Bit of Controversy for us all to debate about

[burner69]

OK, I want to raise this point, because I'd really like to see people's views on it - try to understand the big wide world a bit better. My question is this:

Should Religion be used as a basis for government?

I'll leave out my own opinion for now, but I'm just interested in what people think about it, and hopefully we can have a nice civil debate about the matter....

 

[Ikerous]

Do you actually even need to pose this question..?
I think its relatively evident from other threads that everyone tends to concur that it shouldnt be (Except for perhaps one person...)

 

[gh0st]

Not a basis for government (theocracy?) at all. However I think religious morals should play a small part of government, but there should be a clear separation.

 

[qckbeam]

Keep them apart at all costs right from the get go. If people want to have their own personal beliefs about god, afterlife, etc. that is perfectly fine. Government however can not afford to follow magical thinking of any kind. People should be free to practice whatever beliefs they please (within reason) and the government should have absolutely nothing to do with any of them.

Of course, since a government is a body composed of humans, religious bias will slip into it.

 

[Kommie]

Keep them apart at all costs right from the get go. If people want to have their own personal beliefs about god, afterlife, etc. that is perfectly fine. Government however can not afford to follow magical thinking of any kind. People should be free to practice whatever beliefs they please (within reason) and the government should have absolutely nothing to do with any of them.

Of course, since a government is a body composed of humans, religious bias will slip into it.

I could not have said it any better myelf so as you wacky forumites like to say "quoted for emphasis"

 

[Dasparov]

Keep them apart at all costs right from the get go. If people want to have their own personal beliefs about god, afterlife, etc. that is perfectly fine. Government however can not afford to follow magical thinking of any kind. People should be free to practice whatever beliefs they please (within reason) and the government should have absolutely nothing to do with any of them.

Of course, since a government is a body composed of humans, religious bias will slip into it.

Ain't much more i can touch up on

 

[Tr0n]

No.

damn6charlimitcangotohellidontevenknowwhywehaveit

 

[donkeyhumper]

secularism > *

 

[Incitatus]

Of course religious morals should play a large role in government.

How can one expect people to vote on the virtues or limitations of Keynesian economic policy as opposed to monetarist economic policy. Not many people can, I can't.

What remains are the basis of political ideology, the system of moral values it is based on, that is what people should vote on. Religious morals or non religious morals (if such a thing can be said to exist)

 

[The Monkey]

No, that's madness.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

For someone whose in Sweden.



Spaarneboys -- mmm! Delicious! Oh wait, thats not Sweden ...

 

[AzzMan]

Religion + government = Taliban/Al-queida/random other oppressive theocracy

 

[Shad0hawK]

OK, I want to raise this point, because I'd really like to see people's views on it - try to understand the big wide world a bit better. My question is this:

Should Religion be used as a basis for government?

I'll leave out my own opinion for now, but I'm just interested in what people think about it, and hopefully we can have a nice civil debate about the matter....

that is a very good question. i think all religious views should have a voice in a truly free government with no single view having control, including the atheistic view on religion.

another good question is: how can a nation whos founders signed a document that credits human rights to divine providence be truly areligious or really "seperated" from religion when the very document proclaiming the establishment of the nation states the existence of a higher being and calls this being "God"...thus making belief in God official policy?

quote form the declaration of independence

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

and in the last paragraph

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES...And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

 

[Shad0hawK]

no takers?

 

[smwScott]

Religion should have no part in government whatsoever. Any government which is intertwined with religion in any way is inherently flawed - which is pretty much every government I can think of. I don't just mean specific references either, morals specific to certain religions should not carry any weight at all and an ideal society would condemn candidates for attempting to use religion to their advantage.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Religion should have no part in government whatsoever. Any government which is intertwined with religion in any way is inherently flawed - which is pretty much every government I can think of. I don't just mean specific references either, morals specific to certain religions should not carry any weight at all and an ideal society would condemn candidates for attempting to use religion to their advantage.

what about morals common to many religions? and would not a totally areligious government be hostile to religion(and thus the religious)? they all have in the past in governments that made atheism state policy...

