Why is a State Religion a bad idea ?

[Neotrotsky]

For the record, I DO NOT believe there should be a State Religion
and I believe most people do, as well.

Why is it "bad" or why do you think it is bad ?

But as Locke argued and as I believe,
the government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....

 

[Darkwind]

For the record, I DO NOT believe there should be a State Religion
and I believe most people do, as well.

Why is it "bad" or why do you think it is bad ?

But as Locke argued and as I believe,
the government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....

We have enough problems interpreting the laws WE right.

The Churches (and I'm a Christian) more often than not, have the right idea, but no documentation to back them up that can pass a thorough examination. While most honest scholars will give credence to much of what the Bible says and what happened in the First Century, there is enough obscurity to give doubter an opening.

Perhaps that is the intent of the Lord, to test who will believe and who will not, but that isn't really what this thread is about.

Given all that, politicians already lie about what laws say, imagine the lies if they started talking about what God meant!

 

[Vidi]

For the record, I DO NOT believe there should be a State Religion
and I believe most people do, as well.

Why is it "bad" or why do you think it is bad ?

But as Locke argued and as I believe,
the government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....

The story of Henry the Eighth and his daughters should be enough warning for us. With the common man caught in the crossfire, the English crown switched religions back and forth and then put to death the "heretics" that followed the father or the rival sibling, using the "faith" as an excuse. A difference in dogma became a treasonous act.

If the State chooses a religion, than any deviation from the religion ends with burning people at the stake or hangings.

Imagine if Romney were elected and then proclaimed that Mormonism was the official state religion. That EVERYONE must convert or be tried for treason.

Or it turned out Obama really was a secret Muslim and proclaimed America an Islamic state outlawing all other faiths and then arresting, jailing and putting to death anyone who refused to convert?

That is what a State religion becomes.

We enjoy a freedom here that must NEVER be compromised. We are free to worship ( or not ) as we please without the fear of punishment from an opressive monarch or regime.

We should protect that with our lives.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Theocracy is , no doubt a statist form of gov't

However, I see nothing wrong with local gov'ts or federal for that matter
putting up religious decorations that represent the different faiths.
I really do not view that as a "state" religion but more as a reflection of the political body.
If the people are upset by it then they can vote accordingly


Up to the mid 1800's, some states actually had an official state religion since
it was not allowed at the Federal level but that did not exclude states from doing it

 

[Darkwind]

Theocracy is , no doubt a statist form of gov't

However, I see nothing wrong with local gov'ts or federal for that matter
putting up religious decorations that represent the different faiths.
If the people are upset by it then they can vote accordingly


Up to the mid 1800's, some states actually had an official state religion since
it was not allowed at the Federal level but that did not exclude states from doing it

Well, now your talking an entire different thing. Allowing the 'citizens' to express their religious beliefs is a far cry from government dictating religion.

The former, by law, cannot be restricted...the latter should be fought by everyone.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Agree

I was just making a point

Some do argue that such things are a De facto, State Religion

 

[Vidi]

Theocracy is , no doubt a statist form of gov't

However, I see nothing wrong with local gov'ts or federal for that matter
putting up religious decorations that represent the different faiths.
If the people are upset by it then they can vote accordingly


Up to the mid 1800's, some states actually had an official state religion since
it was not allowed at the Federal level but that did not exclude states from doing it

Well, now your talking an entire different thing. Allowing the 'citizens' to express their religious beliefs is a far cry from government dictating religion.

The former, by law, cannot be restricted...the latter should be fought by everyone.

Agreed.

The annual war over Christmas sucks the life out of everything every damned year.

There is NO WAY to please everyone. If one is in the minority one must simply accept the fact that the majority is going to cater to its own belief system and by doing so is NOT marginalizing or negating your beliefs.

oh...and when did Happy Holidays become a damned warcry???? We used to use it to encompass both Christmas and New Years. Sigh....

 

[Darkwind]

Theocracy is , no doubt a statist form of gov't

However, I see nothing wrong with local gov'ts or federal for that matter
putting up religious decorations that represent the different faiths.
If the people are upset by it then they can vote accordingly


Up to the mid 1800's, some states actually had an official state religion since
it was not allowed at the Federal level but that did not exclude states from doing it

Well, now your talking an entire different thing. Allowing the 'citizens' to express their religious beliefs is a far cry from government dictating religion.

The former, by law, cannot be restricted...the latter should be fought by everyone.

Agreed.

The annual war over Christmas sucks the life out of everything every damned year.

There is NO WAY to please everyone. If one is in the minority one must simply accept the fact that the majority is going to cater to its own belief system and by doing so is NOT marginalizing or negating your beliefs.

oh...and when did Happy Holidays become a damned warcry???? We used to use it to encompass both Christmas and New Years. Sigh....

Beats Me..but when someone says, Happy Holidays to Me, I say (always) Merry Christmas..

No one has ever been offended by it..

Imagine that.

 

[Avatar4321]

A Simple reason. The Scriptures teach us that God wants a willing heart and a willing mind. The government only works with the use of force. If we believe the scriptures then empowering the government to force people to believe is contrary to God's commandments. The scriptures are clear "Choose this day whom you will serve." It is a privilege and opportunity to serve God. We are blessed when we geniunely serve Him and not when it's forced upon us.

 

[Political Junky]

It's worked out so well in Iran, hasn't it?

 

[BDBoop]

How would it be enforced, this non-existent "State religion?"

 

[Neotrotsky]

How would it be enforced, this non-existent "State religion?"

Well

it would be enforced by the gov't like anything else.

Depending on how the gov't wanted it followed,
you could have hard or soft enforcement.

I assume you to believe it bad, as I do.
So why is a State Religion bad to you?

As I said earlier, I agree with Locke that the gov't
does not belong in the individual conscience, as general rule.

