religion and the state

[phuckphace]

most debates on this subject are always framed as a question of religion vs. secularism, but I'm going to do it a bit differently here and ask, "Why not both?" as most of you are aware, I'm an atheist. I believe the Universe came into existence about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang, and that all life ultimately evolved from a nondescript monocellular organism that existed around 3.7 billion years ago. tl;dr Darwin was right, you guys know the drill.

what I don't get, however, is the urgency with which most secularists are eager to discard religion as an artifact left behind from our cave-dwelling pre-Enlightenment days. it seems to me that the ideal course of action would be to not only allow but encourage the continued practice of religion, since religion is a very efficient enforcer of social control. anarchists erroneously view social control as inherently bad (the word "tyranny" is often used) without accounting for the fact that, if a large number of people in your society practice self-restraint and maintain good behavior as a result of their religion, then civil government doesn't have to hire as many cops or feed as many prisoners. the alternative, if people don't behave, is a nanny state that that must function as a strict parent to millions of adult children, like the one we're living in now. nanny states are of course horribly inefficient and simply can't enforce stability in the same way that shared faith does.

I think the objective practicalities of religion need to be examined more, instead of just saying "Welp the Bible is made up, let's throw it out." of course the Bible is made up, but that's missing the point. it might be fictional but the fact remains that a large number of people believe it, and choose to order their very real lives around it. civil law is only effective to a certain degree, beyond which people will start gaming the rules they know they can break, but religious laws are held in earnest. I'm inclined to agree with Napoleon - I might not practice a religion myself but I can admire the earnest devotion it is given, a level of devotion that is the envy of all civil governments ever.

abridged version: a secular government that enforces religiously-derived morality is the way to go.

[Stronk Serb]

I can see where you're coming from. That thing was around since the Middle Ages (except secularism). Use the faith to control them.

[Kahn]

With this idea comes the age old issue of the State endorsing a specific religion or religions while actively suppressing those religions the current ruling body doesn't condone.

Jefferson understood this better than anyone. The quote below is in regards to legislation he helped pass in Virginia separating the Church from the State.

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. ... Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws."

[kartik]

Secularism means no religion

[phuckphace]

I can see where you're coming from. That thing was around since the Middle Ages (except secularism). Use the faith to control them.

I should have stressed more that what I am calling for is a secular government that piggybacks on religion out of pure convenience, not a theocracy. Hubris mentioned the internal sectarian violence that sometimes arose in theocracies; this is a legitimate concern but is also easily avoided by keeping the state itself secular and intolerant of any disorder. the secular pro-religion state I am envisioning for the US would promote generic Christianity (i.e. make no distinction between its numerous sects) since Christianity is our historic de facto national religion and almost all religious Americans belong to one of its branches. the state would have no role in running any church or proselytizing, but function more as a hedge against cynical secularists who place entirely too much confidence in mankind. since religion compels people to control themselves, it saves the state from having to expend more resources to clean up the consequences of bad behavior, and that efficiency is what I'm after.

this whole thing seems like a huge mess but it's really the best we've got to work with. if only humans were as logical and rational as lolbertarians believe, we wouldn't need religion or a state then. problem is, we're really just glorified bipedal chimps with more biases and delusions than you can shake a stick at. just because we managed to figure out how we came into existence doesn't mean we have all the answers.

[Vlerchan]

I personally think I'd rather pay slightly higher taxes and not oppress homosexuals than otherwise.

But perhaps I'm underestimating the scope of this. What moral values are you considering exactly?

[phuckphace]

I personally think I'd rather pay slightly higher taxes and not oppress homosexuals than otherwise.

I consider oppression to mean something like "physical abuse and/or forced labor and/or murder." so with that in mind, I don't plan on "oppressing" homosexuals as a group. I do however plan on stigmatizing sexual deviancy and cracking down on it as it occurs, and if the homosexual population is thinned out as a result, so be it.

it's really hard to sell me on "no gay marriage = oppression" since I'm a gay guy who can't get married and yet oddly enough I'm still breathing and manage to live an otherwise normal life. "oppression" is one of those hackneyed terms that lost its meaning after people started using it in place of "minor legal annoyances."

