ppp
Well-Known Member
It is classist, in that the people who belong to the religion are favored over those who do not. Even in the most benevolent application, a non-believer can never hold a position to make foundational policy.Is it a good idea to separate "church" from "state?
Why or why not?
I'm actually starting to come around to the idea that it was a bad idea because laws would have to be created by religious motives instead of non-religious motives.
Maybe it is a great idea.
What do you all think about this?
It is fascist, in that one's value is determined by one's adherence to the religion. Any significant dissent from the religious interpretation of doctrine (and thus the legal statutes) can only be made by an adherent who operates within the framework of religious belief.
It denies reality, in that any finding made about the material world that fly in opposition to doctrines, tenets, or practices is suppressed to various degrees of vigor.
It is oppressive, in that it forces non-believers to act as though the state's religious beliefs about the religion, and about the non-believer are true.
It is irresponsible, in that it necessarily pretends that any bad action cannot possibly be a result of the legitimate practice of the religion.