Religious governments

[LuisDantas]

The UK is technically a religious government, but in actual practice seems to be quite secular as far as laws and government go.

The opposite holds true in the USA (and in Brasil, in case you are curious).

The Vatican, and if I am not mistaken Iran, are officially religious states. I'm sure there are some others around.

Here in the West it is generally accepted that Church and State don't mix well. I've seen some opinions on the contrary, however. Most of them come from eastern religions, however.

I fail to see how a religious state could ever be a good idea. Most who do seem to imply that it helps in making the government more stable. That may be true in some sense, but then the same could be said of tirany, for much the same reasons.

The main (and IMO decisive) argument against government recognizing the existence of religions at all is that it ends up creating unfair favoritisms and affects the freedom of religion and cult. Perhaps even more important from a practical perspective, it also breeds corruption, as History has dutifully shown us all time and again.

So I wonder - why would anyone ever want a religious government? Are there better arguments that did not occur to me yet?

 

[Revoltingest]

So I wonder - why would anyone ever want a religious government? Are there better arguments that did not occur to me yet?

When a faith owns the truth, & knows that everyone else is not merely wrong, but rather
an affront to God, then it makes sense to have a gov't to impose that truth on everyone.
At least that's how it looks to me.

 

[logician]

The UK is technically a religious government, but in actual practice seems to be quite secular as far as laws and government go.

The opposite holds true in the USA (and in Brasil, in case you are curious).

The Vatican, and if I am not mistaken Iran, are officially religious states. I'm sure there are some others around.

Here in the West it is generally accepted that Church and State don't mix well. I've seen some opinions on the contrary, however. Most of them come from eastern religions, however.

I fail to see how a religious state could ever be a good idea. Most who do seem to imply that it helps in making the government more stable. That may be true in some sense, but then the same could be said of tirany, for much the same reasons.

The main (and IMO decisive) argument against government recognizing the existence of religions at all is that it ends up creating unfair favoritisms and affects the freedom of religion and cult. Perhaps even more important from a practical perspective, it also breeds corruption, as History has dutifully shown us all time and again.

So I wonder - why would anyone ever want a religious government? Are there better arguments that did not occur to me yet?

Religious governments tend to be tryannical or dictatorial, since the leader is usually seen as some kind of intermediary to that religion's god, and his/her word is infallible. Not a good kind of government.:sleep:

 

[dust1n]

Taoist regime would be kinda cool.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well it depends how fair a religious state could be. Technically, Kemetic Orthodox believe our Nisut is supposed to be the ruler of Egypt, but that doesn't apply to other countries. We consider ourselves in exile, similar to the Jewish idea. A Kemetic state would be fair because it's one governed by the precepts of Ma'at, the natural way of the universe, which allows for all beliefs provided it harm none.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Do I think a religious state would work in the West? No

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Governments, or any other power structures, invariably attract people who are corruptible by power. Add to this religious authority, and you've got a recipe for a highly abusive dictatorship - which happens to be what we get with religious governments.

 

[LuisDantas]

Senedjem, how do you feel about other religious states, such as arguably Iran, Japan and Israel?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I feel okay about Japan. Japan respects other religions existing. Israel isn't religious it's made up of secular Jews with no real inkling of what being a religious Jew is. Iran is just horrible.

 

[arimoff]

The UK is technically a religious government, but in actual practice seems to be quite secular as far as laws and government go.

The opposite holds true in the USA (and in Brasil, in case you are curious).

The Vatican, and if I am not mistaken Iran, are officially religious states. I'm sure there are some others around.

Here in the West it is generally accepted that Church and State don't mix well. I've seen some opinions on the contrary, however. Most of them come from eastern religions, however.

I fail to see how a religious state could ever be a good idea. Most who do seem to imply that it helps in making the government more stable. That may be true in some sense, but then the same could be said of tirany, for much the same reasons.

The main (and IMO decisive) argument against government recognizing the existence of religions at all is that it ends up creating unfair favoritisms and affects the freedom of religion and cult. Perhaps even more important from a practical perspective, it also breeds corruption, as History has dutifully shown us all time and again.

So I wonder - why would anyone ever want a religious government? Are there better arguments that did not occur to me yet?