But perhaps I'm underestimating the scope of this. What moral values are you considering exactly?

I'll come back later with a list.

[Vlerchan]

I consider oppression to mean something like "physical abuse and/or forced labor and/or murder."
I consider oppression to mean "unjust treatment" and I consider creating a situation where people are treated unequally under the law "unjust".

I also wasn't talking about (de)legalising same-sex marriage in particular because I'm sure a return to those good Christian morals would entail more.

[phuckphace]

I consider oppression to mean "unjust treatment" and I consider creating a situation where people are treated unequally under the law "unjust".

but we're not equal, so why pretend? it's not going to make our differences go away.

I also wasn't talking about (de)legalising same-sex marriage in particular because I'm sure a return to those good Christian morals would entail more.

if I were a true believer Christian, perhaps. I'm just a dude who would prefer not to share his society with sex-obsessed deviants who place their sex lives at the forefront of their existence. you recall our dearly departed friend SpasticNoodle who was prone to banging out 950-word blogposts against anyone and anything that stood in the way of him getting off? it's that kind of hedonistic misery that is kept in check by religion, and the hope it brings would fill that void.

for all the flaws of the Church, I can't say that depressive and sterile secularism has been any kinder to us, and in a lot of ways it's worse. I believe that people are at their best when they have: a) shared faith b) shared morals c) and shared roots. just about the only thing we share now is mutual fear and loathing of one another.

[Vlerchan]

but we're not equal, so why pretend?
I value a level playing field because it gives scope to people to channel their unequalness in the best possible manner. It is foundational to an efficient meritocracy.

I also hold that the courts should be an impartial arbitrator. People's personal characteristics should not enter into legal disputes.

I'm just a dude who would prefer not to share his society with sex-obsessed deviants who place their sex lives at the forefront of their existence.
I just don't associate with them.

I think it's more moral because it involves not meddling in their lives because I think I know better.

for all the flaws of the Church, I can't say that depressive and sterile secularism has been any kinder to us, and in a lot of ways it's worse.
I think an environment where people have to logically justify why Y is bad as opposed to just appeal to some books of dubiously-claimed god-inspired writings is inherently better.

In terms of outcomes if something that the Church says is bad is actually bad then it should be possible to justify that with logic.

I believe that people are at their best when they have: a) shared faith b) shared morals c) and shared roots. just about the only thing we share now is mutual fear and loathing of one another.
I think a shared set of foundational morals is important. That is saying our morals are based on the same assumptions but not necessarily the same.

I don't think shared roots or faith is.

[Danny_boi 16]

As I see it. The way it is in the United States is how government and religion should coexist. The state has no right to endorse any particular religion. And religions has no right to endorse a particular state. If we exclude the Vatican, all else is constant. However in the United States people assume that it is a Christian nation or judeo-christian nation for that matter. That's just because the majority of people in this country belong to that particular sect of religious ideology; therefore, the people elect individuals into office with that ideology. people are free to express their religious views or lack thereof in any way they want. Unless it causes psychological and physical damage to another individual or influences national policy in a major way (ie a state religion).

[Arkansasguy]

most debates on this subject are always framed as a question of religion vs. secularism, but I'm going to do it a bit differently here and ask, "Why not both?" as most of you are aware, I'm an atheist. I believe the Universe came into existence about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang, and that all life ultimately evolved from a nondescript monocellular organism that existed around 3.7 billion years ago. tl;dr Darwin was right, you guys know the drill.

what I don't get, however, is the urgency with which most secularists are eager to discard religion as an artifact left behind from our cave-dwelling pre-Enlightenment days. it seems to me that the ideal course of action would be to not only allow but encourage the continued practice of religion, since religion is a very efficient enforcer of social control. anarchists erroneously view social control as inherently bad (the word "tyranny" is often used) without accounting for the fact that, if a large number of people in your society practice self-restraint and maintain good behavior as a result of their religion, then civil government doesn't have to hire as many cops or feed as many prisoners. the alternative, if people don't behave, is a nanny state that that must function as a strict parent to millions of adult children, like the one we're living in now. nanny states are of course horribly inefficient and simply can't enforce stability in the same way that shared faith does.

