Religion is poison to democracy

[Fake Messiah]

Religion should be removed from politics/ democracy or, more precisely, religiously motivated laws. But that does not mean that religious people should not be allowed to vote.

If we look at the creators of modern democracy, the founding fathers of the US, we can see that they were not necessarily atheists but they were wise enough to keep religion separate from the Constitution and the government. They did this because there were plenty of people living in the US with different religions and they knew that if they put one religion into the law all other religions would be unwelcomed and people would be persecuted because of their religion - which is exactly what was happening in Europe. So they created a country with unique freedoms for people to not only live but want to come and live in.

Now, of course, some Christian movements want to put Christian hegemony into the government which would be catastrophic not only for democracy but for people of other religions.

[Belacqua]

Religion should be removed from politics/ democracy or, more precisely, religiously motivated laws. But that does not mean that religious people should not be allowed to vote.

If we look at the creators of modern democracy, the founding fathers of the US, we can see that they were not necessarily atheists but they were wise enough to keep religion separate from the Constitution and the government. They did this because there were plenty of people living in the US with different religions and they knew that if they put one religion into the law all other religions would be unwelcomed and people would be persecuted because of their religion - which is exactly what was happening in Europe. So they created a country with unique freedoms for people to not only live but want to come and live in.

Now, of course, some Christian movements want to put Christian hegemony into the government which would be catastrophic not only for democracy but for people of other religions.

This makes a great deal more sense than the thread title, and I thank you for taking the time to type it out. 

It's certainly true that SOME religious people would like to impose their minority rule on the majority. But this is not true of all religious people and it's not unique to religion -- the US has lost its democracy not because of religion but because of business. Corporations impose their minority wishes on the majority. Studies have shown that the will of the people has no influence on the decisions of the federal government, but the will of the corporations does. (Worrying that religion will take away democracy in the US is like treating the patient for a tummy ache after he's already been Guillotined.)

As for "religiously motivated laws," it depends on the laws. If someone's religion includes the idea that God has given equal rights to everyone, rich and poor, and that therefore we should have real democracy, then I don't see how this is a bad thing. The fact that many non-religious people share the same idea doesn't mean that it is not religiously motivated for many others. (And its genealogy comes from religion.)

Some religious people think that we should take care of the poor and weak among us, and that government should play a major role in this. I happen to agree with them, though I am not religious. The same charitable laws would be religiously motivated in their case, but not in mine. 

If someone truly believes his religion, then asking him to make decisions about government with no reference to his religion is like asking him to decide without reference to the truth. Some religious people, for example, are pacifists, and when they vote they choose people who want peace, not warmongers. Asking them to set aside their religious belief that peace is good would be equivalent to asking them to vote with no moral guidance.

[The Grand Nudger]

You dont want peoples ideas about governance coming from god even when you think those ideas are good..because then, their belief in equal rights, for example, is only as strong as their belief in the allfairy. If they fall out of faith they fall in with nazis. Like the magats did.

[Mister Agenda]

It would be more poisonous if religious people and service people weren't allowed to vote. I wouldn't consider a country that restricted voting on those critera to be a real democracy. It's not much of a democracy if people aren't allowed to vote based on ideology or religion; that is, on who they disagree with.

Yes, I agree with you.

If in fact it's true that "religion is poison to democracy" only and always, or that "religion poisons everything" as a general rule, then the logical conclusion is that religion should be excluded from democracy, and as many other things as possible.

But I think people who type such phrases aren't thinking about the ramifications of what they say. It's really phatic speech -- more like a grunt than a reasoned argument.

I think the issue is more that we should be careful about not letting the will of the people override our Bill of Rights. That's part of the point of having a Bill of Rights. Religous people are perfectly capable of voting within the guidelines of the Constitution but we have periods where a politically significant number of Christians, like today's Dominionists, try to get the government to endorse and support their religious positions. It's their right, but it has to be opposed. Just as if a significant number of voters tried to change our laws to get the government to discourage religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the kicker. They think it's their right to try and get the government to endorse their religious principles. Even people who don't want it to happen sometimes think it's their right..

...but it isn't. You know, Tucker Carlson has some sage comments that seem dead on for this situation with the dominionists.

This moment is too inherently ridiculous to continue, so it won't…the people in charge know this, that’s why they’re hysterical and aggressive, they’re afraid. They’ve given up persuasion, they’re resorting to force. But it won’t work.

[Belacqua]

I think the issue is more that we should be careful about not letting the will of the people override our Bill of Rights.

Oh yeah, the Bill of Rights -- I remember those. I think the Third Amendment is still in force. 

Have you read about the Restrict Act? A nice bit of propaganda. By getting us all scared that the Chinese government has access to our smartphones (a proposition for which there is no evidence) they've introduced a bill that would give the US government unlimited warrantless access to our smartphones. 

This on top of the fact that so-called liberals are leading the charge to have billionaires and the government restrict free speech, indicates to me that religion is not the primary danger.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think the issue is more that we should be careful about not letting the will of the people override our Bill of Rights.

Oh yeah, the Bill of Rights -- I remember those. I think the Third Amendment is still in force. 

Have you read about the Restrict Act? A nice bit of propaganda. By getting us all scared that the Chinese government has access to our smartphones (a proposition for which there is no evidence) they've introduced a bill that would give the US government unlimited warrantless access to our smartphones. 

This on top of the fact that so-called liberals are leading the charge to have billionaires and the government restrict free speech, indicates to me that religion is not the primary danger.

(Bold mine)

I know you won’t see this, but what has quartering soldiers in private homes got to do with this topic?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

You have to remember that he's not entirely clear on what he's saying, and gets his info from the same place the nuts do. The primary danger to us democracy is, at present at least, the magats - who recently tried to coup their way to power and have vowed to try again. As this is Bel we're talking about we were always going to reach this moment in this convo. Where... actshooaaaly, it's the so-called liberals™ and not the religious nuts starting shit.

[Mister Agenda]

I think the issue is more that we should be careful about not letting the will of the people override our Bill of Rights.

Oh yeah, the Bill of Rights -- I remember those. I think the Third Amendment is still in force. 

Have you read about the Restrict Act? A nice bit of propaganda. By getting us all scared that the Chinese government has access to our smartphones (a proposition for which there is no evidence) they've introduced a bill that would give the US government unlimited warrantless access to our smartphones. 

This on top of the fact that so-called liberals are leading the charge to have billionaires and the government restrict free speech, indicates to me that religion is not the primary danger.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not carrying a dead fetus in your uterus right now.

[Anomalocaris]

You have to remember that he's not entirely clear on what he's saying, and gets his info from the same place the nuts do.  The primary danger to us democracy is, at present at least, the magats - who recently tried to coup their way to power and have vowed to try again.  As this is Bel we're talking about we were always going to reach this moment in this convo.  Where... actshooaaaly, it's the so-called liberals™ and not the religious nuts starting shit.

keep in mind bel does not care to really explore the issues with religion.   he makes his commissions, either monetarily or at least morally, glorifying those who act on behalf of religion.     he has no use whatsoever for anything that keeps him from his commission.