A world without monarchies and religion?

[Stronk Serb]

How do you think a world without monarchies and religion would look like?

If it was like that, I think that in this time (just in that parallel world, like the one I described) humanity would be far more advanced, perhaps humanity would unite under a single government. Many major religions forbid any kind of scientific research, and burned people who did research on pyres, branding them 'heretics' and 'children of the devil' and other nonsense like that. Without that, I think we would prosper faster. There would be no inbred landlords for which we did hard work, but got nothing in return or died for in pointless wars.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Banning religion and overthrowing monarchs might solve some issues in today's world, but you gotta admit, there are some things that are even more messed up - things you can't solve.

I have nothing against religion as long as they let other people do their own thing. There's nothing wrong with religious freedom, and everyone should accept that. You can be Wiccan in the US, and you can be Muslim in France. Now it's up to the Muslim countries to accept Christians as equals. And you know, stop stoning them to death.

You can't just ban religion. You need to find a way to get along with people that have a different opinion. Accepting religious freedom is one of the most important steps towards world peace and unity.

As for monarchies...nowadays they're just a farce, it's not like the monarchs have any real power.

[Human]

I have no problem with religion if the government is secular - no special privileges to the religious. I also don't have a problem with monarchies such as in England, we don't really pay much tax to them and they bring in tourism. The queen doesn't do much at all.

[Capto]

I personally don't believe that religion opposes scientific progress. Seeing that I am from a region with very little monarchic history, I don't believe that I am qualified to answer the monarchy related one, though I will be interested in seeing where the conversation and debate will go.

Now it's up to the Muslim countries to accept Christians as equals. And you know, stop stoning them to death.


Now that's rather insulting, not to mention stereotypical. And incorrect.

[Sugaree]

Now that's rather insulting, not to mention stereotypical. And incorrect.

Except it's true. And correct. In Iran, it's illegal to be a Christian because the state religion is Islam. You can be stoned just for following a different God. How is that stereotyping? How is it insulting? It's fucking true.

[Capto]

Except it's true. And correct. In Iran, it's illegal to be a Christian because the state religion is Islam. You can be stoned just for following a different God. How is that stereotyping? How is it insulting? It's fucking true.

Good one. I'm pretty sure it's not illegal in Iran. On what sort of biased and incorrect source did you get that? Wikipedia?

EDIT: And that's all I'll say on the matter.

Why would the state religion dictate the persecution and legality of a religion?

[Walter Powers]

World without monarchs: Good.

Without religion: Bad. Religion is what created the moral framework of our society.

[Stronk Serb]

World without monarchs: Good.

Without religion: Bad. Religion is what created the moral framework of our society.

The religion just imposes it's moral framework on you, saying you will burn in hell if you don't follow the rules. People would realize that murder, theft, rape, and incest for example are bad, while charity, helpfulness, compassion amd kindness are good. We don't need any religion to dictate our laws.

[britishboy]

The religion just imposes it's moral framework on you, saying you will burn in hell if you don't follow the rules. People would realize that murder, theft, rape, and incest for example are bad, while charity, helpfulness, compassion amd kindness are good. We don't need any religion to dictate our laws.

religion dozent dictate our laws.....

[Harry Smith]

religion dozent dictate our laws.....

It really does, in the gay marriage bill we weren't even able to physically dictate to the church, there is actually a law which stops us from introducing laws into religion

[britishboy]

It really does, in the gay marriage bill we weren't even able to physically dictate to the church, there is actually a law which stops us from introducing laws into religion

gay marriage is about to be passed:) and thats different, we can have sex before marrige etc etc however we cant force a jew to eat meat which is good, I know you hate religions but you must respect this

[Harry Smith]

gay marriage is about to be passed:) and thats different, we can have sex before marrige etc etc however we cant force a jew to eat meat which is good, I know you hate religions but you must respect this

That's not different, we have canon law which stops us interfering in religion, they're literally above the law

[britishboy]

That's not different, we have canon law which stops us interfering in religion, they're literally above the law

it is different! were not forced to accept religion, but we can force then either, thats how it should be, why should a Christian give you a gay marriage ceremony when it will upset them? or why should we force a Muslim women to show skin when it will upset her?

[Harry Smith]

it is different! were not forced to accept religion, but we can force then either, thats how it should be, why should a Christian give you a gay marriage ceremony when it will upset them? or why should we force a Muslim women to show skin when it will upset her?

Sure ignore canon law, why do you think everything is so simple as gay marriage= no religious problems

[britishboy]

Sure ignore canon law, why do you think everything is so simple as gay marriage= no religious problems

I dont see your point?

