Which offers a better way of life: A uniformly religious country or one that ensures individual rights?

Answer 1

Individual rights. Which is, of course, why people came here in the first place and what the framers of the Constitution intended. Contrary to popular opinion of late, they were not all Christian nor were they trying to establish a Christian country.

Answer 2

Clearly, being forced to follow a religion you do not believe in would provide for a very poor quality of life. As a uniformly religious United States would require at least 35% of the population to do so, I could hardly say a uniformly religious country would offer a better way of life.

Answer 3

A uniformly religious country doesnt nessisarily overlook people's "rights" that would depend on what religion the country followed. There are a lot of "God Given" rights in Christianity and yes there are restrictions as well, but a country with NO law would be a bad thing.

If a country ensures individual rights, you come into the problems that this country and other similar countries come into. At what point do we say "you do not have this right"? If we are free to practice any religion we want the way we want, does that include a religion that believes this country is the great Satan and needs to be destroyed by this religion? What if a religion regards all brown eyes people as demons? Or a religion that refuses to pay taxes?

Uniformity doesnt have to be a bad thing, at least things wouldnt be tied up in court for years seeing if what someone did really IS their right.

Answer 4

Individual rights, completely and absolutely.

Heck, I don't even deal well with RELIGIONS that dictate a uniformly religious dogma, I definitely wouldn't want to live in a country that tried to do the same.

Answer 5

If "a uniformly non-religous country" was a choice, I'd pick that. If not, well, one that ensures individual rights offers a better way of life.

Answer 6

FREEDOM is always best. I think it was Ben Franklin who said "If we are going to err, let us err on the side of FREEDOM."
And they were inspired by the Christian concept that God gave everyone a choice, if they choose wrong, that's between them and God alone.
But in every purely secular state (and communism is a sect) there is hardly freedom of any kind, look at China, North Korea and Burma/Mynamar where the policy towards Christians is basically "flee or die", and for all we hear about the plight of Palestinians, I notice there is a driving out of all non-muslims now taking place in the Middle East, despite the evident historical fact they, as a people and culture, were there first. I'm not taking sides, all faiths must live together peacefully because technology no longer allows humanity the luxury of all out war.

Answer 7

Let's see: stagnation vs. variety. Homogeniety vs. diversity. The idea that any society COULD have a truly uniform religion is a myth in the first place - one that actual history has exploded a thousand times. Even if we're all nominally "Christian," no two individuals share the same conception of Christianity. We're all "heretics" simply by virtue of having considered the question from our own unique points-of-view. Not only has mankind created God in its image - but EVERY man and every woman re-creates God in his or her own particular image. And this is how it should be: the only problem is in the assumption that we ought to be "uniform," who were created diverse.

P.S. - It's all well and good to reverently subpoena select quotes of the Founding Fathers to one's defense of the notion that America is or should be a "Christian Nation" - but the irony is that the very democracy that the Fathers instituted leaves any wiseacre free to question whether, supposing they actually believed as much, they were correct in so believing. Basing all one's arguments on the Constitution, as if the Truths Of All Time were enshrined therein, is exactly like basing all one's arguments on the Bible.

Answer 8

The one that ensures individual right has greater potential, but the country and citizens need to balance rights with responsiblilities. In this case, religions need to understand and support the responsiblity to not wage war or violence on others of different beliefs.

Answer 9

Being human as the world is, and when you study uniform religion past and present, it is a nice idea

BUT

it is not practical or safe.

You would have religious persecution such as in the dark ages.

So individual rights are best.

Answer 10

individual rights.
In fact, I would argue that if a country is uniformly religious, particularly if it's an exclusive religion that claims to hold the "one truth", then you have a built-in challenge to individual rights.