If You Ruled Your Own Country, Would You Ban Religion?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think I would ban churches not religion.  People would be free to believe whatever they wanted but no tax-exempt property.  If they want to meet, meet in their homes.
The world would not suffer if there were no churches, synagogues,  mosques or temples.  Keeps down the political ambitions of preachers, too.

This.

[FatAndFaithless]

I know I'm sounding like a broken record here...

Putting churches on the same rules as other tax-exempt organizations OR removing their tax-exempt status if they want their private perks is something I'm okay with.

I just don't see how you can ban churches. A home that is used for congregations is a church. Unless your new hypothetical government is going to write down everything that stipulates a 'church' and then monitor everyone's 'home' so it doesn't cross into the 'church' territory, I don't see how it's possible, let alone effective or ethical.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wait, can I change my answer to Orwellian abomination?  After all, they are now developing the technology so that we can have something even more Orwellian than even George Orwell dreamed of:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mind-reading-technology-speeds-ahead/

Once that is perfected, just think what governments are going to do with it....

A very sharp double-edged sword, there.  It would make it very easy to insert disinformation into the intelligence stream.

---

I know I'm sounding like a broken record here...

Putting churches on the same rules as other tax-exempt organizations OR removing their tax-exempt status if they want their private perks is something I'm okay with.

I just don't see how you can ban churches.  A home that is used for congregations is a church.  Unless your new hypothetical government is going to write down everything that stipulates a 'church' and then monitor everyone's 'home' so it doesn't cross into the 'church' territory, I don't see how it's possible, let alone effective or ethical.

I interpreted "ban churches" as in the Catholic Church or the Lutheran Church, for example -- i.e., as a corporation.

If people want to pitch their money together and build a building and adorn it with crosses that's their business. My hypothetical government wouldn't legally recognize those associations, any more than my government would recognize Thelma Lou's Knitting Society.

I wouldn't ban them, per se, but they would not exist as legal entities.

[Alex K]

I know I'm sounding like a broken record here...

Putting churches on the same rules as other tax-exempt organizations OR removing their tax-exempt status if they want their private perks is something I'm okay with.

I just don't see how you can ban churches.  A home that is used for congregations is a church.  Unless your new hypothetical government is going to write down everything that stipulates a 'church' and then monitor everyone's 'home' so it doesn't cross into the 'church' territory, I don't see how it's possible, let alone effective or ethical.

That's roughly what I had in mind when I stipulated about Orwellian abominations

[Spooky]

Interesting points, I wouldn't technically say I was 50 50, it's just a little deeper than that. I totally agree with the orwellian society comment, I wouldn't want that. A thing that helps stop the madness would be what Pyyrho said, the law trumps all. No special catering to religions, if your religion says you have to kill people, you're religion wouldn't flourish here, SORRY!

My alternative would have been something like saying, "We are a secular country, you have freedom from religion here." I think a lot of people would migrate to that country, but it would be too difficult to keep it religion free. It probably would make it like a country like Sweden though, where secularism would be the majority. You wouldn't feel like you were doing something so wrong all time for not believing in myths.
t way.

Organized religion would be legal.  

Barely.

[KevinM1]

I think Min's idea is simple - no building can be used as a dedicated place of worship. People can still congregate, but it wouldn't be in single use, or religious primary use, tax exempt spaces. Which would be pretty nice, because fuck megachurches.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I wouldn't ban religion - if you do that, it drives them underground and they become more dangerous than ever.

I would also give churches the chance to opt out of paying taxes, according to the following schedule:

*****

Pay 100% of the taxes of other organisations with the same income:  You get to use all public service and utilities, AND you can vote.

Pay 75%:  You can send your kids to tax-funded schools, but you cannot drive on publically-funded roads.

Pay 50%:  The State will no longer educate your kids, you can't drive on our roads, but you still go to hospital and call the cops as needed.

Pay 25%:  You lose education, the roads, medical care, police/fire services, but you can use publically owned water and power services.

Pay Nothing:  No schools, no roads, no medical care, no first responders, no water, no power, no pensions, and no voting.

Step up and help pay for the society in which you live, or go fuck yourself.

*****

Boru

[Alex K]

I think Min's idea is simple - no building can be used as a dedicated place of worship.  People can still congregate, but it wouldn't be in single use, or religious primary use, tax exempt spaces.  Which would be pretty nice, because fuck megachurches.

Apart from the removal of tax privileges, that's not a sensible proposition. In a free democratic state you can't tell people or businesses what to use their property for.

[Whateverist]

Of course not.

[Polaris]

I would allow all religions and all would be able to worship as they see fit (within reason). I would also cut out the extreme interpretations of the Separation of Church and State. If someone wants to pray at school, I say let them. I would also allow places for Moslems to ritually wash themselves for prayer.