fascist religious nuts. Screw their rights to “free speech” and other bogus protections. They don’t deserve it

[Soviet Computocracy]

Or we could and honestly should, curb stomp the ultra-conservative borderline fascist religious nuts. Screw their rights to “free speech” and other bogus protections. They don’t deserve it

I’d like to talk to you about the proletariat

[Ulrich Schmid]

Or we could and honestly should, curb stomp the ultra-conservative borderline fascist religious nuts. Screw their rights to “free speech” and other bogus protections. They don’t deserve it

Where do you draw the line though? "Ultra-conservative borderline fascist religious nuts" like the Westboro Baptist Church are already a tiny minority who are already treated as pariahs (as they should be), any attempt to limit their free speech would be a complete waste of time and money. The problem with targeting conventional Christian conservatives for the opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion is that its religious persecution plain and simple, since opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage isn't limited to Christians, or even religious people. Not to forget that interfering in their rights makes a mockery of secularism, which people often forget is the separation of church and state, not state from church.

[Risottia]

What role (or not) should religion have in Government or Society?

Zero zip nada nulla nichts.

People should be able to meet to do their religious stuff just like they should be able to meet to do any other cultural stuff - singing, reading poetry, playing DnD, flying kites... as long as it's within the bounds of law... and that's it. No special rules, no religious-grounded laws, no tax exemptions, no public funding, nothing; and no display of religious affiliation by public institutions or officers.

[Minzerland II]

To summarise as best as I can: Religion should have an eminent place in government and society, if not a supremacy over secular powers, whatever the form of governance (though preferably Monarchy). Both are to cooperate with one another, of course, though particularly the secular prince with the Church in the promotion of the Faith and its defence. This is because secular princes have a duty to the public and universal welfare of their subjects, they’re to help cultivate virtue, faith and morals, rather than vice, by deferring to, as well as assisting and defending, the Church. Therefore, secular powers must base law on the Faith to cultivate virtue and minister justice, because God is Justice. Furthermore, vice is to be purged from government, flatterers to be avoided and tyrants expunged; the prince is to cultivate virtue in himself and thus be a slave to law and justice.

Christians may be subject to Pagan kings and kings of other religions, as well as Christian kings, are to be obeyed unless subject to unjust laws, which permit disobedience. Religious and ethnic minorities are to be protected from harassment and savagery. All communities, even religious and ethnic minorities, may form democratic governance and elect representatives for their communities. Secularism or laïcism or state atheism, however, is simply intolerable and should be resisted wholesale. This applies to atheism on any level too.

With all that said, I wouldn’t expect it to be very effective today or the future, nor to work. I, in fact, loath the modern state and believe it to be poisonous. So I am rather apathetic to the state unless it concerns the Church or promotes that which is pernicious and inimical to the Faith, its teachings.

[Balvics]

I believe you should have a state religion, in my case "Catholic Christianity".
Personally, my nation has some decent political idea's.
~State Religion to "Catholic Christianity".
~Semi-Theocracy to "Catholic Christianity".
I strongly believe religion (Catholic Christianity) should have a place with-in the government.

[The New California Republic]

I believe you should have a state religion, in my case "Catholic Christianity".
Personally, my nation has some decent political idea's.
~State Religion to "Catholic Christianity".
~Semi-Theocracy to "Catholic Christianity".
I strongly believe religion (Catholic Christianity) should have a place with-in the government.

This is NSGeneral, we don't pretend to be our nations here.

[Ulrich Schmid]

People should be able to meet to do their religious stuff just like they should be able to meet to do any other cultural stuff - singing, reading poetry, playing DnD, flying kites... as long as it's within the bounds of law... and that's it. No special rules, no religious-grounded laws, no tax exemptions, no public funding, nothing; and no display of religious affiliation by public institutions or officers.

I find this incredibly ironic, since cultural stuff is heavily funded and subsidised by the State. So to suggest that religion is a cultural matter, then turn around and say that it can't be funded like other cultural programs, places and organisations is a tad hypocritical.

Also, I'd argue that most religions are a charity in that they're not-for-profit philanthropic organisations whose primary objective is social well being, which includes religion according to Wikipedia. Obviously there are exceptions, like the mega-churches, but that only says that we need a case-per-case basis rather than an unfair blanket rule.

[Thermodolia]

Or we could and honestly should, curb stomp the ultra-conservative borderline fascist religious nuts. Screw their rights to “free speech” and other bogus protections. They don’t deserve it

I’d like to talk to you about the proletariat

What about them?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

They totally have the right to say what they want to say.

