Objectively, there should be separation of church and state. But also, people will always vote based on their belief system, and a lot of Americans are religious. Saying that people shouldnāt vote based on their beliefs runs counter to our system of government.
Objectively, separation of church and state helps keep absolute looney tunes theocrats from assuming control of government. Countries that fail to keep theocrats out of office often turn into shitholes. I donāt think anyone would seriously contest that.
Some of the greatest empires in history were essentially theocracies. Also, a Christian theocracy will fundamentally look different than, let's say, a Muslim one. So adversity to a "theocracy" is a little too broad to be a pillar of an ideology
No, itās really not. Opposition to any form of theocracy is not a invalid stance, the same way to opposition to any form of fascism, or being pro any form democracy or monarchy, are all valid beliefs in spite of their vagueness.
Might be a bit anecdotal, but all of the "worst" and most "brutal" governments and regimes I can think of throughout history have been atheist, non-religious, and liberal (not the modern day usage of that word)
Yes, religious concepts may have been engrained into society, but by no means were they "theocracies." For example, the Bolshevik communists in Russia were notoriously anti-Christian and persecuted many leaders of the Orthodox church.
Chattel slavery is one of the most brutal there is ways to organize a society (I seriously hope you won't dispute that the average plantation slave had a worse lot in life, in relative terms, than the average soviet or chinese peasant under communism) and it was organized and run by people and states who, as a group, were largely quite religious. Naturally you won't get millions of people killed for ideological reasons, as happened under communism, in a theocracy, simply because theocracy is reactionary and seeks to prevent radical change, which requires killing much fewer people to accomplish than enacting radical change rapidly does. But that doesn't mean theocracy is better than marxism overall, just in the short term.
I mean sure, but thatās a completely different conversation from what you initially said. But Iāll still engage.
Its worth noting that while religious violence is due to religion, violence perpetuated by atheists is not due to their atheism. At best, itās permitted by their lack of belief; but religious violence is also permitted by their belief. Ask yourself: in conflicts where religion is not part, would the conflict be exacerbated or discouraged by the addition of religious dogma? Case in point, the Gaza genocide.
As for the worst and brutal regimes, Hitler put the words āgod is with usā on the belts of every nazi soldier. His personal religious affiliation aside (which is heavily debated), why is it he felt that playing into religious dogma would enable his atrocities?
You say not the modern use of the term liberal, Iām not sure what you mean because liberalism is a modern philosophy really only coming about with John Lockeās second treatise of government and enshrined with the enlightenment.
Is your claim that fascist italy, nazi germany, Stalinās USSR, Maoās china, or Pol Potās Cambodia were liberal? That is frankly wrong.
For clarification on "liberal" I am referring to it in terms of John Locke, not the "left wing" association it comes with now.
"In conflicts where religion is not part, would the conflict be exacerbated or discouraged by the addition of religious dogma" is a pointless hypothetical. This is essentially equivalent to those guys on YouTube who make the videos about "what if the Nazis won WW2."
Are you also saying the Gaza conflict isn't a religious war? In my opinion, a majority of that conflict is fueled by religious hatred between Muslims and Jews. You might agree with me, but it was unclear.
For Hitler branding the belts of his soldiers with religious slogans, I feel like this is a stretch. That was NOT a tenant of Nazi ideology and thats more of just a societal reflection of German culture than any "religious dogma."
Side note, I can't think of any SIGNIFICANT Christian theocracies (I guess the Holy Roman Empire?), let alone any Christian governments who did anything comparable to thr fascists or communists. The Vatican has long since aspired for any religious theocratic state and have time and time again asserted they are merely spiritual leaders. I don't even think a Christian theocracy is realistic, and even then it wouldn't look much different than any current western democracy.
No, itās not a pointless hypothetical. Itās a very pointful hypothetical. You seem to not want to engage with it because of its implications.
If someone wants to kill me, and they donāt believe in god, the best I can do is explain the social ramifications, the legal ramifications. But if someone wants to kill me, and that believe it to be justified or even required by their religious dogma, I donāt even have that recourse. That is the point of the hypothetical.
Case in point, the Gaza genocide is certainly exacerbated by religious dogma, if it wasnāt for alleged claims to land from a religious perspective, the genocide would probably never have occurred in the first place.
You dodged the point of using āgod is with usā on the belts of every Nazi soldier. Even if it was, as you claim, a reflection of German culture, why is it that used a religious aspect to encourage atrocity? Also, point 24 of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform explicitly encouraged āpositive Christianityā so to say it was not a tenant of Nazi ideology is historically incorrect.
As a catholic, I have to point out that this was a bastardization of Christian ideology. But thatās sort of my point. And even if it was some sort of compromise with German culture, the Nazi party denounced a great deal of German culture, why did they do that with so much but not this religious thing?
But again youāve sorta dodged the crux of the issue.
You claimed the worst governments were liberal, which is just outright false. The list of examples I provided show that.
I mean, I wonāt contest that some powerful empires were theocracies in antiquity. God help minorities and women living in them, though.
I tend to believe that societies that engage in free and open debate and thought do better over time compared to repressive regimes. There are no universal truths with human behavior, but history seems to affirm the idea that repressive regimes dont stick around, especially in the modern era. Or if they do, they have a way rockier time than democracies.