I think the objective practicalities of religion need to be examined more, instead of just saying "Welp the Bible is made up, let's throw it out." of course the Bible is made up, but that's missing the point. it might be fictional but the fact remains that a large number of people believe it, and choose to order their very real lives around it. civil law is only effective to a certain degree, beyond which people will start gaming the rules they know they can break, but religious laws are held in earnest. I'm inclined to agree with Napoleon - I might not practice a religion myself but I can admire the earnest devotion it is given, a level of devotion that is the envy of all civil governments ever.

abridged version: a secular government that enforces religiously-derived morality is the way to go.

The state should support that which is true. That is why it should support Christianity, not because of the social benefits (although those also will result).

[phuckphace]

The state should support that which is true. That is why it should support Christianity, not because of the social benefits (although those also will result).

well unfortunately I don't know if Christianity is true because that would require me to know all there is to know. but what I do know is that religion is reassuring and beneficial to mankind, which is good enough for me.

religion is the opiate of the masses. opiates soothe and bring comfort to those in physical pain, so that they suffer less, just like religion soothes spiritual pain.

[Arkansasguy]

well unfortunately I don't know if Christianity is true because that would require me to know all there is to know. but what I do know is that religion is reassuring and beneficial to mankind, which is good enough for me.

religion is the opiate of the masses. opiates soothe and bring comfort to those in physical pain, so that they suffer less, just like religion soothes spiritual pain.

But why, in your opinion, would it be good for the state to support religion practically, why would it not be good to do so officially?

[Living For Love]

You seem to be treating Christians as if we were forced to believe in what we believe. We didn't wake up one morning and though: "Yeah, I wanna be a Christian." Faith is not something you (or a state/government/organisation) can force in people. We believe in it because we heard about what Christianity comprises, we feel its effects on our lives, and because it makes sense to us, just like it makes sense to you to believe in Darwin's theories. And, honestly, you don't have to be a Christian to be a good citizen. All the commandments God gave to humanity (don't murder, don't rape, don't steal, don't cheat, etc...) should be followed by the common citizen, not because it's a divine commandment (considering atheists) but because it's not acceptable someone living in the 21st century in a modern nation not following those principles.

[phuckphace]

But why, in your opinion, would it be good for the state to support religion practically, why would it not be good to do so officially?

there needs to be a neutral party without bias toward this sect or that one. theocracies tend to get bogged down in petty interpretational squabbles which in turn carry the risk of sectarian violence. in past times you had Catholics and Protestants slicing each other to bits over minor disagreements in their (identical) Scripture. this is avoided if the state itself is irreligious and not obligated to declare for one or the other.

You seem to be treating Christians as if we were forced to believe in what we believe. We didn't wake up one morning and though: "Yeah, I wanna be a Christian." Faith is not something you (or a state/government/organisation) can force in people.

I'm well aware of that, my friend. I used to be a Christian myself so I understand how this works. as I said, the government itself wouldn't be a theocracy and it wouldn't force Christianity on anyone (freedom of worship, etc.) my goal is to protect our country's traditions from modernists, and one of our biggest traditions is Christianity. right now, Christianity is constantly being attacked and neutered from several directions, and I intend to suppress these modernist attacks so that Christianity doesn't die out. and if the modernists have their way, it will.

[Arkansasguy]

there needs to be a neutral party without bias toward this sect or that one. theocracies tend to get bogged down in petty interpretational squabbles which in turn carry the risk of sectarian violence. in past times you had Catholics and Protestants slicing each other to bits over minor disagreements in their (identical) Scripture. this is avoided if the state itself is irreligious and not obligated to declare for one or the other.