I think neither works well, it is us who can make it or brake it regardless of the system.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Isn't there a theory among scientists that religion and religious thought evolved because it created a bond in communities that made them stronger, more able to stand up to rivals, and therefore more fit for survival? If this is the case then there may well be a scientific/evolutionary argument for why religious governments could be a good thing. Wouldn't a country be stronger if everyone willingly accepted a state religion and wanted to be a part of it? Israel might be the best example of this...I don't know, I am not ready to argue this point, I just thought I might throw it out there for consideration.

 

[LuisDantas]

Reproduced with permission from the other thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2024853

You are welcome. Just one thing, it is not exactly seeking power or control over others, it is just that we want for ourselves to live in an Islamic society, under the rules of God.

Fair enough. It is of course your right to want that. I just don't see how that would be any different from wanting a Muslim state.

Although .lava may have given me a clue on that thread. Apparently it used to be that Christians had their own Courts of Law when they lived in Muslim states. I'm not sure it would be possible or fair today, however. It is my firm position that a State ought not to even bother trying to tell religious people or organizations from secular ones.

If that can be established in a Muslim majority society where the rules of Islam would apply, and therefore it will actually not be an inconvenience for others,

I'm not sure majority matters here, either. Even leaving religion aside, politics are not supposed to be the rule of the majority. It is all about protecting the minorities, really. The majority will always have things its way unless convinced otherwise.

because the rules i'm thinking of doesn't limit anybodies rights, then we'd want that.

In practice, one would be hard pressed to find rules that don't limit anyone's rights, don't you think?

If it does, they should fight for these rights. If we are already in a society that Muslims aren't a majority in, then we would accept the opposite.

Again, I don't think you should. I don't particularly like the burka ban in France, for instance - although I must admit that I AM worried about the Muslim growth in that country.

Far as I can tell, good rules should stand on their own merits. Being Islamic, Rabinic, Christian or whatever simply shouldn't really factor in.

You see, it simply depends on the prospective, for an Atheist or a non-Muslim in general, he would rather live under different laws that suits him or that he believes in, ours suits us, thats pretty much it, not really a domination thing or a struggle for control.

Uh. Sorry to disagree with someone who shows such good will, but it looks exactly like a power struggle from where I stand.

Then again, I'm not big on secular Law either. Law is a very poor substitute for Justice. I really hope that religious people in general seek to improve justice and general living conditions, but if at all possible not through laws.

 

[LuisDantas]

Isn't there a theory among scientists that religion and religious thought evolved because it created a bond in communities that made them stronger, more able to stand up to rivals, and therefore more fit for survival? If this is the case then there may well be a scientific/evolutionary argument for why religious governments could be a good thing.

There is a FAR stronger historical argument for why it demonstrably ISN'T...

Wouldn't a country be stronger if everyone willingly accepted a state religion and wanted to be a part of it?

Sure. And it often was.

It just isn't worth the price, however. Not by a LONG shot.

And that is BEFORE addressing that part about "everyone" wanting to be a part of it.

Heck, Israel is pretty close to what you describe. See how it turned out...

Israel might be the best example of this...I don't know, I am not ready to argue this point, I just thought I might throw it out there for consideration.

Well, it is the best example... against it, I fear.

 

[Badran]

Fair enough. It is of course your right to want that. I just don't see how that would be any different from wanting a Muslim state.

Although .lava may have given me a clue on that thread. Apparently it used to be that Christians had their own Courts of Law when they lived in Muslim states. I'm not sure it would be possible or fair today, however. It is my firm position that a State ought not to even bother trying to tell religious people or organizations from secular ones.

Of course that is your position, and i understand it. The problem is, for Muslims for example, in countries where they are a minority, they are then being deprived of their rights, the right to live under Islamic rules, which is a big part of our belief. You see, you can never ever make a system that everybody is going to be happy with.

I'm not sure majority matters here, either. Even leaving religion aside, politics are not supposed to be the rule of the majority. It is all about protecting the minorities, really. The majority will always have things its way unless convinced otherwise.

In elections for example, choosing the president, this is a big part of any countries future, deciding which man will hold the highest authority in a country, the majority opinion is the one that is taken. Even if it was 51%. So my point is, since there is no way that every body will be happy with whatever system, then the majority should be able to choose their desired system, and the minority should be dealt with in a special manner depending on the system, to see how they can provide the minorities with their rights.

