The role of religion in the state: theocracy, secularism or state atheism?

[Glaurung]

We have number two here. It's not all that great. Instead of "beautiful temples" you can get something like this:

Modernist church architecture really ought to be declared a sin.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I voted for the 4th ("The state should be neutral regards religion and allow each person freedom of religion"), but I was tempted to vote for the 3rd because of the issues of "hate speech" and verbal threats to do harm.

Same here.

 

[Aštra’el]

We have number two here.

Not really, no, but I can see why you might think that.

 

[Jumi]

Not really, no, but I can see why you might think that.

I mean this is the product of the state religion here in my country.

 

[Altfish]

I can't go for number 3 as it is in effect an excuse for blasphemy laws.
#6 for me.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Not sure I understand the difference between 'irreligious' and 'neutral'. 'Neutral' sounds friendlier so I voted 'The state should be neutral regards religion and allow each person freedom of religion'.
The government should only be involved when some civil law is broken.

What if civil law included the banning of the Bible ? - Acts of the Apostles 5:29
What if some freedom-of-religion people wanted to offer up a child to their god like the religious people of Jeremiah 32:35; 2 Chronicles 28:3 ?

 

[George-ananda]

What if civil law included the banning of the Bible ? - Acts of the Apostles 5:29

Then I would say this is not the religiously neutral state I voted for.

What if some freedom-of-religion people wanted to offer up a child to their god like the religious people of Jeremiah 32:35; 2 Chronicles 28:3 ?

This would be illegal by civil laws banning murder and also violating child protection laws.

 

[Yerda]

@Laika

If the state is to preserve freedom of religion it must counter extremist/intolerant views. No?

 

[LuisDantas]

I would have been tempted to vote for this if there was a way to determine what is intolerant or extremist.

There are plenty of ways. It just isn't possible to get everyone to agree on the answers. While inconvenient, that is a reality that must be dealt with nonetheless.

think allowing and protecting the freedom of religion for each person automatically takes care of cases where an intolerant view tries to force a religion on another.

Unfortunately, in practice that fairly complicated. Among other reasons, because many a person embraces extremist religion out of family or peer pressure combined with some measure of plain ignorance.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can't go for number 3 as it is in effect an excuse for blasphemy laws.
#6 for me.

Isn't it the other way around?

 

[LuisDantas]

@Laika

If the state is to preserve freedom of religion it must counter extremist/intolerant views. No?

What about extremist religion?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The state should be neutral, and allow freedom of religion, but with certain restrictions. Such as, you have to take your kid to the doctor when they're sick, you cannot perform any body modifications on a non-consenting child, you cannot use religion as an excuse to commit crimes or discriminate, and you cannot protest at a funeral or burial.

 

[Laika]

@Laika

If the state is to preserve freedom of religion it must counter extremist/intolerant views. No?

To an extent yes. The goal of religious freedom has to be accepted as the dominant ideology. However that should only be when the state faces an existential threat so it can no longer secure those freedoms. For the most part extremist views alone pose little or no threat to a system as long as they are marginalised.

Freedom is for the individual and not for the state- so freedom of religion generally includes freedom for extreme religious beliefs as long as people don't act to harm others. On an individual level, Actions speak louder than words. It gets more complicated when you start getting mass movements against individual rights (whether religious or irreligious) as the state cannot protect those rights to the point where people destroy them. I think its called the "paradox of tolerance".

 

[Yerda]

To an extent yes. The goal of religious freedom has to be accepted as the dominant ideology. However that should only be when the state faces an existential threat so it can no longer secure those freedoms. For the most part extremist views alone pose little or no threat to a system as long as they are marginalised

I would argue that extremist views only need to present a threat to individual religious freedom to be a problem. The bullying/persecution/intimidation of members of religious minorities by other factions in a society seems to me to present an unacceptable threat to religious freedom and should be countered by the state. This is what I mean.

 

[Augustus]

I would argue that extremist views only need to present a threat to individual religious freedom to be a problem. The bullying/persecution/intimidation of members of religious minorities by other factions in a society seems to me to present an unacceptable threat to religious freedom and should be countered by the state. This is what I mean.

You might be interested in this: "The most intolerant wins"

 

[Yerda]

You might be interested in this: "The most intolerant wins"

Looks really interesting. Thanks, man.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It gets to a grey area when religious views affect govt administration and performance of duties. There's also an issue involving a representative system of Goverment and how such a system would be received by those who find their religious convictions challenged in making decisions that may go against their religious principles while in Goverment office.

 

[Altfish]

Isn't it the other way around?

I didn't interpret it that way?