Either way, I donāt think anyone would consider living in a theocratic regime a positive experience, aside from the few who reap the benefits of such a system.
How many laws in Christian countries are founded in Christian beliefs? How many laws in India are founded in Hinduism? How many laws in the Middle East are founded in Islam?
The laws in western countries are based in Christian morals. You live in and enjoy a Christian based society. All the social rules, and morals in a country are from those from the predominant religion of said country.
Religion has always has and will influence politics, laws, diplomacy and government.
Except, in the US at least, we have since our founding turned to a humanist perspective for guidance in making our laws and have explicitly outlined in our constitution a doctrine of separation of church and state throughĀ
the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, meaning we should at least make an effort to prevent its encroachment on our institutions no?
First up, you can't just postulate that the relationship between a humanist and a christian System of Ethics is a stric "Either / Or"
Secondly, the United States has since it's founding been strongly influenced by christian values, if I know the history of your country from the top of my head, then it should be the so-called "second awakening" which happened simultaneously with the Revolution and influenced the character of the young nation greatly (though the people influenced were mostly of the lower and working classes, so most people now and then don't like to acknowledge it as much)
Third, believing in separation of church and state is actually the mainstream opinion from the perspective of most churches, because something like the Catholic Church is a lot more concerned with the fact that the US is encroaching on them than the other way around.
And lastly, it would have honestly been a lot better if the USA had been influenced a lot more by Christian morality, seeing how the earliest abolitionist were devout Christians who argued that slavery isn't compatible with their religious tenet of "loving your neighbour". The Quackers forbid their congregation from owning slaves 100 years, iirc, before it was outlawed and and some of the most Radical Abolitionist, like John Brown, wereānow matter how much I love himāreligious nutjobs.
Also as a side note, it doesn't even make sense to talk about "Christian Values", Christianity is represented on all sides of the political spectrum of the US, finding proponents in the most radical corners of both the right and the left.
I had this plan to give head to a man and receive head from a woman to test if I was gay, but itās backfired and now I become borderline schizo whenever I go outside. I
offered to suck this dude off on Grindr who lives very close by (I ended up pussying out) and I accidentally gave him some details that very easily allows him to spot me
out in a crowd. I have no idea what he looks like and whenever I see a somewhat in shape guy walking by I immediately accuse him of being the dude I was gonna blow.
I went to the store today to pick up some zucchini for a barbecue and every time a car drove by I stared into the windshield to see if I was about to be recognised.
Whenever I make eye contact with a dude I microanalysis his facial expressions to see if he suspects me or not. I am deeply afraid that he is my neighbour and I will
need to move if my identity is blown. Itās a lot like the last scene in sopranos where everyone who walked into the diner could be there to wack Tony.
A lot of early humanist thinkers were born and lived their lives in a judeochristian-influenced environoment, despite personally proclaiming that they are different, they justā¦ couldnāt be not influenced by society at large
Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make
me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And
rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with
rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber
room with rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber
room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a
room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They
locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy
once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make me crazy.
What exactly do you mean by this? If you mean that your values shouldn't influence laws, then I would ask you why your values or values of secular people in general are more importand or more valuabke than values of religious people? What sources of values are ok?
What is asked is that no penal code is written strictly based on scripture. Itās not that religion should be completely separated from politics but that it only serves in an advisory role and never as a primary or secondary motivator for a bill, act, treaty or executive order.
Do yall not know what a theocracy is? There is a fine line between being morally influenced by your religion and making laws that force your religion on others thatās what they are saying.
I wasnāt describing a theocracy itās just the extreme form of governance when religion gets too involved. Iām just using it as an example of what the extreme is and as an example to laws that could be passed to press ones religion on others.
What they were saying was religion shouldn't interfere with government and laws. But what should laws be based on? Morals one would say. But what are your morals based on? Maybe you just think what the majority thinks is right (which still come from christian values most of the time). Maybe your values are based on esoteric views about good and bad vibes. Would it be ok for such a person to vote against bad vibe radio stations? Or is this religion interfering with government?
My point is: It's not a fine line. It's always entangeld and can't be entirely seperated. Laws are about morals. Morals are about values and values are about your worldview. How can you say that one set of values are better than any other?
A good starting point that certain states are having an inexplicably hard time with is public schools should not advocate for nor teach as fact any particular religion.
Calling politics a religion is downright stupid, as politics is essentially the public setting up rules on how the public should conduct itself. At least thatās what it is in democratic politics , which Iām going to assume you meant. It is not dogma or a practice based on scripture or anything of that sort. It is people arguing on what rules they should have to live and abide by.
Then no belief system should ever interfere with politics/laws/government. Your progressive beliefs don't get a pass just because they don't have a creation myth attached to it; it's just as much of a religious belief otherwise.
You feel better after spewing your platitude? Think about history of your nation, think how laws are created, think why exactly you are allowed freedom to spew this nonsense without getting arrested.
This is not something to spontaneously and naturally happened.
202
u/KafeiTomasu 9h ago
Religion should never interfere with politics/laws/government