RE: Would you rather live under an oppressive religious or securlar government?
January 18, 2013 at 3:59 pm
(This post was last modified: January 18, 2013 at 4:06 pm by HorribleOffensiveScouser91.)
(January 17, 2013 at 11:33 pm)Polaris Wrote: I have two different answers depending on if I were Christian or not.
As a Christian, I would go with the secular government because I would not want to be forced to follow any belief patterns that would be in conflict with my own.
Now if I were atheist, I would probably go with the religious government on the basis I would probably live much longer under such a system. Religion has always been a great tool to create stability with less bloodshed than under similarly oppressive secular governments. Sure, I probably had to follow their rules and worship, but what meaning would worshiping really have?
Only 16 or so people were killed in the Salem Witch Trials, but the fear created by it made it seem so much worse...religion can kill a few dozen and their deaths become great motivators for the people to get back in line. Kill one person, scare a thousand into submission...probably because the fear it also meant damnation as well.
With secular governments, they have resorted to wiping out whole villages in their nations to achieve the same level of fear and control...this is probably because those who rule with religion already have a sense of legitimacy that others must prove through force to similarly maintain.
You've used this as a way to argue that religion is good. However, when your only way of making religion look good is comparing it to a secular government it really shows even you see it's corruption. Furthermore, by making this argument you are basically saying 'religion is repressive, but at least it gives you the freedom to think what you like' which really baffles me.
(January 18, 2013 at 3:59 pm)HorribleOffensiveScouser91 Wrote:(January 17, 2013 at 11:33 pm)Polaris Wrote: I have two different answers depending on if I were Christian or not.
As a Christian, I would go with the secular government because I would not want to be forced to follow any belief patterns that would be in conflict with my own.
Now if I were atheist, I would probably go with the religious government on the basis I would probably live much longer under such a system. Religion has always been a great tool to create stability with less bloodshed than under similarly oppressive secular governments. Sure, I probably had to follow their rules and worship, but what meaning would worshiping really have?
Only 16 or so people were killed in the Salem Witch Trials, but the fear created by it made it seem so much worse...religion can kill a few dozen and their deaths become great motivators for the people to get back in line. Kill one person, scare a thousand into submission...probably because the fear it also meant damnation as well.
With secular governments, they have resorted to wiping out whole villages in their nations to achieve the same level of fear and control...this is probably because those who rule with religion already have a sense of legitimacy that others must prove through force to similarly maintain.
You've used this as a way to argue that religion is good. However, when your only way of making religion look good is comparing it to a secular government it really shows even you see it's corruption. Furthermore, by making this argument you are basically saying 'religion is repressive, but at least it gives you the freedom to think what you like' which really baffles me.
Also, you've stated in your argument that religion has caused the deaths of a few but that secular government causes so much more death. That is no way to justify it, it doesn't matter the amount of deaths that have occured, one death caused is equally as bad.
It's like me saying Hitler was good because Stalin killed millions more, well, both were still awful.