[Harry Smith]

I dont see your point?

Your ignoring the fact that even if Religion is in fact breaking British laws-equal employment act of 1975 they can avoid decisions made by parliament because of something called canon law which gives too much power to religion

[britishboy]

Your ignoring the fact that even if Religion is in fact breaking British laws-equal employment act of 1975 they can avoid decisions made by parliament because of something called canon law which gives too much power to religion

it gives no power to them, only restricts our power to force our beliefs on them

[Harry Smith]

it gives no power to them, only restricts our power to force our beliefs on them

The church have broken the 1975 equal employment law, something which is in fact illegal. They are protected from that which gives them power of being above the law.

[britishboy]

The church have broken the 1975 equal employment law, something which is in fact illegal. They are protected from that which gives them power of being above the law.

I agree with you there then

[teen.jpg]

If they never existed in the first place, I wouldn't have any complaints.

[tovaris]

Such a world would be a lot better, but would stil have some problems to solve; if the only thing done with the curent worod would be the removal of religion and kings.

[Stronk Serb]

Such a world would be a lot better, but would stil have some problems to solve; if the only thing done with the curent worod would be the removal of religion and kings.

Not removal, but non-existence. What would've happened if in our history there were no monarchies or religion?

[tovaris]

Not removal, but non-existence. What would've happened if in our history there were no monarchies or religion?

A much beeter world would that be

[Hyper]

It would look like this:

The first person with the biggest stick and the strongest arms would beat the living shit out of anyone that disagreed with him. Maybe he would become some sort of ruler of a small village maybe a few villages or maybe he would become a ruler of a large collection of land and decide that his rule needs a justification or a title or a way to be passed on or all of the above and thus eventually some guy who had a big enough stick and enough strength to whack others with it (this is just figure of speech in case you're missing the point...) would come to call himself a king an emperor or something else.

As for religion somewhere some guy who wasn't maybe the best at whacking people upside the head with a big stick would come up with a more clever way. He would convince people to follow him.

How would he do that? Does he wake up one day and think that ''I'll make a religion and claim myself as the prophet lulz!'' no probably not. But somewhere along the way someone clever enough or someone insane enough would start spreading his ''message'' because if you think about it why do religions or cults or philosophies spread? Because people need something to try and make sense of things and give daily happenings meaning. Unlike other animals we seem to seek a ''meaning to life'' other than ''survival of the species''.

So sooner or later some kind of religion/philosophy would form it might happen through 1 man during his lifetime. It might happen through generations, centuries even but it would form and that's the end of that story.

[britishboy]

It would look like this:

The first person with the biggest stick and the strongest arms would beat the living shit out of anyone that disagreed with him. Maybe he would become some sort of ruler of a small village maybe a few villages or maybe he would become a ruler of a large collection of land and decide that his rule needs a justification or a title or a way to be passed on or all of the above and thus eventually some guy who had a big enough stick and enough strength to whack others with it (this is just figure of speech in case you're missing the point...) would come to call himself a king an emperor or something else.

As for religion somewhere some guy who wasn't maybe the best at whacking people upside the head with a big stick would come up with a more clever way. He would convince people to follow him.

How would he do that? Does he wake up one day and think that ''I'll make a religion and claim myself as the prophet lulz!'' no probably not. But somewhere along the way someone clever enough or someone insane enough would start spreading his ''message'' because if you think about it why do religions or cults or philosophies spread? Because people need something to try and make sense of things and give daily happenings meaning. Unlike other animals we seem to seek a ''meaning to life'' other than ''survival of the species''.

So sooner or later some kind of religion/philosophy would form it might happen through 1 man during his lifetime. It might happen through generations, centuries even but it would form and that's the end of that story.

that's well good! you should be a writter!:)

[Steveo1000]

World without monarchs: Good.

Without religion: Bad. Religion is what created the moral framework of our society.

Totally agree! What we have left of religion isint much but it holds us together!

[Harry Smith]

Totally agree! What we have left of religion isint much but it holds us together!

How does it hold our soicety together, Religion isn't needed, it's not only based on a guess work and Chinese whispers but it also happily denies millions of people their basic rights

[randomme]

It would certainly be interesting

[Stronk Serb]

It would look like this:

The first person with the biggest stick and the strongest arms would beat the living shit out of anyone that disagreed with him. Maybe he would become some sort of ruler of a small village maybe a few villages or maybe he would become a ruler of a large collection of land and decide that his rule needs a justification or a title or a way to be passed on or all of the above and thus eventually some guy who had a big enough stick and enough strength to whack others with it (this is just figure of speech in case you're missing the point...) would come to call himself a king an emperor or something else.