Surely, we all agree on some areas of gov't function.
For myself, it is the areas of public goods and things like
natural monopolies, etc. In such cases, a free market requires
gov't.

But now we step out into other areas,
what makes religion more special than anything else
to be enforced.

 

[Neotrotsky]

For the record, I DO NOT believe there should be a State Religion
and I believe most people do, as well.

Why is it "bad" or why do you think it is bad ?

But as Locke argued and as I believe,
the government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....

The story of Henry the Eighth and his daughters should be enough warning for us. With the common man caught in the crossfire, the English crown switched religions back and forth and then put to death the "heretics" that followed the father or the rival sibling, using the "faith" as an excuse. A difference in dogma became a treasonous act.

If the State chooses a religion, than any deviation from the religion ends with burning people at the stake or hangings.

Imagine if Romney were elected and then proclaimed that Mormonism was the official state religion. That EVERYONE must convert or be tried for treason.

Or it turned out Obama really was a secret Muslim and proclaimed America an Islamic state outlawing all other faiths and then arresting, jailing and putting to death anyone who refused to convert?

That is what a State religion becomes.

We enjoy a freedom here that must NEVER be compromised. We are free to worship ( or not ) as we please without the fear of punishment from an opressive monarch or regime.

We should protect that with our lives.

I agree

The power of the state can be strong.

But, what makes religion special or different from say any other law or
is it only in religion that gov't would become especially oppressive?

 

[FA_Q2]

Simple – giving the government the keys to claim whatever they want is moral and whatever they want is immoral is simply crazy. It essentially allows the government to do anything it pleases and then justify it. It is the reason that theocracies tend to be so bloody: it is all justified as they see it.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Simple – giving the government the keys to claim whatever they want is moral and whatever they want is immoral is simply crazy. It essentially allows the government to do anything it pleases and then justify it. It is the reason that theocracies tend to be so bloody: it is all justified as they see it.

I agree.

But the gov't claims now what is moral and immoral, does it not?
Quite frankly, the gov't can do anything it wants and justify it, already.

Do you feel that it is too much power to give the gov't over an individual?

 

[JoeB131]

A Simple reason. The Scriptures teach us that God wants a willing heart and a willing mind. The government only works with the use of force. If we believe the scriptures then empowering the government to force people to believe is contrary to God's commandments. The scriptures are clear "Choose this day whom you will serve." It is a privilege and opportunity to serve God. We are blessed when we geniunely serve Him and not when it's forced upon us.

For most of history, CHurch and State went hand in hand. The notion of freedom of religion and separation of Church and State is a relatively recent one.

I'm still waiting for freedom FROM religion, the only true freedom there is.

 

[Neotrotsky]

How are you not free from religion ?

True freedom would allow for both to exist
believers and non believers, would it not?

 

[FA_Q2]

Simple – giving the government the keys to claim whatever they want is moral and whatever they want is immoral is simply crazy. It essentially allows the government to do anything it pleases and then justify it. It is the reason that theocracies tend to be so bloody: it is all justified as they see it.

I agree.

But the gov't claims now what is moral and immoral, does it not?
Quite frankly, the gov't can do anything it wants and justify it, already.

Do you feel that it is too much power to give the gov't over an individual?

That is far too much power but I disagree with your sentiment that the government now can justify whatever it does. It TRIES, but we are here to stop such things. When you have the religion under your control, peoplels everlasting soul in the balance, you have the most powerful tool on erath: blind devotion.

Most of the problems we face today, IMHO, can be traced directly back to the fact that people really are not paying attention anymore though and that is why it seems the government can justify anything. Most are content to be sheepeople. I had a coworker that I asked his opinion on a few of the things discussed here (debt ceiling, sequestration and the like) and all I got was a blank stare. He had no idea what was going on. More so, sequestration is going to have a huge effect on him and he still was clueless. His reasoning? None of that was important, it really did not matter. Now the sports scores from the night before, he had those memorized.


Our founders never actually set the government up with the idea that we would have an uniformed voting population. I think the idea did not even occur to them.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Simple – giving the government the keys to claim whatever they want is moral and whatever they want is immoral is simply crazy. It essentially allows the government to do anything it pleases and then justify it. It is the reason that theocracies tend to be so bloody: it is all justified as they see it.

I agree.

But the gov't claims now what is moral and immoral, does it not?
Quite frankly, the gov't can do anything it wants and justify it, already.

Do you feel that it is too much power to give the gov't over an individual?

That is far too much power but I disagree with your sentiment that the government now can justify whatever it does. It TRIES, but we are here to stop such things. When you have the religion under your control, peoplels everlasting soul in the balance, you have the most powerful tool on erath: blind devotion.

Most of the problems we face today, IMHO, can be traced directly back to the fact that people really are not paying attention anymore though and that is why it seems the government can justify anything. Most are content to be sheepeople. I had a coworker that I asked his opinion on a few of the things discussed here (debt ceiling, sequestration and the like) and all I got was a blank stare. He had no idea what was going on. More so, sequestration is going to have a huge effect on him and he still was clueless. His reasoning? None of that was important, it really did not matter. Now the sports scores from the night before, he had those memorized.


Our founders never actually set the government up with the idea that we would have an uniformed voting population. I think the idea did not even occur to them.

Agree

But some things of the "American experience" hang on
from tradition and education.
For example, most would argue that state religion is no good
and state most of the reasons why...

Yet a lot of these people would turn around and give the same power
to the state for other things....

 

[JoeB131]

How are you not free from religion ?

True freedom would allow for both to exist
believers and non believers, would it not?

When you guys (and no, I don't mean you personally) are advocating laws purely on the basis of "My Magic Sky Friends says we should do it this way" the I am not free from religion.