But if ultra-conservative Christians could stop trying to re-illegalize abortion, re-illegalize gay marriage, keep those who aren't Christian out of the country, turn the country into a Christian theocracy, etc... That'd be great.

Or we could and honestly should, curb stomp the ultra-conservative borderline fascist religious nuts. Screw their rights to “free speech” and other bogus protections. They don’t deserve it

Thermo, please no. What about my freeze peach?

[Old Tyrannia]

I can only speak for my country, but our identity, culture and values have always been intimately connected to the national church, so it is totally logical in my view that said church should be elevated above other religions as an integral part of our identity. There should be freedom of religion, within reason (religions whose tenets require their followers to go against the law obviously should not be tolerated), and the state should not make it its business to impose Christian morality on its subjects' private lives; but to protect the established nature of the church public office should be conditional on receiving communion in the Anglican Church or the Church of Scotland. The church should ultimately be subordinate to the Crown in all temporal matters, however. In this sense I am more a Caesaropapist than a theocrat, which I believe to be more in line with Scriptural commandments regarding temporal authorities and the nature of the early Christian church. The church should be under the protection of the state, not exercise authority over it; when the church exercises temporal authority and rules by itself it has taken the Devil's bargain.

At present, the state of Christianity in the United Kingdom has deteriorated to the point that this is only a fantastical ideal. Regardless, had the relationship between church and state continued along these lines after the 18th century, I believe our present society would be far healthier for it.

[Andsed]

No role in government and some role in society. Secular governments are the best way to preserve religious freedom and tolerance but that does not mean religion can’t have a role in society. I may be a major anti theist but credit where credit is due. Religion does have some benefits. Religion should not control society but it can influence it.

[Meikaii]

Or we could and honestly should, curb stomp the ultra-conservative borderline fascist religious nuts. Screw their rights to “free speech” and other bogus protections. They don’t deserve it

Where do you draw the line though? "Ultra-conservative borderline fascist religious nuts" like the Westboro Baptist Church are already a tiny minority who are already treated as pariahs (as they should be), any attempt to limit their free speech would be a complete waste of time and money. The problem with targeting conventional Christian conservatives for the opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion is that its religious persecution plain and simple, since opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage isn't limited to Christians, or even religious people. Not to forget that interfering in their rights makes a mockery of secularism, which people often forget is the separation of church and state, not state from church.

Considering that religion is a non-government form of fascism attempting to beome a government, and occasionally succeeding, this isn't religious persecution, this is self-defense and nipping this shit in the bud before the iniquitous tendrils of venomous hatred and delusion infect the minds of the unlearned to continue the cycle anew.

[Ulrich Schmid]

Considering that religion is a non-government form of fascism attempting to beome a government, and occasionally succeeding, this isn't religious persecution, this is self-defense and nipping this shit in the bud before the iniquitous tendrils of venomous hatred and delusion infect the minds of the unlearned to continue the cycle anew.

The only hatred and delusion here is coming from you.

Religion is not fascism, nor are most religious people hateful. My close friends and neighbors are good people, who help others and ask for nothing in return. I'm certain that other people here can attest similarly. Next time you make such a shockingly ignorant claim, be more self aware at your own hypocrisy.

[Thermodolia]

Or we could and honestly should, curb stomp the ultra-conservative borderline fascist religious nuts. Screw their rights to “free speech” and other bogus protections. They don’t deserve it

Thermo, please no. What about my freeze peach?

You can get your frozen peaches at the grocery store for $1.99 a pound

[Thermodolia]

Or we could and honestly should, curb stomp the ultra-conservative borderline fascist religious nuts. Screw their rights to “free speech” and other bogus protections. They don’t deserve it

Where do you draw the line though? "Ultra-conservative borderline fascist religious nuts" like the Westboro Baptist Church are already a tiny minority who are already treated as pariahs (as they should be),

The WBC isn’t alone and I’m not just talking about them. I’m talking about them, ultra-orthodox Jews, any supporters sharia law, dominionists think Ted Cruz, and the like.

any attempt to limit their free speech would be a complete waste of time and money.

Quite the opposite. It’s in our national interests to squash these radicals. Letting them fester will only damage the state.

The problem with targeting conventional Christian conservatives for the opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion is that its religious persecution plain and simple, since opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage isn't limited to Christians, or even religious people.

No it’s not. Prohibiting religious people from dictating what women and the gays can do is not religious persecution. You aren’t being persecuted if the state prohibits you from screaming about how gay people shouldn’t be allowed to do shit.

Not to forget that interfering in their rights makes a mockery of secularism, which people often forget is the separation of church and state, not state from church.