In practice, one would be hard pressed to find rules that don't limit anyone's rights, don't you think?

One would be hard pressed to find rules that makes every one happy or having their entire expectations met, however, it could be achieved that a system would not limit someone's rights, as in their rights that doesn't hurt society in a way or another. If i didn't explain myself properly here, tell me and i'll give an example.

Again, I don't think you should. I don't particularly like the burka ban in France, for instance - although I must admit that I AM worried about the Muslim growth in that country.

Far as I can tell, good rules should stand on their own merits. Being Islamic, Rabinic, Christian or whatever simply shouldn't really factor in.

That depends on why they banned it, Could you tell me why it was banned?

Uh. Sorry to disagree with someone who shows such good will, but it looks exactly like a power struggle from where I stand.

Then again, I'm not big on secular Law either. Law is a very poor substitute for Justice. I really hope that religious people in general seek to improve justice and general living conditions, but if at all possible not through laws.

I'm not sure i understand you here. May be you could elaborate a bit about how do you see that justice could be achieved but not through the law.

Also, just a clarification, I'm only talking about religion's rules as an idea, but the way it is today in some religions, including some of the assumed rules in mine, i would settle for a state that has nothing to do with religion. But, i'm discussing the concept, because i'm willing to live in an Islamic society when it is free of such added rules.

So basically i agree with you that today it is better to have things the way they are, and to just try to improve the laws that already exists. I'm just talking about the idea of an Islamic society.

 

[Cosmos]

The Baha'i World Comonwealth seeks to achieve status of possessing State Powers sometime in the near future to accomplish our goals. Though we believe in separation of Church and State, there is to be clarified that the Universal House of Justice of Baha'u'llah is where "all matters of State" are to be directly referred. Spiritual matters are for individuals themselves to discern by reading the Kitab-i-Aqdas (our Most Holy Book). The current local and national Spiritual Assemblies will evolve into local and regional Houses of Justice serving as the Board under the primary Council or Universal House of Justice with men and women spiritually dedicated to the moral and technical education and upliftment of the human race. A Supreme Tribunal far more evolved than the institutions now present in the Hague or UN will come to fruition in the future from these institutional building blocks wherein Baha'i Law will be as legally binding in international law and courts with the ability to make legislature and settle legal matters for communities. Ensuring that that the Baha'i Administrative Order is not abused and tyranically utilized to oppress is a top priority in preserving the facets of democratic consultation and voting between administrative or assembly members, actively functioning executive and legislative branches working in harmony (as safeguards or "checks and balances"), trustworthy Treasury (Trustees of God), and providing all of these measures for the STATE and not over "spiritual matters" or in directing believers in how they worship or direct the most personal aspects of our lives. These matters themselves are still being formulated by Baha'i scholars and authorities. I stress emphasis on an understanding in the modern world that a "church" is an organization or body-politic, while "state" is the administrative establishments (i.e. municipalities) of said government of the people, and why Baha'is are to uphold Constitutionalism (i.e. constitutional governance).

 

[LuisDantas]

So Bahais want to eventually achieve a Bahai State as well?

 

[Valjean]

There is no religious merit in compulsory observance. The sheep are sorted from the lambs only if free to choose their own behaviour.
Obligatory observance retards moral development.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course that is your position, and i understand it. The problem is, for Muslims for example, in countries where they are a minority, they are then being deprived of their rights, the right to live under Islamic rules, which is a big part of our belief. You see, you can never ever make a system that everybody is going to be happy with.

In elections for example, choosing the president, this is a big part of any countries future, deciding which man will hold the highest authority in a country, the majority opinion is the one that is taken. Even if it was 51%. So my point is, since there is no way that every body will be happy with whatever system, then the majority should be able to choose their desired system, and the minority should be dealt with in a special manner depending on the system, to see how they can provide the minorities with their rights.

I don't think I quite follow you. Then again, politics are always something of a pain, at least to me.

One would be hard pressed to find rules that makes every one happy or having their entire expectations met, however, it could be achieved that a system would not limit someone's rights, as in their rights that doesn't hurt society in a way or another. If i didn't explain myself properly here, tell me and i'll give an example.

(About the burka ban in France)

That depends on why they banned it, Could you tell me why it was banned?

