Are you for or against the separation of church and state?

[Shell B]

Today I learned that there are actually people who are not for the separation of church and state.

[Esquilax]

Esquilax, as much as I may hate living in a society where religion would rule, for example, Islam or Christianity, I don't think the minority has the right to force people to be hypocritical and dishonest with their beliefs. I think Muslims should implement Shariah law for example. This is because they are told they are infact unjust if they don't. This is because they are told explicitly to do it. To say they believe in Islam and ignore what revelation teaches, is teaching them to be dishonest and hypocrites. I rather tackle the root of the evil, then cover it up, with a dress. That's just me.

I'd agree with you up to a point. The problem I have is that you're drawing a fairly arbitrary line, and in doing so perpetrating the great illogical act that so many in society do, of giving religion a free pass. Lots of people have beliefs that they consider to be just and, in fact, righteous, but we as a society put the hammer down on those because they're dangerous; why are you putting religion into this separate classification?

I'm not going to Godwin here, but there are plenty of examples of this: if I have a belief that it's in my best interests to force my family to drink acid, you'd want the law to put a stop to that, no? I'd hope you would, because that's crazy. But it's still a belief, and one that, no matter how diseased, is still one that my hypothetical self holds as moral.

Religious beliefs are simply larger scale versions of that: what if one of the violent sects of any religion got into power? Would their pogroms be justified because they believe it to be right?

The fact is, society restricts beliefs all the time, that's the basis of the justice system; you might believe it's okay to murder someone, but you'd be wrong. Religions need to be held to a higher standard even than that, because they're the organizations that recruit large swathes of the population into believing the same unjustifiable things. This or that magic book cannot be the reasoning behind legislating away people's rights; the law must be based on what's physically demonstrable.

Your right to your beliefs ends at precisely the point that they infringe upon mine. That's an equal society.

[Angrboda]

I would argue that any society has the right as a society to choose how to govern itself, whether this be a theocracy, a monarchy, a communist state or a democracy.


But on the separation of church and state, I think there are definite problems of ethical consistency in people in the U.S. wanting to mix religion and politics, and there may be good reason to believe that it is actually in their best interest not to do so. I haven't double-checked the numbers, but in a table I read in a book last year, it indicated that church membership in the U.S. had risen from 15-20% at the time of its founding to the high numbers of religious Americans today. Some argue that freedom of religion is actually the cause of the high degree of religion in America. And I think a decent argument can be made as to why this is the case. In any society in which a specific opinion is enshrined as law, whether it be a religious opinion, or a philosophical opinion, or a political opinion, the result is that dissenting or differing opinions are suppressed and suffer. While this may increase the effective power of those who subscribe to the official opinion, it has the overall effect of reducing diversity in the community. As with free speech, when opinions are arbitrarily suppressed, the quality of dialogue and debate in the community suffers; and that diversity is likely any community's greatest strength. In biological evolution, a reduction in diversity reduces the species' chance of survival. In reducing diversity in a society, you reduce its strength because those who would participate in the dialogue in a different voice, will choose not to participate, and those other voices will not thrive, and many will simply die out. So I think it's very likely that when you reduce religious choice to one official religion, all religion suffers. Oddly enough, a strong and well enforced separation of church and state may be religion's best friend, rather than the enemy that religious people often think of it as.

(I know that as a Taoist and Hindu, if a Christian theocracy obtained in the U.S., my ability to openly practice as a Hindu would be suppressed, and bonding and supporting fellow Hindus in community would be difficult if not impossible. Christianity might be strengthened, but the Hindu elements of our society would be greatly weakened and crippled. I suppose in terms of a metaphor, it is substituting the great strength of the fasces for the inferior strength of a single, thick branch.)

[Mystic]

I'm not saying the laws they implement is right. I'm also not saying they are justified in believing in their religion. But it's a whole different thing to try to enforce the majority not to be able to implement their religion.

Judaism if true, started with political leadership and religious leadership combined (Moses).

I rather tackle the root of the issue (religion) then try to suppress religion out of politics.

I say this while I know Islamic theocracy would kill me for my apostasy (since they tend to ignore Quran when authentic hadith teach something else).

I say this while I know religious laws often go against human rights. I rather tackle the root of the issue (religion), then try to force the majority to be dishonest with their beliefs.

[downbeatplumb]

I would love to live in a country where there was separation of church and state. Unfortunately the church is deeply intrenched in the state, I live in the UK.

[Ryantology]

I say this while I know religious laws often go against human rights. I rather tackle the root of the issue (religion), then try to force the majority to be dishonest with their beliefs.

That's nice in theory, but I'm willing to put off going after the root long enough to stop the branches from persecuting or discriminating against the, uh, flying Harry Potter car which is, ironically, the only workable metaphor for atheists I can think of which fits with the angry, violent and mindless tree image of religion you evoked.

[justin]

http://youtu.be/y364C42sg0Y

Example 1.
I`m "aganit" being posioned by religion.

Wow! And this man is a leader!

I gotta go throw up....

i grew hearing crazier shit than this. Baptist are fake as hell.

[thesummerqueen]

i grew hearing crazier shit than this. Baptist are fake as hell.

hahahahaha

You comin' out tonight?

[Anomalocaris]

I would love to live in a country where there was separation of church and state. Unfortunately the church is deeply intrenched in the state, I live in the UK.

Replace "church" with "religiosity", and you see the UK, such as it is, still contrives, somehow, to be infinitely more respectable than the land of the freely wishing to oppress others, and home of bravery contingent upon outgunning everyone else 100 to 1.

[smax]

I'm not saying the laws they implement is right. I'm also not saying they are justified in believing in their religion. But it's a whole different thing to try to enforce the majority not to be able to implement their religion.

Judaism if true, started with political leadership and religious leadership combined (Moses).

I rather tackle the root of the issue (religion) then try to suppress religion out of politics.

I say this while I know Islamic theocracy would kill me for my apostasy (since they tend to ignore Quran when authentic hadith teach something else).

I say this while I know religious laws often go against human rights. I rather tackle the root of the issue (religion), then try to force the majority to be dishonest with their beliefs.

If we live in a Theocracy, how then will you openly oppose the prevailing religion?

How will you convince people that they are in error for their beliefs when you are not allowed to speak against those beliefs?

I think you have the steps in the process in the wrong order.