As for religion somewhere some guy who wasn't maybe the best at whacking people upside the head with a big stick would come up with a more clever way. He would convince people to follow him.

How would he do that? Does he wake up one day and think that ''I'll make a religion and claim myself as the prophet lulz!'' no probably not. But somewhere along the way someone clever enough or someone insane enough would start spreading his ''message'' because if you think about it why do religions or cults or philosophies spread? Because people need something to try and make sense of things and give daily happenings meaning. Unlike other animals we seem to seek a ''meaning to life'' other than ''survival of the species''.

So sooner or later some kind of religion/philosophy would form it might happen through 1 man during his lifetime. It might happen through generations, centuries even but it would form and that's the end of that story.

Yes, a world without monarchies or religion is impossible. But my question is, what if there were no religion/monarchies during our development. What would our world look like?

[Yolo98]

Im from the UK and we love our monarchy...it displays a strong family unit to which we can look up to and makes us millions of £££££

[britishboy]

Im from the UK and we love our monarchy...it displays a strong family unit to which we can look up to and makes us millions of £££££

long live the queen! I think this thread is more aimed at the kim jong um monarchy:P

Yes, a world without monarchies or religion is impossible. But my question is, what if there were no religion/monarchies during our development. What would our world look like?

there would still be devisions, probably more because everyone used to follow their monarch, without this it would have been crazy!

[Hyper]

Yes, a world without monarchies or religion is impossible. But my question is, what if there were no religion/monarchies during our development. What would our world look like?

If you are admitting that as an impossibility why ask the question?

If I was to nitpick. There would still be a system of rule there would still be some sort of guiding philosophy.

[Stronk Serb]

long live the queen! I think this thread is more aimed at the kim jong um monarchy:P



there would still be devisions, probably more because everyone used to follow their monarch, without this it would have been crazy!

What I mean is, 250,000 years ago up until now, we haven't had any monarchies or religion. What kind of world would that be? A world where the word "monarchy" or "religion" had no meaning?

[britishboy]

What I mean is, 250,000 years ago up until now, we haven't had any monarchies or religion. What kind of world would that be? A world where the word "monarchy" or "religion" had no meaning?


alot worse, yes certain battles wouldn't have happened but everyday life would have been alot worse as religion controled people and people obeyed the law because they didn't want to sin, with it so hard to enforce the law if religion wasn't there it would have been so violent, especially with all the poverty

[Stronk Serb]

alot worse, yes certain battles wouldn't have happened but everyday life would have been alot worse as religion controled people and people obeyed the law because they didn't want to sin, with it so hard to enforce the law if religion wasn't there it would have been so violent, especially with all the poverty

We don't need religion to tell right from wrong.

[britishboy]

We don't need religion to tell right from wrong.

not today, but 500 years ago, little other would have make someone poor good

[Stronk Serb]

not today, but 500 years ago, little other would have make someone poor good


Not even then. Religion was made by the people for attention. They gathered followers by saying you will burn if you don't believe. Religion was also appealing by saying you will go to heaven. Christians didn't say you will go to heaven even if you are the worst scum. Amd remember the Crusades? Christians raped women and children, tortured people, murdered the elderly. Evrn during the Stone Age when the religion didn't have a morality compass, murderers and rapists were banished from the tribe.

[britishboy]

Not even then. Religion was made by the people for attention. They gathered followers by saying you will burn if you don't believe. Religion was also appealing by saying you will go to heaven. Christians didn't say you will go to heaven even if you are the worst scum. Amd remember the Crusades? Christians raped women and children, tortured people, murdered the elderly. Evrn during the Stone Age when the religion didn't have a morality compass, murderers and rapists were banished from the tribe.

I never said it was good but it controlled people which was good

[Stronk Serb]

I never said it was good but it controlled people which was good

It wasn't. The Bogomilists were branded as heretics and prosecuted, just because they interpreted the Bible in a different more humble and peaceful way. Infidels were killed for no reason. Gay people were hanged and burned. It had no control which was obvious when even it's heads were immoral, talking about Christianity. In the Middle Ages up until now, a large percent cares about money.

[britishboy]

It wasn't. The Bogomilists were branded as heretics and prosecuted, just because they interpreted the Bible in a different more humble and peaceful way. Infidels were killed for no reason. Gay people were hanged and burned. It had no control which was obvious when even it's heads were immoral, talking about Christianity. In the Middle Ages up until now, a large percent cares about money.

ok how do you control a nation when your police force is a few men on horses? there would be no control, religion stabilized everything and you sound dangerously close to being racist

[Bobbybobby99]

It wasn't. The Bogomilists were branded as heretics and prosecuted, just because they interpreted the Bible in a different more humble and peaceful way. Infidels were killed for no reason. Gay people were hanged and burned. It had no control which was obvious when even it's heads were immoral, talking about Christianity. In the Middle Ages up until now, a large percent cares about money.

