Why is a State Religion a bad idea ?

[Neotrotsky]

So laws to believe something bother you

 

[bodecea]

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....

Look to the Puritans in Salem and Boston for your answer.

 

[bodecea]

How are you not free from religion ?

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

A state religion would prevent that freedom...if not at first, eventually.

 

[catzmeow]

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 already have a state religion. It's deism.

 

[High_Gravity]

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....

Look at the countries that have a state religion, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc. see how fucked up things are there? no thank you.

 

[High_Gravity]

How are you not free from religion ?

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

A state religion would prevent that freedom...if not at first, eventually.

Yup.

 

[High_Gravity]

I don't get why religious people want to force everyone else to follow their faith? nobody is stopping you from being a religious Muslim, Hindu, Baptist or whatever the hell you are in this country stop trying to shove your faith down my throat.

 

[jillian]

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

1. theocracy is anti-statist since it would be the church running things.
2. whose church? whose belief system? i say mine.... prove me wrong.
3. i don't think anyone objects to religious decorations if different beliefs are represented fairly. there is, however, a difference between a creche or a cross, and a christmas tree.
4. the position you take is counter to our first amendment, in any event, because the whole point was the majority would ALWAYS vote for their own religion. It was intended to protect the rest of us from that type of tyranny of the majority.
5. that being the case, you know the majority would never vote them out.
6. you wouldn't be taking the position you do if muslims were the majority.

so there ya go.

 

[jillian]

I don't get why religious people want to force everyone else to follow their faith? nobody is stopping you from being a religious Muslim, Hindu, Baptist or whatever the hell you are in this country stop trying to shove your faith down my throat.

they're "saving" us.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look at the countries that have a state religion, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc. see how fucked up things are there? no thank you.

How about... the UK?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Why is a state religion a bad idea? Look at the countries who have them for your answer.

Even in Tibet, the state religion was Buddhism, and it supported fiefdoms, or feudal society centered around the monasteries.

It created the causes and conditions for China to take over.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why is a state religion a bad idea? Look at the countries who have them for your answer.

Yes - lets look at these hell-holes:

Andorra
Bahamas
Argentina
Denmark
Finland
Iceland
Norway
United Kingdom
Italy
Liechtenstein
Greece
Luxembourg
Malta
Portugal
Spain

http://www.nber.org/papers/w10438.pdf?new_window=1

 

[catzmeow]

I don't get why religious people want to force everyone else to follow their faith? nobody is stopping you from being a religious Muslim, Hindu, Baptist or whatever the hell you are in this country stop trying to shove your faith down my throat.

Religious folks are like Amway representatives. They're always trying to build their pyramid.

 

[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

1. theocracy is anti-statist since it would be the church running things.
2. whose church? whose belief system? i say mine.... prove me wrong.
3. i don't think anyone objects to religious decorations if different beliefs are represented fairly. there is, however, a difference between a creche or a cross, and a christmas tree.
4. the position you take is counter to our first amendment, in any event, because the whole point was the majority would ALWAYS vote for their own religion. It was intended to protect the rest of us from that type of tyranny of the majority.
5. that being the case, you know the majority would never vote them out.
6. you wouldn't be taking the position you do if muslims were the majority.

so there ya go.

1) Actually, the gov't would be running things in name of religion
It would be still be a statist form of gov't
2) sure
3) I don't think most reasonable people care about those things either
4) I would not agree; the 1st allows for free exercise of religion
and holiday decorations are not gov't establishing a religion
5) majority tends to rule; but one can not predict that behavior
6) How do what religion I am or for that matter what I really think?

But I can tell you this, if this was a Muslim dominated country
we would probably not be having this conversation

so there ya go

 

[Neotrotsky]

How are you not free from religion ?

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

A state religion would prevent that freedom...if not at first, eventually.

Agree

but that says more about the power of gov't than religion

 

[Moonglow]

I am not interested in having any form of religion forced upon me or to live in a nation that has a religious preference. I want religion to keep to itself and I will also.

 

[Sky Dancer]

We've moved decidedly in the direction of a Christian theocracy. If you want to know why state religion is a bad idea, look to the Middle East. Then consider, having a Christian Taliban.

It's there in the anti-abortion, prayer in the schools, teaching creationism and anti-gay rights movements. Hiding in plain sight.

Did you know Pat Robertson considered GWB the first American Dominonist Regent?

 

[there4eyeM]

For many Americans, America itself is like a religion. They have an image of it and believe it is the truth and that it is always right. it is impossible to pose any question that can even vaguely be interpreted as casting doubt.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I am not interested in having any form of religion forced upon me or to live in a nation that has a religious preference. I want religion to keep to itself and I will also.

Agree, by gov't

but it is the forcing or as Locke
said about the social contract

government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....​

But if one feels that gov't can force other things
what is the "litmus" test for that thing?

 

[Neotrotsky]

1. theocracy is anti-statist since it would be the church running things.
2. whose church? whose belief system? i say mine.... prove me wrong.
3. i don't think anyone objects to religious decorations if different beliefs are represented fairly. there is, however, a difference between a creche or a cross, and a christmas tree.
4. the position you take is counter to our first amendment, in any event, because the whole point was the majority would ALWAYS vote for their own religion. It was intended to protect the rest of us from that type of tyranny of the majority.
5. that being the case, you know the majority would never vote them out.
6. you wouldn't be taking the position you do if muslims were the majority.

so there ya go.

1) Actually, the gov't would be running things in name of religion
It would be still be a statist form of gov't
2) sure
3) I don't think most reasonable people care about those things either
4) I would not agree; the 1st allows for free exercise of religion
and holiday decorations are not gov't establishing a religion
5) majority tends to rule; but one can not predict that behavior
6) How do what religion I am or for that matter what I really think?

But I can tell you this, if this was a Muslim dominated country
we would not be having this conversation

so there ya go

That has nothing to do with your OP, you are straying, please keep on subject.

Not at all- it is quite in the topic
I was responding to the poster points
but thanks for the concern