By secular state I mean one in which government and religion don't interfere with one another.
By theocracy I mean one in which the laws are based on religious practices (and there is an official religion).
By an "atheist state" (which isn't a real term) I mean one that has laws banning religion.
Which of these would you prefer to live in, and why? Also, feel free to state your religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
Personally, I would like a secular state. I have no problem with what people believe, but I don't think religious beliefs ought to interfere with policy decisions.
2007-12-10 02:17:57 · 35 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Secular, of course. Though, you'll find that many religious people equate "secular state" with "atheist state". I definitely do not think religion should be banned. It just shouldn't be given special privilege.
I also do not mind if religious beliefs affect policy decisions. When a person is elected, that person brings with him or her all the background that makes up the person's outlook on life and moral upbringing. You cannot really separate a person's beliefs from the person. However, you should try to elect people with a similar moral outlook and political expertise to do the job well.
I draw the line at government supporting religion. While it is fine for a politician to say "I think that is wrong because of my religious beliefs", it is over the line to say, "This should be passed because this is a Christian nation". In the first, the person is stating personal beliefs. In the second, the person is speaking for the state.
In short, a person should be allowed their own beliefs. However, the person shouldn't be able to leverage government to give their religion a leg up. And I believe that no matter what a person's personal beliefs are, that person should be able to put any issue in terms of reason, logic and evidence and not just "God said so".
An example of this is "stealing". Most religions push the idea that stealing is bad. However, this does not make stealing a religious issue. There are also many secular reasons why stealing is bad. Society wouldn't function as well if people didn't respect each other's right to own property. One could even argue that the idea of stealing being bad predates any religion. So, while a person might hold that stealing is bad because they think "God said so", in a political office they would have to speak to a more general population on why stealing is bad. Since not everybody believes in a god, or even if they do, not THAT god, you have to frame issues like stealing in terms that everybody can understand and discuss.
2007-12-10 02:20:49 · answer #1 · answered by nondescript 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
A secular state. A theocracy would be terrible, there would be fighting over which religion is in power. An atheist state would ban freedom of religion, something I don't agree with (an I'm an agnostic atheist). A Secular state would be fine, like we have now. The only problem is the different groups thinking they should get special treatment.
2007-12-10 06:09:11 · answer #2 · answered by The Tourist 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Secular state. A theocracy and an atheist state are the extreme ends and I think one would be as bad as the other when it comes to discrimination. I've always supported the right for people to have their own beliefs but I think that religion and government don't mix and should be kept separate.
2007-12-10 02:27:45 · answer #3 · answered by genaddt 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My only question to this would be
Stealing is judged wrong by religion
So if a law is made against stealing is it a Secular Law or a Religious Law.
If you have a secular state you can't help but religious people in the position to make laws. Because you have to have a free society so those of a religious belief will get access to the political process.
So I do not think that a secular state where religious beliefs are kept out of the process of law is ever possible.
To answer the question though I would choose the Secular state as you have stated it.
2007-12-10 02:24:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
A secular state.
People have to be allowed to believe in what they want. When you ask us to choose between a theocracy and a atheist state - they are really the same option (mandating one belief over another).
When people are not allowed the basic choice of their religion, unrest and revolution follows. That is neither good nor productive for society.
2007-12-10 02:29:30 · answer #5 · answered by Big Super 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A Secular State most assuredly. I am a Christian but I have absolutely zero problem with anyone Else's beliefs and I certainly would not stand for having a different set of beliefs rammed down my throat by any government. Religion is, to Me, supposed to be between You and God, not You and the Government. Besides don't You think their nose id stuck far enough in our business already without that being added to it?
2007-12-10 02:51:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
100% Secular. Attempting to ban beliefs is like having a religion and therefore your definition of an Atheist State isn't acceptable. I want the freedom to believe as I wish regardless of weather I am an Atheist, Theist, Deist, or Agnostic. Inherent in the Secular state is FREEDOM of SPEECH which allows me to espouse my view without fear of being persecuted. Unfortunately the Secular State we live in is under heavy attack by the religious...my hope is that the cooler heads will prevail. HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
2007-12-10 02:24:21 · answer #7 · answered by thebigm57 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I don't think a truly secular state is possible.. (Faith based initiatives, governement give aways to religions) Laws forbidding Atheists to hold office.. Laws which discriminate against people of other faiths.. just for example, declaring Christmas a federal holiday....
As long as dialogue and tolerance are possible, I am OK with the way things are presently in the US
2007-12-10 02:23:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Secular
2007-12-10 02:23:17 · answer #9 · answered by Jess H 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Secular state
2007-12-10 02:21:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