Democracy guarentees freedom of religion, how would this change under your rule?
2007-09-20 21:15:17 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
SSejychan you just said you would like to change democracy, but you didn't say how. Maybe I should rephrase my question.
2007-09-20 21:23:49 · update #1
I would keep the freedom and am all for people doing what they want religiously. However, I would institute a further separation of church and state to keep religion completely out of government.
I would also attempt to keep religion out of politics and try, although it would be very difficult, to elect politicians based on character and platform instead of their faith.
2007-09-20 22:02:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Democracy does not guarantee freedom of religion. The Constitution recognizes, basically, that the people have the right to religion and religious beliefs while prohibiting the government from establishing/sponsoring a state religion. I think most atheists would be supportive of the rights recognized under the Constitution? Not sure what you mean by 'achieve your ends' or 'under your rule'...but I think most atheists support the people's right to believe or not believe as they see fit?
2007-09-21 04:27:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Democracy should not be changed.
I believe in freedom of religion, its just that an intelligent population with good education systems would gravitate unstoppably to atheism. Anyone who understands science will become dissatisfied with supernatural explanations.
Maybe I should add that democracy in the US is in a terrible state and there doesnt seem to be much freedom FROM religion - the ten commandments in that court house? Shameful. The constitution guaranteed a secular state with a clear separation between church and state and it is being violated.
2007-09-21 05:09:46 · answer #3 · answered by Leviathan 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Restore it to what the founding fathers intended. A wholly secular government.
No - "In God we trust" on currency.
Give people freedom of religion, but pour tons of money into government projects designed to discover the truth behind the world's religions and find out what is historically viable and which things are true. I would do this with archaeology, history, geology...
The objective wouldn't be to disprove Christianity, Islam, Judaism (although that would eventually be what would happen), but to discover all the evidences necessary to determine what is a reasonable belief.
Other than that, I would lean towards an Ayn Rand Objectivist political philosophy. People who denigrate it, simply do not understand it.
It is merely the use of REASON over every other scheme.
2007-09-21 04:31:24 · answer #4 · answered by John Galt 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best we have so far. The US Constitution guarantees freedom of worship, which means we also have freedom FROM worship (a point the religionists conveniently ignore).
Given that the guarantee already exists, and with good reason, I see no reason to change it. As long as we have the clause wherein Congress is prohibited from establishing a state religion, we're safe from screwball beliefs being made into laws. That doesn't stop the religionists from trying. I guess it gives them the opportunity to whine about being "persecuted" every time they try to get their biblical fairy tales made into laws or taught as science in publicly funded schools, and getting thwarted by the Constitution. It's often fun to watch.
There are folks in our country who want to turn our free society into a Christian version of Iran. It's important to be vigilant.
2007-09-21 04:47:55 · answer #5 · answered by link955 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I’m with HypnoToad - religion should be treated like the business it is.
It’d soon sort out who was doing what for whom and for which reasons.
I thought PullMyFinger was doing satire – he wasn’t – he’s the scary type of person we have to fear if the theists get more laws empowered.
Actually, I’m not a USian so I’m not concerned about the US becoming more theistic.
I reckon it’d be great.
ALL Medical and Technology research and development will go out of US and the scientists will follow as will every other person of any intelligence.
They can come to Oz – we don’t do religion much over here; it’s a bit of a joke.
.
2007-09-21 05:08:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think i would change the freedom of religion bit. If people want to believe in something, then go ahead, be my guest. I don't really mind. However, when this belief begins impinging directly on my life, then that is crossing the line, and i would try to change something about that.
edit: how would i change it? well, i'm not sure. I don't know enough about politics and government to really know how things work 'up there'. But, i'm sure i'll be able to give you an answer in a couple of years. =)
2007-09-21 04:20:02 · answer #7 · answered by SSejychan 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Acheive our ends? Crap, I knew we shouldn't have let that loudmouth Moore into the Cabal. He's obviously unable to keep our secrets.
Seriously, though, this is a BS question.
What I WOULD like personally though is for the FEC to establish a rule that any candidate who makes his or her faith a center-point to his or her candidacy is violating Article VI, Section 3 of the US Constitution.
What do you think, fellow atheists? Can we put that on the agenda for the next meeting?
2007-09-21 05:10:28 · answer #8 · answered by some_mystery_for_u 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Huh? I'm all for individual freedom of religion or belief or nonbelief. I just think no one belief system should be favored or promoted in public spaces or the education system since these should be shared by people of diverse beliefs. People should always be free to believe what they wish and live in accordance with it but not to impose their beliefs on others who don't share them. That is where I draw the line but I thought that was how it is supposed to be anyway.
2007-09-21 04:24:02 · answer #9 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Like you say, democracy guarantees freedom of religion. Now, can you tell me, why some theists insisted on putting their divine figurehead in the government?
2007-09-21 04:24:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