That’s the American definition. A good chunk of the world follows the French Model. Secularism then is the limiting of religion to the private sphere

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Thermo, please no. What about my freeze peach?

You can get your frozen peaches at the grocery store for $1.99 a pound

Thermo, this isn't a joke. Everyone needs a little freeze peach. Even Naziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis.

[FluffyMurderKillerStabber]

Nobody knows absolutely for certain whether religion or secular "molecules to man" provide the answer. Nobody can agree on it. Contrary to what atheists would have you believe, atheism is just as much a belief as, for example, Christianity. To suppress other beliefs because they are religious makes atheists no better than "barbarous" religions. Neither one should have any say in politics as government is required to be objective. While anyone could disagree with the the Christian Bible, that does not make it wrong. While many fervently believe it, that does not make it right. There are scientists on both sides with legitimate evidence so neither side is more correct than the other. Therefore, ALL valid viewpoints need to be considered in the law. The Christian Bible does provide useful regulations which if ignored would plunge society into chaos. if Christianity must be taken out of the law, that would include laws that originated from the Bible like " Do not murder". If atheists would have their way, murder would be under consideration for legality. On the other hand, a theocracy holds much potential for abuse by priests or equivalent religious figures. Therefore, keep the old ways as they have worked; what society is turning into with the increasing power of atheists is not better. Any improvement would be give other viewpoints the right to express themselves without persecution then consider whether what they have to say would actually benefit humanity.

[The New California Republic]

If atheists would have their way, murder would be under consideration for legality.

What a load of utter bullshit.

[The Holy Therns]

Hey, feel free to believe in Magic Skyman if you wish, but any idea he whispers should be weighed without religious bias against all other ideas.

[Iciaros]

Nobody knows absolutely for certain whether religion or secular "molecules to man" provide the answer. Nobody can agree on it. Contrary to what atheists would have you believe, atheism is just as much a belief as, for example, Christianity. To suppress other beliefs because they are religious makes atheists no better than "barbarous" religions. Neither one should have any say in politics as government is required to be objective. While anyone could disagree with the the Christian Bible, that does not make it wrong. While many fervently believe it, that does not make it right. There are scientists on both sides with legitimate evidence so neither side is more correct than the other. Therefore, ALL valid viewpoints need to be considered in the law. The Christian Bible does provide useful regulations which if ignored would plunge society into chaos. if Christianity must be taken out of the law, that would include laws that originated from the Bible like " Do not murder". If atheists would have their way, murder would be under consideration for legality. On the other hand, a theocracy holds much potential for abuse by priests or equivalent religious figures. Therefore, keep the old ways as they have worked; what society is turning into with the increasing power of atheists is not better. Any improvement would be give other viewpoints the right to express themselves without persecution then consider whether what they have to say would actually benefit humanity.

Strictly speaking, taking Christianity out of law is (I imagine) more often envisioned as taking christian justification out of it, though secular justifications may still remain and indeed support the same laws (eg murder) albeit on different bases. It doesn't mean taking out every law that Christianity or other religions support.

In any case, I would say that 'consider whether what they have to say would actually benefit humanity' is in fact an agreed-upon notion, but no one can agree on what 'benefit' entails. Taking into account all viewpoints essentially means becoming locked in a permanent stalemate, because no one can decide what defines human benefit - unless a single course of action can be agreed by everyone to benefit humans, even if for different reasons (like, as you said, murder). With increasing polarisation, though, I feel like this common ground is steadily shrinking.

Oh, by the way, the middle ground between religion and atheism is, by some definitions of the word, secularism. Wikipedia has a definition which reads "to interpret life on principles taken solely from the material world, without recourse to religion" - which is pretty much neutral, and a reasonable response. If we cannot establish who's right about what's up there, then let's not look up there; let's just look at the things we actually know. This version of secularism is not a dismissal of the religious or irreligious but rather a setting-aside of that discussion. Which seems neutral to me.

[Internationalist Bastard]

None
Religion is something personal and the government has no right enforcing it, nor does religion have the right to control the direction of government

[FluffyMurderKillerStabber]

Nobody knows absolutely for certain whether religion or secular "molecules to man" provide the answer. Nobody can agree on it. Contrary to what atheists would have you believe, atheism is just as much a belief as, for example, Christianity. To suppress other beliefs because they are religious makes atheists no better than "barbarous" religions. Neither one should have any say in politics as government is required to be objective. While anyone could disagree with the the Christian Bible, that does not make it wrong. While many fervently believe it, that does not make it right. There are scientists on both sides with legitimate evidence so neither side is more correct than the other. Therefore, ALL valid viewpoints need to be considered in the law. The Christian Bible does provide useful regulations which if ignored would plunge society into chaos. if Christianity must be taken out of the law, that would include laws that originated from the Bible like " Do not murder". If atheists would have their way, murder would be under consideration for legality. On the other hand, a theocracy holds much potential for abuse by priests or equivalent religious figures. Therefore, keep the old ways as they have worked; what society is turning into with the increasing power of atheists is not better. Any improvement would be give other viewpoints the right to express themselves without persecution then consider whether what they have to say would actually benefit humanity.