 

[Xenome]

OK, I want to raise this point, because I'd really like to see people's views on it - try to understand the big wide world a bit better. My question is this:

Should Religion be used as a basis for government?

I'll leave out my own opinion for now, but I'm just interested in what people think about it, and hopefully we can have a nice civil debate about the matter....

NO.

More then 50% of all wars have been caused by organised religion.
--
I do believe in 'god' btw.. I just think organised religion isn't the right way.

 

[Shad0hawK]

NO.

More then 50% of all wars have been caused by organised religion.
--
I do believe in 'god' btw.. I just think organised religion isn't the right way.

and the suffering pales in comparision to that caused by organized state sanctioned atheism under such winners as mao, stalin, and pol pot.

 

[X|Rolando]

Should Religion be used as a basis for government? Hell no! Nobody should be given an advantage / disadvantage - everybody should be equal, and not be treated differently because some xxxx year old piece of paper says so... Especially not if said piece o' paper contradicts itself >

 

[Edcrab]

Frequency of wars aside, both World Wars had absolutely nothing to do with religion. Admittedly we knew Hitler was a racist freak, but we actually declared war on the Nazis due to their offensive movements and pathetic human rights record.

Religion is the basis for society: and as far as sensible rules go, ones regarding theft and murder seem like ethical common sense to me. Problems arise when holy works are followed to the letter- the needs of a populace should over rule the outmoded concepts put forward in some elderly book.

 

[Xenome]

The two world wars were only two of MANY wars fought in history..

Shadohawk: 'and the suffering pales in comparision to that caused by organized state sanctioned atheism under such winners as mao, stalin, and pol pot.'

True, but suffering is suffering..no matter how much has been suffered.

What I want is NO suffering

 

[Edcrab]

...yes, that's why I put "frequency" in nice clear italics, because the World Wars are, unsurprisingly, the most prominent wars that this planet has seen.

Religion is just used as an excuse to murder maim or conquer- just like a dictators extremist political views. Although, come to think of it, if we banned politicians altogether the world might be a better place...

 

[Absinthe]

and the suffering pales in comparision to that caused by organized state sanctioned atheism under such winners as mao, stalin, and pol pot.

Are you trying to say that atheism was the cause for their ****-ups?

Because that would be a ridiculous statement. The suffering under those governments was due to a multitude of other reasons that they all had in common.

 

[Razor]

Should Religion be used as a basis for government?

It depends on the religion. When most religions teach that people such as homosexuals or black people, or white people, or Chinese people, etc, etc, etc should be treated like scum i.e. the religion that Bush seems to be a member of. No.

 

[RZAL]

How can a nation whos founders signed a document that credits human rights to divine providence be truly areligious or really "seperated" from religion when the very document proclaiming the establishment of the nation states the existence of a higher being and calls this being "God"...thus making belief in God official policy?

"to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them",
"appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World", "with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence" .

A nutshell approach

Ancient religions have more similarities than differences when it comes down to morals and ethical codes.

These religions are meant to do two things: answer the question (why are we here) and serve as a basis for morality.

It is true the founding fathers were Christians, however they were also Natural Law Philosophers.

Natural Law is similar to Stoic Law but without a Godhead. In other words they believed that there are certain truths/laws in the universe, which exists independently from man. An example of Natural Law would be gravity. These laws are discovered by man, not created by man.

You can’t just read the Declaration as a piece of paper or even letter. It must be read and studied as literature. You have to answer questions such as: Who wrote it, who’s it for, what’s the message, what time period, social, and economical factors.

Bottom line is, they made sure to place checks and balances throughout the Constitution / Bill of Rights to prevent the Government from promoting religion.

I might add, these are the same checks and balances that num-nuts are using agianst the government today.

Hey Shadohawk , this goes much deeper than most people think. I just know I’ll have Christians in an uproar if I go further than this. (Not that anythings wrong with Christians)

The Patriot

 

[Scoobnfl]

OK, I want to raise this point, because I'd really like to see people's views on it - try to understand the big wide world a bit better. My question is this:

Should Religion be used as a basis for government?