I'm well aware of that, my friend. I used to be a Christian myself so I understand how this works. as I said, the government itself wouldn't be a theocracy and it wouldn't force Christianity on anyone (freedom of worship, etc.) my goal is to protect our country's traditions from modernists, and one of our biggest traditions is Christianity. right now, Christianity is constantly being attacked and neutered from several directions, and I intend to suppress these modernist attacks so that Christianity doesn't die out. and if the modernists have their way, it will.

The problem is that societies in which contradiction is enshrined in law have a way of working it out one way or another. America was founded to be a country with a religious society and a secular government. The secularization of the society followed inevitably from this. The only way for a society to remain religious long term is for the state to act on the premise that the religion is true. The Catholic-Protestant conflicts arose do to the arising of the idea that people can interpret religious texts however they want and it be true, surely you can see how this sort of thinking led to the rise of liberalism?

P.S. I don't think you want to get into an argument about death tolls, given your own ideology's history.

[phuckphace]

The problem is that societies in which contradiction is enshrined in law have a way of working it out one way or another. America was founded to be a country with a religious society and a secular government. The secularization of the society followed inevitably from this.

I'm inclined to pin most of the blame on World Wars I and II. these two conflicts (the largest in human history) together occurred in the span of less than 50 years. combined, the two wars cost over half a million American lives alone, most of them young men. in the aftermath of so much death and suffering, combined with the technological advances that the war effort brought, social upheaval and chaos was a given and it was that upheaval that allowed social liberalism to gain a foothold.

had the great wars never happened, I think our society would still more closely resemble the one we had at the turn of the century and previous.

The only way for a society to remain religious long term is for the state to act on the premise that the religion is true.

in a roundabout way, that's what I'd be doing. my premise is that social liberalism is harmful and religion is desirable, de facto it would be the same as if it were you in charge saying the same thing. see what I mean?

The Catholic-Protestant conflicts arose do to the arising of the idea that people can interpret religious texts however they want and it be true, surely you can see how this sort of thinking led to the rise of liberalism?

again, I believe that the rise of liberalism was opportunistic. healthy and stable societies are inherently conservative and naturally resistant to liberalism, which has only ever enjoyed popularity in societies that are in decline. for example, the 19th century intellectual John Stuart Mill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill)'s writings closely resemble those of many contemporary liberals, but unlike the latter, he wasn't taken very seriously in his own time.

that's one of the biggest reasons I hold stability and order so highly: maintaining tradition is impossible without order.

P.S. I don't think you want to get into an argument about death tolls, given your own ideology's history.

I'm used to it, actually. thankfully genocide isn't my style.

[Vlerchan]

I'll come back later with a list.
Just because I'm all to eager to demean your thread with my unashamed homosexualism doesn't mean I'm still not interested in this.

---

opiates soothe and bring comfort to those in physical pain, so that they suffer less, just like religion soothes spiritual pain.
I personally prefer striving to just create a better standard of living for working-class people.

healthy and stable societies are inherently conservative and naturally resistant to liberalism, which has only ever enjoyed popularity in societies that are in decline.
What's your diagnosis of reactionary-ism? which is just inverted-liberalism and not conservatism.

[Arkansasguy]

I'm inclined to pin most of the blame on World Wars I and II. these two conflicts (the largest in human history) together occurred in the span of less than 50 years. combined, the two wars cost over half a million American lives alone, most of them young men. in the aftermath of so much death and suffering, combined with the technological advances that the war effort brought, social upheaval and chaos was a given and it was that upheaval that allowed social liberalism to gain a foothold.

had the great wars never happened, I think our society would still more closely resemble the one we had at the turn of the century and previous.

The problem here is that you're assuming that social liberalism is completely unlike religious and economic liberalism, which precede it by centuries.

If people have a moral right to worship the deity of their choice, and have a moral right to use their wealth in any way they like, then it's only inevitable that some people will invent a moral right to have sex with whoever you want.

in a roundabout way, that's what I'd be doing. my premise is that social liberalism is harmful and religion is desirable, de facto it would be the same as if it were you in charge saying the same thing. see what I mean?

