The poll is intended to see how people approach the relationship between religion and the state. The responses are deliberately vague and open so as not to prejudice each view or stigmatise them by association with particular religions, ideologies or governments.
The first two options say that the state should be religious, but differ on whether this is binding on the population, representing a "theocratic" view. So for example if someone said that the US should be a Christian nation and run according to biblical laws, that would be an example. You can use this to refer to any religion of your choice btw.
The third and fourth represent secular views that the state should be neutral. However, the third makes a distinction to restrict freedom of religion when religion (or irreligious/anti-religious) beliefs are extreme and intolerant. Secularism is pretty familiar such as in the USA or France, with a separation of church and state and individual freedom of religion but with different interpretations on how far this should go,
The fifth and sixth describe a state that is irreligious, broadly referred to as "state atheist" (it's deliberately vague through but countries like China and the USSR are more extreme members of this category). again, I have left degrees for whether this is binding on the population.
I'm expecting most people will opt for the third or fourth option as secularism is a relatively settled and Uncontroversial view. (I may eat those words though as RF could go ahead and surprise me).Though what people decide on how far a state is religious, neutral or irreligious will be interesting and perhaps quite diverse. So a lot of room for different opinion.
The first two options say that the state should be religious, but differ on whether this is binding on the population, representing a "theocratic" view. So for example if someone said that the US should be a Christian nation and run according to biblical laws, that would be an example. You can use this to refer to any religion of your choice btw.
The third and fourth represent secular views that the state should be neutral. However, the third makes a distinction to restrict freedom of religion when religion (or irreligious/anti-religious) beliefs are extreme and intolerant. Secularism is pretty familiar such as in the USA or France, with a separation of church and state and individual freedom of religion but with different interpretations on how far this should go,
The fifth and sixth describe a state that is irreligious, broadly referred to as "state atheist" (it's deliberately vague through but countries like China and the USSR are more extreme members of this category). again, I have left degrees for whether this is binding on the population.
I'm expecting most people will opt for the third or fourth option as secularism is a relatively settled and Uncontroversial view. (I may eat those words though as RF could go ahead and surprise me
).Though what people decide on how far a state is religious, neutral or irreligious will be interesting and perhaps quite diverse. So a lot of room for different opinion. Voted for option 6. The state should be irreligious but allow each person freedom of religion. Claiming the state is neutral in terms of religion is a tad bizarre as it is impossible to entirely separate religion and politics in practical terms, even if the law says otherwise. "Morality" plays a crucial role in how we make political decisions (and so should science) and so is inescapably part of political life. It should however be irreligious in so far as it is backed up by reason, evidence and scientific argument- not scripture or individual myths,superstitions and traditions- simply on the grounds of rationality. To an extent you need an irreligious state to have an effective democracy as in order for everyone to have some political power people have to make decisions based on what they anticipate their consequences will be, not simply putting faith in their good intentions. You need an enlightened populace to exercise power or else they become a danger to their own liberties. Religion is not necessary wrong- but I'd prefer independent confirmation of the validity of religious ideas rather than taking it on faith. Religion can also be a vehicle for authoritarianism by insisting the only one person or group has the answers, but at the same time- state atheism has a long history of abuses so individual religious freedoms have to be protected.