I'll leave out my own opinion for now, but I'm just interested in what people think about it, and hopefully we can have a nice civil debate about the matter....

no.

Secular govt. is the only form of govt. to have.

Religous beliefs of tolerance, equality and fairness can and should be included but no specific religion based govt, it leaves the impression that any other religions will be discriminated against or will be prevented from participating.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Are you trying to say that atheism was the cause for their ****-ups?

Because that would be a ridiculous statement. The suffering under those governments was due to a multitude of other reasons that they all had in common.

the official government policy of communist nations is atheism, religious dissnters were killed by the millions in many countries. more people have been killed in the name of state sanctioned atheism than by any other governmental religious view. as for the other deaths for other reasons, when it is govenment policy to be amoral, the predominate attidude is they can do what they want...this sentiment was often expressed by stalin.

 

[Shad0hawK]

A nutshell approach

Ancient religions have more similarities than differences when it comes down to morals and ethical codes.

These religions are meant to do two things: answer the question (why are we here) and serve as a basis for morality.

It is true the founding fathers were Christians, however they were also Natural Law Philosophers.

Natural Law is similar to Stoic Law but without a Godhead. In other words they believed that there are certain truths/laws in the universe, which exists independently from man. An example of Natural Law would be gravity. These laws are discovered by man, not created by man.

yes, and the creator of those laws in the declaration of independence is referred to as "God" and "creator"

You can’t just read the Declaration as a piece of paper or even letter. It must be read and studied as literature. You have to answer questions such as: Who wrote it, who’s it for, what’s the message, what time period, social, and economical factors.

exactly, which is a perfect reason to take it as menaing what it simply says....it was written very literally for a singular purpose.

Bottom line is, they made sure to place checks and balances throughout the Constitution / Bill of Rights to prevent the Government from promoting religion.

that is out of context, the law prohibits the government from establishing or picking a single established religious view...it also forbids the government from forbidding the expression of religion, the constitution is primarilly a limitation of the GOVERNMENT, so a government that has an atheistic view is included in this. just as the governemnt is beholden to obey it's own laws within itself, it is also held to the law "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" regarding religious expression...within itself. the constitution is a elucidation on the statement in the DoI of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" the bill of rights are "inalienable" whichy means they cannot be changed or removed.

the meriam webster dictionary even uses the DoI as an exampe in thier definition.

"incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>"

I might add, these are the same checks and balances that num-nuts are using agianst the government today.

Hey Shadohawk , this goes much deeper than most people think. I just know I’ll have Christians in an uproar if I go further than this. (Not that anythings wrong with Christians)

The Patriot

and the ultimate check on government power is stating in the DoI that humans rights are granted by divine appointment and not by governments, therefore the government does not have the authority to remove them...very pragmatic of them if you think about it it was the primary (philospohical)justification for the rebellion.

 

[The Monkey]

In a country with freedom of religion the goverment mustn't have anything to do with religion.

 

[ShadowFox]

I think NO WAY.

But it is interesting to note how most of the secular nations fall quite quickly. Atheism will probably never be a majority belief, so secular nations will have trouble.

 

[Absinthe]

the official government policy of communist nations is atheism, religious dissnters were killed by the millions in many countries.

You should be blaming intolerance for that. Not atheism.

more people have been killed in the name of state sanctioned atheism than by any other governmental religious view.

How is this atheism's fault?

as for the other deaths for other reasons, when it is govenment policy to be amoral, the predominate attidude is they can do what they want...this sentiment was often expressed by stalin.

Again, where's the connection to atheism? Being an atheist is not the same as being amoral.

These problems lie not with atheism, but the fact that it was imposed ruthlessly on the nation. But even so, many of the deaths in Soviet Russia were due to oppression on the whole, not exclusively on religious grounds. He punished any kind of dissent, and his aggressive economic policies killed the people. The responsibility of these crimes lays entirely with the men responsible. Atheism doesn't push any kind of agenda. It is just the absence of belief in a deity.

