Question for all. Should government be secular?

[Doodah]

I am very much a believer in a secular government for many reasons. Obviously as an atheist, I would not want to see laws based on scripture ever put in place. But also to retain 'freedom of religion' this is important too.

I have no problem if a political leader adheres to whatever religion he or she chooses, so long as that does not affect his/her performance as a politician.

What do you think?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am very much a believer in a secular government for many reasons. Obviously as an atheist, I would not want to see laws based on scripture ever put in place. But also to retain 'freedom of religion' this is important too.

I have no problem if a political leader adheres to whatever religion he or she chooses, so long as that does not affect his/her performance as a politician.

What do you think?

I agree, but add that I would be equally concerned if a lack respect for religion effects the politicians' performance.

 

[ChristineES]

Secular is not the word I would use, I say governments should be neutral, like a judge would. They need to do the will of the people who elected them, even if it means going against his or her personal beliefs. (that is the biggest reason I would never be in the government).

 

[Doodah]

Secular is not the word I would use, I say governments should be neutral, like a judge would. They need to do the will of the people who elected them, even if it means going against his or her personal beliefs. (that is the biggest reason I would never be in the government).

So if the majority of people are of one particular faith, and they wanted to ban another faith, that would be ok? And the government should do that?

 

[Valjean]

Place any religious restrictions you want on yourself, but do not inflict them on others by enshrining them in law. Remember, there is no spiritual merit in complying with compulsory laws. Remember, it is only when you have a choice that there is the possibility of merit.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Place any religious restrictions you want on yourself, but do not inflict them on others by enshrining them in law. Remember, there is no spiritual merit in complying with compulsory laws. Remember, it is only when you have a choice that there is the possibility of merit.

The presence or absence of law does not have any bearing on choice. One can choose to follow or disobey a compulsary law in the same way that one can make choices independent of laws. That being the case, I don't see why there is no merit in choosing to follow a compulsary law, if the law itself has merit.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Of course they should be separate!! I don't want the bureaucracy and corruption found in every government seeping into my church!

"And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables." -- The Tick

 

[Valjean]

The presence or absence of law does not have any bearing on choice. One can choose to follow or disobey a compulsary law in the same way that one can make choices independent of laws. That being the case, I don't see why there is no merit in choosing to follow a compulsary law, if the law itself has merit.

I understand your point , angellous, but I don't think your premise is entirely correct. Choices carry varying degres of difficulty and social opprobrium.

Choosing to eschew opium is easy for me, as I have no idea how I might obtain it should I want it, plus my friends would probably have some objections to my choice it I did find some.

Choosing to eschew pork is more meritorious for an American Jew or Muslim, inasmuch as he could purchase it easily in any market without any problem -- though his peers might still have some objection.

Likewise, choosing to eschew the military, or meat, or dancing, or taxes, is more meritorious because there are social pressures to partake of these.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Even as a religious person, i still wish for a secular government.

 

[ChristineES]

So if the majority of people are of one particular faith, and they wanted to ban another faith, that would be ok? And the government should do that?

I neither said nor insinuated that. All I was saying was the religion and politics should not be combined. I guess I should be used to people reading things into what I post by now, even things I did not even say or mean.

 

[Aasimar]

Secular is not the word I would use, I say governments should be neutral, like a judge would. They need to do the will of the people who elected them, even if it means going against his or her personal beliefs. (that is the biggest reason I would never be in the government).

This is also the biggest reason I hate religious political figures. How can you trust them to be neutral when they believe unwaveringly that their very soul and the souls of their loved ones hang in the balance? Realistically, you cannot.

 

[eudaimonia]

What do you think?

If secular means neutral with regards to religion, which means refusing to let governmental authority or resources be used as a special privilege or proselytization tool for any particular religion, or even for all religions, then I agree that government should be thoroughly secular.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Random]

How about just abolishing all forms of government?

"Secular" gov. is an illusion. Democracy is a fabrication of the Jesuits, Freemasons and other 3rd tier Hidden Powers and is based upon Jesus' supposed endorsment of gov. "Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give God what belongs to God"...etc.

Your government cannot ever be divorced from Religion. You must realize this in order to understand...why? Because the Law unpon which all gov. is built finds its beginning and end in the religious traditions.

The only real option for a so-called Atheist is anarchy. Anything else is ignorant hypocrisy.

 

[frg001]

The only real option for a so-called Atheist is anarchy. Anything else is ignorant hypocrisy.

Nonsense.
So long as religion does not control the actions of the government, it is secular.

The vast majority of my views that are not based on mythical or supernatural beings are in harmony of a Christians views. There isn't a lot wrong with 'Thou shall not kill' etc.
So me as an atheist, and a Christian would agree on most aspects of life.
So yes, governments will have ideas and structure formulated from religious ideals, but there are few if any laws that force you to do something for no other reason than the bible says so...
Can you name one? I am British by the way. So one in the UK perhaps.
AFAIK we have incitement to religious hatred, and an archaic blasphemy law which isn't used... Thats it.

And obviously I think government should all be secular.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I am very much a believer in a secular government for many reasons. Obviously as an atheist, I would not want to see laws based on scripture ever put in place. But also to retain 'freedom of religion' this is important too.

I have no problem if a political leader adheres to whatever religion he or she chooses, so long as that does not affect his/her performance as a politician.

What do you think?

State sponsored religion is out of the question. The founding fathers clearly uderstood the tyranny of this. But to say our constitution is not based on scriptural principles show a lack of understanding.

 

[eudaimonia]

How about just abolishing all forms of government?

We could, I suppose. While my preference is for limited government, I have been partial to anarcho-capitalism, though I'm not certain today that it would work as well as advertised.

Your government cannot ever be divorced from Religion. You must realize this in order to understand...why? Because the Law unpon which all gov. is built finds its beginning and end in the religious traditions.

I don't buy this. At least, I don't see why this must always be so.

And, really, if the traditions are forgotten, then what does it matter what laws remain? A law condemning murder is just as valid for the nonreligious as it is for the religious. The origins of the law are unimportant.

The only real option for a so-called Atheist is anarchy. Anything else is ignorant hypocrisy.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[gnomon]

But to say our constitution is not based on scriptural principles show a lack of understanding.

Which scriptural principles would those be?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

A government is elect by and for all citizens of a country.
It's laws must apply equally to all
and should respect all views, religious and secular equally when establishing laws.

 

[ChristineES]

This is also the biggest reason I hate religious political figures. How can you trust them to be neutral when they believe unwaveringly that their very soul and the souls of their loved ones hang in the balance? Realistically, you cannot.

Even atheists would have to be neutral in politics. If we all think about it, no one belongs in politics because every one has their own belief system. That is what I meant about putting your personal feelings aside. Any person who cannot put their personal feelings aside has no place in a political setting-Whether they be religious or nonreligious. But the true question would be "is it possible for anyone to put their own personal feelings aside when making a political decision?" I am not 100% sure that it always works that way.

This is the biggest reason I don't like politics in the slightest.

 

[Pardus]

I just hope you guys are voting to keep it separate and not just giving lip service.