Would you rather live under an oppressive religious or securlar government?

[Minimalist]

You're officially an idiot.

Was he not an idiot already?

It was suspected but around here when Shel calls someone an idiot it is like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. From now on it is official.

[HorribleOffensiveScouser91]

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.

---

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think I'd give a shit either way. Whether a government oppresses it's citizens for secular or religious reasons it isn't the reasons -but the oppression- that makes it a hellhole.

[RonaldReagansGhost666]

With secular governments, they have resorted to wiping out whole villages in their nations to achieve the same level of fear and control...

Saddam Huesan resorted to measures such as that and he was Muslim.
As with people such as Stalin, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Il; they had only taken god out of their countries because they wanted to replace him.

[Minimalist]

With secular governments, they have resorted to wiping out whole villages in their nations to achieve the same level of fear and control...

Child's play compared to you fucking jesus freaks.


http://home.olympus.net/~thomson/cathar.html

The Cathar population of France was largely rural and was completely suppressed by the end of the 13th century at the cost of about a million innocent lives.

[Cyberman]

It was suspected but around here when Shel calls someone an idiot it is like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. From now on it is official.

I bet if we ask nicely we could have an official shiny badge made for it.

[Minimalist]

[Cyberman]

That's the idea - a picture of Shell in the middle and I think we'll really have something!

[Brian37]

Other question



Will you support me in building up my Reich?

Only if the oppression is geared towards pale beer.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

With secular governments, they have resorted to wiping out whole villages in their nations to achieve the same level of fear and control...

Saddam Huesan resorted to measures such as that and he was Muslim.
As with people such as Stalin, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Il; they had only taken god out of their countries because they wanted to replace him.

To be fair, SH's government was actually secular, especially in comparison to most other states in the Middle East (he had Coptic Christian cabinet ministers for example).

But the entire thing is irrelevant anyway. A secular government does not mean "oppression" or "murder" in the way Polaris appears to think it does. It's just a methodology for enacting state affairs. Statistically, a secular government is far less likely to result in a horrible totalitarian regime than a non-secular one because at it's root is a basis in fairness and equality (SEE: Westphalian synthesis, 1648).

It is the people who operate within that regime that cause the trouble, and certain governmental philosophies (Dictatorship, Theocracy) are more likely to spawn terrible regimes than others.