 

[Absinthe]

But it is interesting to note how most of the secular nations fall quite quickly. Atheism will probably never be a majority belief, so secular nations will have trouble.

Actually, many religious people don't have a problem with secular governments. Despite whatever God they fear, they do believe in our freedoms, our equality, and the importance of keeping the Church and State divided. And, let's face it. Not too many people are advocating otherwise, because the last thing they want is theocracy of a different religion putting strain on them.

 

[bliink]

I think its a bad idea.
However, its been known to operate fairly well in some places.

 

[RZAL]

and the ultimate check on government power is stating in the DoI that humans rights are granted by divine appointment and not by governments, therefore the government does not have the authority to remove them...very pragmatic of them if you think about it it was the primary (philospohical)justification for the rebellion.

Oh Brother…I need to have a talk with your teacher.
“(philospohical)justification for the rebellion” That’s the same argument the Loyalist used. I suppose you also believe that individuals have never achieved or contributed great works to society; that only groups of people can do that?

that is out of context, the law prohibits the government from establishing or picking a single established religious view...it also forbids the government from forbidding the expression of religion, the constitution is primarily a limitation of the GOVERNMENT, so a government that has an atheistic view is included in this. just as the governemnt is beholden to obey it's own laws within itself, it is also held to the law "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" regarding religious expression...within itself. the constitution is a elucidation on the statement in the DoI of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" the bill of rights are "inalienable" whichy means they cannot be changed or removed..

the meriam webster dictionary even uses the DoI as an exampe in thier definition.

"incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>".

Shad0hawk If your going to quote me, please don't add your words within my quote.

(1) The US Constitution is a social contract between the government and the people.

(2) It is (in theory) the limitation/ authority of government.

(3) The Do I of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” is not from the Constitution.

(4) The correct wording is “That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” from Declaration of Independence. It is not in any way a legal document. Its’ also worth mentioning that Jefferson’s original wording was “ “That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property”.

(5) The intention of the Declaration as summarized by Thomas Jefferson was “to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent. . . . Neither aiming at originality of principles or sentiments, nor yet copying from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind”.

(6) The Meriam Webster Dictionary is right “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights” Natural Law is not based on the Kings Law, nor is it based on Mans Law, or Gods Law, it is based on the Rule of Law or I could say the Laws of Nature.

(7) The Bill of Rights, in short is a list of those inalienable rights granted by the Laws of Nature.

I am glad to see you have at least looked in the Merriam Webster dictionary. I only hope that you will care enough to open more books and seek knowledge first hand.


The Patriot

 

[Shad0hawK]

Oh Brother…I need to have a talk with your teacher.
“(philospohical)justification for the rebellion” That’s the same argument the Loyalist used. I suppose you also believe that individuals have never achieved or contributed great works to society; that only groups of people can do that?

perhaps if you had concentrated on some basic reading compehension instead of being condescending, you would not have assumed so much and been so far off the mark regarding my post, so now since you would presume to correct me i do hope your ego can stand the same treatment, as in a few things you are seriously in error...as far as "talking to my teacher" i think that would do you some good, as you may actually become educated due to the experience.

regarding my views on individualism, i agree with much of ayn rand's objectivism, i am sure that one of your obviously superior cranial fortitude can extrapolate from that...

(1) The US Constitution is a social contract between the government and the people.

somewhat, yes.

(2) It is (in theory) the limitation/ authority of government.

it was in fact...not theory created as such, and the men that wrote and signed it, along with other later leaders said so plainly, men who's opinion i trust much more than the idiodic historical revisionists of today.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -Patrick Henry

again, basic reading comprehension comes into play. most federal laws are to dictate what the government can and cannot do. this pattern starts in the bill of rights, which was mainly added to the objections of the orginal draft by george mason and others that did not have them outlined.

(3) The Do I of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” is not from the Constitution.

i know, that is why when i quoted it i said "stating in the DoI" i assumed with your superior intellect you would realize that "DoI" meant Declaration of Independence"...sorry, my mistake.