All I can tell is what I read about and what I try to deduce.

Far as I know, the Burqa has been forbidden in French schools since 2004 because it was considered too visible a religious symbol. And in June 2009 the French President explicitly made a point of discouraging its use in all of France. In January 2010 it was decreed that Burqa wearers could not use French public transport.

I'm of two minds on the matter. On the one hand, I'm a strong proponent of Secularism. On the other, I can't help but feel ill at ease with this trend.

I'm not sure i understand you here. May be you could elaborate a bit about how do you see that justice could be achieved but not through the law.

Law is basically useless to achieve Justice, because all it does is establish consequences for specific things that happen or fail to happen. It may punish and it may reward, but it does not even attempt to bring the living understanding and motivation that is needed to bring Justice into reality.

In fact, achieving true justice is one of the main reason why I believe religion to be needed. For justice can only happen by the voluntary choice of people to not be too settled into their own confort.

Also, just a clarification, I'm only talking about religion's rules as an idea, but the way it is today in some religions, including some of the assumed rules in mine, i would settle for a state that has nothing to do with religion. But, i'm discussing the concept, because i'm willing to live in an Islamic society when it is free of such added rules.

So basically i agree with you that today it is better to have things the way they are, and to just try to improve the laws that already exists. I'm just talking about the idea of an Islamic society.

Out of curiosity, how do you expect this situation to change in the future?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The UK is technically a religious government, but in actual practice seems to be quite secular as far as laws and government go.
So I wonder - why would anyone ever want a religious government? Are there better arguments that did not occur to me yet?

Today the word theocracy has a different meaning than the theocracy that the prophet Daniel believed in. Daniel and Jesus believed in God Rule or the theocracy of the Bible. Whereas today, theocracy carries the meaning of clergy rule or rule by clergy class. That is quite different from Scripture.

Under the Constitution of the Mosaic law at 2nd Chronicles 26vs16-18 the king [political] did not interfere with the priest's [religious] duties.

"Stone" is the better argument for God's kingdom or royal government to rule over earth in the hands of God's crowned acting king [ruler] Christ Jesus.
Daniel 2vs 34,45 likens God's kingdom government to a moving stone.
That 'stone' [kingdom gov't] smashes all the other existing world powers
[v 44], and it alone stands to become a great mountain [v 35] or great mountain-like theocracy placed in the hands of Christ Jesus in order to usher in world-wide Peace on Earth toward men of goodwill.

 

[Badran]

I don't think I quite follow you. Then again, politics are always something of a pain, at least to me.

Politics is a pain, and the subject here is very complicated. What i'm trying to say here, is that the majority should be allowed to have their desired system, and that the minority would be taken care of by making special rules for them to balance the situation and to give them their rights depending on how the majority system is in the first place. Of course this will be a case by case thing. It is just that i think no system will ever be suitable for everyone, and that there can't be a universal system because countries and cultures differ a lot. So i can't see a better solution.

All I can tell is what I read about and what I try to deduce.

Far as I know, the Burqa has been forbidden in French schools since 2004 because it was considered too visible a religious symbol. And in June 2009 the French President explicitly made a point of discouraging its use in all of France. In January 2010 it was decreed that Burqa wearers could not use French public transport.

I'm of two minds on the matter. On the one hand, I'm a strong proponent of Secularism. On the other, I can't help but feel ill at ease with this trend.

I'm against it then, because there is no such thing as "too visible a religious symbol". Just because something bothers me, doesn't mean i should be able to tell people what to wear.

Law is basically useless to achieve Justice, because all it does is establish consequences for specific things that happen or fail to happen. It may punish and it may reward, but it does not even attempt to bring the living understanding and motivation that is needed to bring Justice into reality.

In fact, achieving true justice is one of the main reason why I believe religion to be needed. For justice can only happen by the voluntary choice of people to not be too settled into their own confort.

That's a great concept, and would sure make the world a much better place.

Out of curiosity, how do you expect this situation to change in the future?

Well, i basically hope that Muslims who are against such rules, including me, will be able to participate in showing the rest of the Islamic society that this is not part of our religion. I'm hoping that we will be able to overcome it, in the same manner that some people through history have managed to show their community that a certain idea or act is wrong, and actually manage to change society's opinion on the matter.