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

[Jericho]

I suppose that does make some sense C172. Unfortunately, we do live in a world where people get their only sense of right and wrong from a book. What's worse is that they think that is okay.

That is why most of us agree that religion can exist, but with many differences than it is currently.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

I kudosed this post because it's right and, well, Boru, but I would not want to pull public education off the table for these goombahs. We might not be able to save them from their own sky-high horseshit, but we should not deny those children the opportunity to get a glimpse outside the world they've been shown so far.

[KevinM1]

Teachers don't represent the government.

Let's examine that a moment shall we?  Public schools are paid for and run by the government.  Teachers are paid by the government to run that government controlled institution.  Curriculum is controlled by the government and taught by teachers.  Teachers ability to discipline students is enforced by the government.  Students are required by the government to attend public schools if they can't find an alternate government approved education.

So how are they not representing the government in the classroom?

Exactly.  When public school teachers are on the clock, they're an extension of the government.  That's why private schools have no such restrictions.

Regarding the military, they don't receive religious services during their duty shifts, correct?  And the military hires more than one flavor of religious service personnel, so as to serve all (or as many can be, logistically) faiths in its branches, correct?  Completely different scenario.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

This is done all the time, by way of zoning permits.

[Jericho]

Regarding the military, they don't receive religious services during their duty shifts, correct?  And the military hires more than one flavor of religious service personnel, so as to serve all (or as many can be, logistically) faiths in its branches, correct?  Completely different scenario.

You are correct Kevin. We have Chaplains that are meant to assist service members in any way that they can. They each have their own religion, but are expected to help everyone regardless of their beliefs.

[Nope]

I would not prohibit religion.  However, I would tax them the same as any other organization, and not allow them any special privileges or exemptions from following the law.  I would also require that everyone attend public schools, in which science, logic, and philosophy, among other things, would be taught from an early age.

I would go one step further and make it a rule that a person can not become a teacher if they don't accept evolution as a fact. 

Parents couldn't  refuse their children medical care based only on their religion.

No parent would be able to opt their child out of sex education. Because it is more expensive for the country to care for unexpected pregnancies, birth control would be free and available to anyone who wants it.

[Pyrrho]

I would not prohibit religion.  However, I would tax them the same as any other organization, and not allow them any special privileges or exemptions from following the law.  I would also require that everyone attend public schools, in which science, logic, and philosophy, among other things, would be taught from an early age.

I would go one step further and make it a rule that a person can not become a teacher if they don't accept evolution as a fact. 

Parents couldn't  refuse their children medical care based only on their religion.

No parent would be able to opt their child out of sex education. Because it is more expensive for the country to care for unexpected pregnancies, birth control would be free and available to anyone who wants it.

I did not specify the teaching requirements, which would be extensive and more trouble to actually put in a post here than is worth doing, since I do not have the power to enact my ideas.  As for the rest, my statement that I would not allow religious people any special privileges or exemptions from following the law, along with the requirement that every child attend public school, covers all of that.


One of the works of philosophy that would be required reading at an early age would be William Kingdon Clifford's essay "The Ethics of Belief," in which he argues that it is immoral to believe things without sufficient evidence.  You can find the essay at:

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm

When a little older, I would have them read both William James' response and A.J. Burger's response to James, both of which are at the above link.

[Minimalist]

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.

If you remove the tax privilege it will collapse on its own.  We are subsidizing these ignorant motherfuckers.

[Polaris]

Let's examine that a moment shall we?  Public schools are paid for and run by the government.  Teachers are paid by the government to run that government controlled institution.  Curriculum is controlled by the government and taught by teachers.  Teachers ability to discipline students is enforced by the government.  Students are required by the government to attend public schools if they can't find an alternate government approved education.

So how are they not representing the government in the classroom?

Exactly.  When public school teachers are on the clock, they're an extension of the government.  That's why private schools have no such restrictions.

Regarding the military, they don't receive religious services during their duty shifts, correct?  And the military hires more than one flavor of religious service personnel, so as to serve all (or as many can be, logistically) faiths in its branches, correct?  Completely different scenario.

I view that as a very extreme and erroneous view of the 1st Amendment and it violates the 1st Amendment.

[The Valkyrie]

Nope.

Religion wouldn't be banned in Beccovia.

It would be expected to stay in its places of worship and keep itself out of education and politics, though.