(4) The correct wording is “That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” from Declaration of Independence. It is not in any way a legal document. Its’ also worth mentioning that Jefferson’s original wording was “ “That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property”.

yes that is correct, i only quoted the pertinent part for the sake of being concise, and thank you for that bit of historical trivia! we were all enlightened by it.

(5) The intention of the Declaration as summarized by Thomas Jefferson was “to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent. . . . Neither aiming at originality of principles or sentiments, nor yet copying from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind”.

again correct, so that means both jefferson and i both believe it means what it simply says. "in terms so plain and firm..."

(6) The Meriam Webster Dictionary is right “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights” Natural Law is not based on the Kings Law, nor is it based on Mans Law, or Gods Law, it is based on the Rule of Law or I could say the Laws of Nature.

and...according to the DoI "and Nature's God" amazing how that got left out by you...

the correct wording is "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,"

(7) The Bill of Rights, in short is a list of those inalienable rights granted by the Laws of Nature.

yes, again correct. except for once again leaving out the "and Nature's God" part, again...

(I am glad to see you have at least looked in the Merriam Webster dictionary. I only hope that you will care enough to open more books and seek knowledge first hand.


The Patriot

i agree reading is very educational, even moreso when the whole of books and documents are read, and not just the parts one likes for political/religious dogmas sake.

 

[Shad0hawK]

You should be blaming intolerance for that. Not atheism.

ditto...

How is this atheism's fault?

in much the same way that death in wars involving other religious views are.

Again, where's the connection to atheism? Being an atheist is not the same as being amoral.

because atheism was the state sanctioned religous view, and like any other state sanctioned religious view, it is hostile to other views. for there to be an objective moral law, there by necessity must be an objective moral law giver, aka "God" without an objective moral law, morals are only a matter of personal opinion.

These problems lie not with atheism, but the fact that it was imposed ruthlessly on the nation. But even so, many of the deaths in Soviet Russia were due to oppression on the whole, not exclusively on religious grounds. He punished any kind of dissent, and his aggressive economic policies killed the people. The responsibility of these crimes lays entirely with the men responsible. Atheism doesn't push any kind of agenda. It is just the absence of belief in a deity.

ditto...again. except that atheism while being "disbelief" is still a viewpoint on religion.

 

[TheAmazingRando]

I love being Agnostic. Makes the whole religion thing a non-issue.

 

[Vulture]

the official government policy of communist nations is atheism, religious dissnters were killed by the millions in many countries. more people have been killed in the name of state sanctioned atheism than by any other governmental religious view. as for the other deaths for other reasons, when it is govenment policy to be amoral, the predominate attidude is they can do what they want...this sentiment was often expressed by stalin.

There is no such thing as a Communist nation, the very notion is an oxymoron, Communism is a stateless system. Take for example, China, widely regarded as Communist, simply becuase they hang up Hammer and Sickles. China is among the most Capitalist nations on Earth.

Also, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao were not Communists, there beliefs directly contradict the ideas of Communism.

So you cannot simply 'Blame it on the Commies'.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Governments of an entirely secular nature:

First example is Post-Revolutionary France, under the Comittee of Public Safety i.e. the Terror - Robespierre etc

Others have been mentioned. However, my own views on the matter I shall discuss tomorrow

 

[Shad0hawK]

There is no such thing as a Communist nation, the very notion is an oxymoron, Communism is a stateless system. Take for example, China, widely regarded as Communist, simply becuase they hang up Hammer and Sickles. China is among the most Capitalist nations on Earth.

Also, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao were not Communists, there beliefs directly contradict the ideas of Communism.

So you cannot simply 'Blame it on the Commies'.

you actually speaking of the ultimate end of communism, at least lenin's vision where the state ultimately dies and a utopian society exists in it's place, however a communist government IS part of the evolutionary phase, at least according to lenin anyway, but what would he know?

china is becoming more capitalist, becuase they are learning what other nations have...communism does not work. it is an impossible pipe dream. however saying that china is one of "the most capitalistic countries" is a really laughable claim...but they are slowly seeing reason.

as for myself i am an individualistic pragmatist, i hold the communists accountable for what they did just as i hold myself responsible for my own actions.