Strictly speaking, taking Christianity out of law is (I imagine) more often envisioned as taking christian justification out of it, though secular justifications may still remain and indeed support the same laws (eg murder) albeit on different bases. It doesn't mean taking out every law that Christianity or other religions support.

In any case, I would say that 'consider whether what they have to say would actually benefit humanity' is in fact an agreed-upon notion, but no one can agree on what 'benefit' entails. Taking into account all viewpoints essentially means becoming locked in a permanent stalemate, because no one can decide what defines human benefit - unless a single course of action can be agreed by everyone to benefit humans, even if for different reasons (like, as you said, murder). With increasing polarisation, though, I feel like this common ground is steadily shrinking.

Oh, by the way, the middle ground between religion and atheism is, by some definitions of the word, secularism. Wikipedia has a definition which reads "to interpret life on principles taken solely from the material world, without recourse to religion" - which is pretty much neutral, and a reasonable response. If we cannot establish who's right about what's up there, then let's not look up there; let's just look at the things we actually know. This version of secularism is not a dismissal of the religious or irreligious but rather a setting-aside of that discussion. Which seems neutral to me.

Disclaimer: I am not currently for or against religion or atheism.
Most religions use the logic: "If there is a God, believes go to heaven and atheists go to hell and if there isn't a God, then it doesn't really matter; it's safer to assume their is one and act accordingly" the flaw in that reasoning is which God? The big G? Buddha? Allah? FSM? While we don't know which one, ALL must be considered still. Clash of religion may indeed need to be to be sorted out by ignoring them (after all, if it turns out it's some random islanders religion that's actually correct, you can easily just explain that to their deity and beg for another chance with fairer odds), but if most religions agree on something, it should be okay to allow majority rules and ignore the minority.

[Thermodolia]

Strictly speaking, taking Christianity out of law is (I imagine) more often envisioned as taking christian justification out of it, though secular justifications may still remain and indeed support the same laws (eg murder) albeit on different bases. It doesn't mean taking out every law that Christianity or other religions support.

In any case, I would say that 'consider whether what they have to say would actually benefit humanity' is in fact an agreed-upon notion, but no one can agree on what 'benefit' entails. Taking into account all viewpoints essentially means becoming locked in a permanent stalemate, because no one can decide what defines human benefit - unless a single course of action can be agreed by everyone to benefit humans, even if for different reasons (like, as you said, murder). With increasing polarisation, though, I feel like this common ground is steadily shrinking.

Oh, by the way, the middle ground between religion and atheism is, by some definitions of the word, secularism. Wikipedia has a definition which reads "to interpret life on principles taken solely from the material world, without recourse to religion" - which is pretty much neutral, and a reasonable response. If we cannot establish who's right about what's up there, then let's not look up there; let's just look at the things we actually know. This version of secularism is not a dismissal of the religious or irreligious but rather a setting-aside of that discussion. Which seems neutral to me.

Disclaimer: I am not currently for or against religion or atheism.
Most religions use the logic: "If there is a God, believes go to heaven and atheists go to hell and if there isn't a God, then it doesn't really matter; it's safer to assume their is one and act accordingly" the flaw in that reasoning is which God? The big G? Buddha? Allah? FSM? While we don't know which one, ALL must be considered still. Clash of religion may indeed need to be to be sorted out by ignoring them (after all, if it turns out it's some random islanders religion that's actually correct, you can easily just explain that to their deity and beg for another chance with fairer odds), but if most religions agree on something, it should be okay to allow majority rules and ignore the minority.

Not all religions believe in hell though. Some believe that non believers just cease to exist while others don’t even believe that

[The Blaatschapen]

What role (or not) should religion have in Government or Society?

Zero zip nada nulla nichts.

People should be able to meet to do their religious stuff just like they should be able to meet to do any other cultural stuff - singing, reading poetry, playing DnD, flying kites... as long as it's within the bounds of law... and that's it. No special rules, no religious-grounded laws, no tax exemptions, no public funding, nothing; and no display of religious affiliation by public institutions or officers.

This.