But you're proposing that the state still officially be neutral in religion. Eventually, the people in such a country would realize that their leaders don't actually believe, and the majority of the people would cease as well.

again, I believe that the rise of liberalism was opportunistic. healthy and stable societies are inherently conservative and naturally resistant to liberalism, which has only ever enjoyed popularity in societies that are in decline. for example, the 19th century intellectual John Stuart Mill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill)'s writings closely resemble those of many contemporary liberals, but unlike the latter, he wasn't taken very seriously in his own time.

that's one of the biggest reasons I order.

I think we should draw a distinction between liberality and liberalism. As societies start to decay, liberality or moral looseness become prevalent. However, liberalism, which not only encourages but regards moral depravity as being better than morality, is to my knowledge, something unique to the modern world.

This didn't start the last century with social liberalism though, it started centuries ago, with Locke and the like, arguing for classical liberalism, which mainly was about freedom in matters of religion. The expansion of liberalism to sexual morality followed inevitably.

[Miserabilia]

what I don't get, however, is the urgency with which most secularists are eager to discard religion as an artifact left behind from our cave-dwelling pre-Enlightenment days. it seems to me that the ideal course of action would be to not only allow but encourage the continued practice of religion, since religion is a very efficient enforcer of social control. anarchists erroneously view social control as inherently bad (the word "tyranny" is often used) without accounting for the fact that, if a large number of people in your society practice self-restraint and maintain good behavior as a result of their religion, then civil government doesn't have to hire as many cops or feed as many prisoners. the alternative, if people don't behave, is a nanny state that that must function as a strict parent to millions of adult children, like the one we're living in now. nanny states are of course horribly inefficient and simply can't enforce stability in the same way that shared faith does.


Your argument seems to stem from the fact that you'd personaly prefer anything to help controll and "nanny" people but the state.
I can see where you're coming from, being that nanny states are less efficient, and that religion doesn't need to leave modern society.
But you should also concider the opposite, would you rather abolish controll and enforcement by state and hand that entire task to religion?
The more of this responsibility lies with religion, the more problems against the state arise.

For example, having religion as a controller of people's lives means it has a great impact on them and their ideologies, and having several different religions with different beleifs logicaly leads to less unity as a people and also possibly more conflict, which contradicts the purpose of religion you described in the first place.

Secondly, there is the possibility of the main religion changing it's ideology to be seperate from that of the state over time, meaning that either the state has to change it's laws to the religion or there will be conflict between state and religion.

Thirdly, to avoid the first two reasons, wouldn't it be neccacary to restrict other religions, whether it's new religious movements or religions brought in by immigrants, because they would conflict against the current main religion (and the state) and it's controlling function?



I think the objective practicalities of religion need to be examined more, instead of just saying "Welp the Bible is made up, let's throw it out." of course the Bible is made up, but that's missing the point. it might be fictional but the fact remains that a large number of people believe it, and choose to order their very real lives around it. civil law is only effective to a certain degree, beyond which people will start gaming the rules they know they can break, but religious laws are held in earnest. I'm inclined to agree with Napoleon - I might not practice a religion myself but I can admire the earnest devotion it is given, a level of devotion that is the envy of all civil governments ever.


This type of state is a good defense for religion,
but for the reasons I stated above, wouldn't you say it's a bit unstable to say the least to have a state like this?
Sure, it means the state has to interfere and help less, meaning there's less need for state enforcement (muh freedom) or less money needed for said enforcement (muh taxdolla's) :P
But I've yet to see a convincing argument to why it would actualy be a good idea to let religion take that an important role in society, especialy with religion already declining. :)

[Dennis98]

Secularism and nothing more ...

[Sugaree]

Religion is a private matter. To mix religion and state is a very dangerous mix. Look at Iran and Saudi Arabia where religion IS the state. Look at caliphates of the past and see that religion being the only state is equal to a death sentence for freedom and liberty.

Secularism, while not perfect, leaves people to go about their private lives. If they wish to worship, let them build their temples and altars so they can gather and express it publicly. But to legislate religion and make it shape the policies of government is very dangerous.

[Babiole]

In France, the church and state have been separate for decades. We don't have an official religion, and usually they don't interfere with politics.