Role of Religion in Government/Society

[United States of Americanas]

None in government and minor at best in general society.

100% this^. Religion has no place in government and no business dictating society as a whole.

I stand with these people. Religion has ZERO place in government but does serve a useful place in society when properly functioning. Religion should not be an authority over people but rather a place of unity and worship along with service to each other in communal atmosphere such as preparing food for the homeless and packing bags of donated goods to send to third world nations that have no food or clothing.

[Liberal Thermidorian Reaction]

I want people to vote it out of government and mock it in the public sphere. None of this would violate the First Amendment.

You'll just be outed as an anti-theist bigot, but go ahead I suppose

Kind of ironic for you to say that because many Christians engage in anti-atheist bigotry. I doubt you'd call it bigotry if the roles were reversed.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

You'll just be outed as an anti-theist bigot, but go ahead I suppose

Kind of ironic for you to say that because many Christians engage in anti-atheist bigotry. I doubt you'd call it bigotry if the roles were reversed.

I mean they arent the one that has denounced bigotry but simultaneously advocated for bigotry themselves.

[The Emerald Legion]

Hardly.

Why? Just because it is traditional does not mean it is worth retaining, and many of the claims propagated by religion have not been proven.

And this is relevant because? It's not the religious's job to prove their beliefs objectively 100% true in order for them to live by them. That's their choice. Even if they were proven to be false, it would STILL be their choice.

Whether their beliefs are true is so utterly beside the point that I don't know why you think it matters.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

In a democratic society each individual acts as agent for their own interests and ideology. In a democratic society it is also necessary in order to be a successful agent for one's own interests and ideologies to enlist the aid of as many others as possible to pursue those interests and that ideology. This is done by communication - thus the primary vector in spreading dangerous interests or ideology is likewise communication. To imagine then that spreading dangerous ideologies is not dangerous is a fool's mistake.

Government on the other hand only operates as a compromise between these aforementioned agents. The more numerous and more influential dangerous agents are, the more dangerous the compromises become in acquiescing to their interests and ideology. Even a small group, (im)properly placed, can radically change the direction of a government.

Pretending that radicals are not a threat because they aren't toting around guns is a dire mistake.

tl;dr memes are the DNA of the soul

Yes, radical voices, should they become loud and numerous enough, can be a serious threat. But that doesn't warrant responding to radical ideas with a level of force normally reserved for man eating tigers. Even if it did, not all religious people are radical theocrats.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, radical voices, should they become loud and numerous enough, can be a serious threat. But that doesn't warrant responding to radical ideas with a level of force normally reserved for man eating tigers.

The point is not to literally resort to the kind of violence you would use against a man-eating tiger.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Kind of ironic for you to say that because many Christians engage in anti-atheist bigotry. I doubt you'd call it bigotry if the roles were reversed.

I mean they arent the one that has denounced bigotry but simultaneously advocated for bigotry themselves.

I was less denouncing bigotry, and more pointing out that the other poster is no doubt a hypocrite. I no longer allow myself to be subjected to double standards.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Yes, radical voices, should they become loud and numerous enough, can be a serious threat. But that doesn't warrant responding to radical ideas with a level of force normally reserved for man eating tigers.

The point is not to literally resort to the kind of violence you would use against a man-eating tiger.

I know.

[Deutschess Kaiserreich]

Religion has absolutely no place in the government, and even less place to govern society as a whole - and I mean that literally: religion has a negative number of reasons to be involved in society as a whole, looping into reasons of why it shouldn't be involved. It has zero reasons for government and every reason against being in government.

Religion, especially organized religion, is a cancerous tumor that feeds upon society and produces stupid ideas like bodily sovereignty infringement (e.g. the religious “pro-life” movement as well as “conversion therapy” for LGBT people), marriage restrictions (marriage is a state matter, religion needs to btfo), and general fucking stupidity (e.g. “evilution” as a fucking word that exists) - and that's at its best. At its worst, religion conjures up extremism and fundamentalism - much of which can turn out violent and produce groups such as ISIS.

I have nothing against most religious people - it's not my business if they want to believe in an imaginary random omnipotent bastard. But religions themselves, especially the organized ones, produce a lot of stupid pointless fucking bullshit.

tl;dr religion, especially when it is organized, is dumb and should not at all be involved at any level of government and should have absolutely nothing to do with how society runs.

Are you the Emperor?

[Korhal IVV]

Religion has absolutely no place in the government, and even less place to govern society as a whole - and I mean that literally: religion has a negative number of reasons to be involved in society as a whole, looping into reasons of why it shouldn't be involved. It has zero reasons for government and every reason against being in government.

Religion, especially organized religion, is a cancerous tumor that feeds upon society and produces stupid ideas like bodily sovereignty infringement (e.g. the religious “pro-life” movement as well as “conversion therapy” for LGBT people), marriage restrictions (marriage is a state matter, religion needs to btfo), and general fucking stupidity (e.g. “evilution” as a fucking word that exists) - and that's at its best. At its worst, religion conjures up extremism and fundamentalism - much of which can turn out violent and produce groups such as ISIS.

I have nothing against most religious people - it's not my business if they want to believe in an imaginary random omnipotent bastard. But religions themselves, especially the organized ones, produce a lot of stupid pointless fucking bullshit.

tl;dr religion, especially when it is organized, is dumb and should not at all be involved at any level of government and should have absolutely nothing to do with how society runs.

Are you the Emperor?

The guy who totally forgot that secular conflicts killed way, way, way more than religious wars? Yes.

[Kowani]

Yes, that’s what it means. The State shall not interfere with the Church, nor the Church with the State.

