-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
a religious state?
- Thread starter syo
- Start date
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
A deadly idea.
Yeah. Not much love or peace in getting stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
No. That has consistently shown to be a terrible idea, and we have no reason to expect that to change.
Laws will of course reflect some form of perception of values, but they have no reason to and no benefit in making reference to specific religions or religious concepts.
Once you do, it becomes a governmental duty to be involved in specifiying what conforms to those religions or fails to.
That should always be avoided, for it is a difficult task that can only harm a society.
Actually, not too many religions are about peace and love. For many or most, those are two values that are encouraged or at least well accepted but ultimately subordinate to their highest values. which may include things such as self-acceptance, tribal unity, formation and keeping of a sense of community, reverence for some form of authority, or reassurance of some form of afterlife.
Religions are a rather varied bunch if we look at them up close. There is a reason why there are at least tens of thousands and they show a clear general tendency to split up and branch further instead of melding into each other.
But for exercise's sake, let's for a moment pretent that we existed in a world where religions were generally defined by their pursuit of peace and love above most other considerations. Even then, it would probably not be worth attempting to shape law according to such beliefs, because the two entities are not very compatible at all.
Religion at its best is highly recognizant of particularities. It acknowledges and respects the individuals and their circunstances. Laws, by necessity, give up on doing that and deal instead with very general trends and impositions that disregard individuals and specific circunstances. As a matter of fact, laws are tools of policy and enforcement of authority, and such they are only useful in situations where there is no longer the ability to regard the individual and the circunstance. Where that ability exists, law is unnecessary and uncalled for.
If someone said "we want to ban porn" or "we think children should be taught meditation in schools" and they had a study to back it up saying the benefits are good, I'd give them a fair hearing and be willing to debate it. I would not accept it based solely on religious authority or "good intentions" though. I'd want to make sure that its a "good" law based on what its consequences would reasonably be and that there are checks and balances in place so that if things go wrong, it can be removed or reformed in that case.
That is not what History has shown. What is the USSR? Communist governments? Cambodia? Rome? France? If anything secular humanism seems to thrive only after a government has become peaceful. Where is the record of it creating peace?
None of them was secular humanist.
So you simply define secular humanism to be peace, and that proves to everyone that secular humanism causes peace? That is what you seem to be doing. It is not convincing.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
A theocracy is an evil we can do without.
They don't care. They will repeat "Atheism is lack of belief" at you until you give up and they win by default because you've ripped your eyes out of your sockets in frustration.
Run away whilst you still can before they start throwing dictionaries at you!
syo
Well-Known Member
in my opinion a state would follow same core beliefs of the religions. which religion doesn't promote peace, or you shall not murder? they all do.
syo
Well-Known Member
why evil, if it has good standards?
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
Is this a theistic standard of good or a secular standard of good?
Because from my experience, as well as from having studied history, the subjective theistic standard of good tends to cause major harm to non-religiously minded people so that the theistic standard of good appears to be evil to the objective viewer.