This sounds about as racist as a bologna sandwhich. First of all, why is everyone only talking about the Abrahamic religions? Paganism never caused wars, and I think a world without religion would be a rather boring one. There is nothing wrong with a monarchy, in addition. It's a perfectly acceptable form of government.

[Sir Suomi]

Without Monarchies, we may have never have gotten out of the Dark Ages. The Feudal system, which is the best example of a Monarchy, helped bring order to the barbaric orders that existed beforehand. Although it wasn't the most democratic style of life, it brought stability to a unstable region. Also, without Monarchies, our(American) Constitution may have been extremely different, due to the fact that the Magna Carta would not have been introduced. Basically, although they were not the most ideal solution, Monarchies were a positive thing.

The same goes with Religion. Although I do agree with Harry, how Religion should not have a direct time with governing a nation, it still does good. Religion provides a sense of peace for most, I mean, I'm guessing that the majority of you have heard/seen of situations where individuals lives have changed in a positive way, due to Religion's influence. Also, a lot of fascinating artwork, songs, books, have been inspired by religions. That said, Religion also has it's dark sides, which is a sad fact. But this is due more to man's corrupt nature, twisting the words of religions to suit their own needs, rather than the actual meanings and purposes of Religions. Basically, Religions have helped humankind advance, yet at the same time has been a burden.

[Jean Poutine]

Man, that'd be my dream world.

Free of the useless geriatric bitch on the Commonwealth throne AND free of perhaps mankind's biggest error.

I love you so much.

We would have probably gone the same road without monarchies. Dictatorships are common when a lack of stability is evident, as was said up there. It takes an educated population and geo-national stability for a democracy to work, both which were absent in the Middle Ages.

A world without religion? Sure. I can see people turning to philosophy instead. Why not?

[Stronk Serb]

ok how do you control a nation when your police force is a few men on horses? there would be no control, religion stabilized everything and you sound dangerously close to being racist

Few men on horses? Are you kidding me? During the 11th century, even the least developed baronies (cities, castles with towns) had a garrison of 500 men at least, which varied depending how much the landlord invested into his holding. Some baronies had 1000-2000 men as a garrison. Cities had a population of 1000-5000 depending on the level of development which usually went with the size of the garrison.

[Jean Poutine]

Also, the moral precepts religion gave us are almost the same as the natural, cultural precepts that guide us.

Don't lie, cheat, steal, kill, fuck the neighbor's wife? No shit. No need for religion to tell me that. I don't think morals would be significantly impaired.

[Harry Smith]

ok how do you control a nation when your police force is a few men on horses? there would be no control, religion stabilized everything and you sound dangerously close to being racist

They didn't use religion to control people, their was still high crime rates back then-people were happy to murder, pillage, rape and loot in the name of God

[Stronk Serb]

Without Monarchies, we may have never have gotten out of the Dark Ages. The Feudal system, which is the best example of a Monarchy, helped bring order to the barbaric orders that existed beforehand. Although it wasn't the most democratic style of life, it brought stability to a unstable region. Also, without Monarchies, our(American) Constitution may have been extremely different, due to the fact that the Magna Carta would not have been introduced. Basically, although they were not the most ideal solution, Monarchies were a positive thing.

The same goes with Religion. Although I do agree with Harry, how Religion should not have a direct time with governing a nation, it still does good. Religion provides a sense of peace for most, I mean, I'm guessing that the majority of you have heard/seen of situations where individuals lives have changed in a positive way, due to Religion's influence. Also, a lot of fascinating artwork, songs, books, have been inspired by religions. That said, Religion also has it's dark sides, which is a sad fact. But this is due more to man's corrupt nature, twisting the words of religions to suit their own needs, rather than the actual meanings and purposes of Religions. Basically, Religions have helped humankind advance, yet at the same time has been a burden.


About the monarchies, barbarian chieftains were monarchs. This means a completely different set of events since the dawn of man. Monarchies helped stabilise Europe from weaker and more unstable monarchies. About religion, those are unconfirmed texts probably written by men who seeked attention, talking about the Abrahamic religions and Hinduism. While we were in a tribal stage, religion did not have a moral compass, and even then people were expelled or killed for serious things like murder. We don't need religion.