No. That's not separation of Church and State. That's 'The Church shall not exist in any meaningful sense.'

So what would you call true separation of Church and State?

You are inherently privileging atheist ideals over religious ones.

I mean, I don’t have a problem with that.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

No. That's not separation of Church and State. That's 'The Church shall not exist in any meaningful sense.'

So what would you call true separation of Church and State?

You are inherently privileging atheist ideals over religious ones.

I mean, I don’t have a problem with that.

Yeah no thanks. Lets not have the government show privilege to either religion or atheism.

[Kragholm Free States]

You are inherently privileging atheist ideals over religious ones.

I mean, I don’t have a problem with that.

Sounds like a rather counterproductive policy to pursue. I doubt any significant number of religious people in the modern West would vehemently protest the notion of separation of church and state, or the legally equal status of their religion and atheism.

If you make it quite clear that your goal is not equality though, and is in fact to suppress them and privilege atheists, what do you think is going to happen? As in so many cases, if you oppress a group you radicalise them. And there's more of them than us.

[The V O I D]

All you're doing is confirming for religious people that separation of Church and State often means the state dominating the church.

That's State Atheism, where the State tries to not only impose a secularist society, but also tries to insist that all religions not exist at all.

I am not prescribing state atheism, I am prescribing a permanent means of secularism and that the State should proclaim freedom from any and all religious ideas and influences.

Religions can exist; religious organizations of a significant complexity/size ought not to - if only to prevent them from influencing the State. Let them build churches, temples, etc. at a local level. There's no need for a national or international level of influence, especially if that influence is generally going to end up unproductive - or, indeed, attempting to reverse progress.

Why should I or other religious people accept the state making itself into a nihilistic deity

Because it isn't making itself into a deity. Your church/temple/what-have-you and its religion have no right to impose its law upon everyone else, nor to influence society/the State to do so.

The State is what governs; religion does not.

---

Frankly, China is a state capitalist dictatorship pretending to be socialist and claiming communism. It has more issues than its state atheism, but even there, it is a dictatorship; controlling religions and actively persecuting/eliminating them and their practitioners is just another means to enforce that dictatorship.

It also isn't what I am saying we should do, especially since China isn't the most shining example of any human rights - let alone religious ones.

Corporations aren't people and should also be banned from influencing government. Removing their influence from society is far more difficult, but that's just because of how corporations function and are designed.

Some of the other influences that you might be mentioning aren't as detractive to the State as corporate or religious influences - and as long as they do not become such are usually fine.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

All you're doing is confirming for religious people that separation of Church and State often means the state dominating the church.

That's State Atheism, where the State tries to not only impose a secularist society, but also tries to insist that all religions not exist at all.

I am not prescribing state atheism, I am prescribing a permanent means of secularism and that the State should proclaim freedom from any and all religious ideas and influences.

Religions can exist; religious organizations of a significant complexity/size ought not to - if only to prevent them from influencing the State. Let them build churches, temples, etc. at a local level. There's no need for a national or international level of influence, especially if that influence is generally going to end up unproductive - or, indeed, attempting to reverse progress.

Why should I or other religious people accept the state making itself into a nihilistic deity

Because it isn't making itself into a deity. Your church/temple/what-have-you and its religion have no right to impose its law upon everyone else, nor to influence society/the State to do so.

The State is what governs; religion does not.

---

Frankly, China is a state capitalist dictatorship pretending to be socialist and claiming communism. It has more issues than its state atheism, but even there, it is a dictatorship; controlling religions and actively persecuting/eliminating them and their practitioners is just another means to enforce that dictatorship.

It also isn't what I am saying we should do, especially since China isn't the most shining example of any human rights - let alone religious ones.

Corporations aren't people and should also be banned from influencing government. Removing their influence from society is far more difficult, but that's just because of how corporations function and are designed.

Some of the other influences that you might be mentioning aren't as detractive to the State as corporate or religious influences - and as long as they do not become such are usually fine.

How can you stop Churches from banding together beyond the local level and gaining influence without violating the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly of religious folk?

[Asherahan]

State Atheism kinda sums my opinion. And after the immigration crisis starting my belief has been reinforced.

[The V O I D]

How can you stop Churches from banding together beyond the local level and gaining influence without violating the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly of religious folk?

No one is saying that they can't necessarily organize further, but the State is not obligated to acknowledge them beyond a local level.

And they can ignore attempts at influence by the same means they would with corporate entities: by acknowledging these entities (religious organizations) are not the same as people/individuals, limiting the donation amount for a campaign, limiting who the donations can come from (must be an officially recognized church - not an unofficial gathering of “leadership” of a larger religious organization; sorta like an anti-trust/anti-monopoly thing but directed at religious organizations) and limiting how many donations one can accept toward their politics/agenda from corporate and religious groups (must be a significantly lower number than noncorporate, nonreligious entities).

Rather simple, really.

[Nea Byzantia]

I will come back to this Thread, shortly.

[Kowani]

I mean, I don’t have a problem with that.

Sounds like a rather counterproductive policy to pursue. I doubt any significant number of religious people in the modern West would vehemently protest the notion of separation of church and state, or the legally equal status of their religion and atheism.

If you make it quite clear that your goal is not equality though, and is in fact to suppress them and privilege atheists, what do you think is going to happen? As in so many cases, if you oppress a group you radicalise them. And there's more of them than us.

Eh, that’s the thing. The religious tend to not get along with people of other religions or even worse, different sects of their religion. There are very few countries with secularism where a single religious group has a supermajority.