Should God be removed from politics and law?

Should we remove god from constitution, oaths and anthems?

  • No reference to god(s) should be in constitution, oaths and anthems.

    Votes: 6 54.5%
  • Dominant religion's god(s) should be in constitution, oaths and anthems

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Add anybody's god(s) to constitution, oaths and anthem to accommodate all religious people.

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • I don't know or I don't care.

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • Total voters
    11

LeBrok

Elite member
Messages
10,261
Reaction score
1,617
Points
0
Location
Calgary
Ethnic group
Citizen of the world
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b Z2109
mtDNA haplogroup
H1c
Do you think, that at this time and age, in countries with separation of religion from state, we still should tolerate any mention of God, gods or any other supernatural creatures, in our anthems, oath, constitution, law proceedings, etc?

Should we continue with it on grounds of tradition or dominant religion only?

Should we include all walks of life believing in multiple gods or spirits and accommodate their beliefs in socio/political system beside christian religion?

What about atheists who don't believe in supernatural, how would we accommodate their "beliefs" in anthems, constitution and oaths?

Should we go for simplicity now and skip all spiritual aspects from constitution, anthems, court oaths and remove religious symbols from public institutions?
 
What if I want to choose a different option. I'm against constitution, oaths and anthems. It is a sign and the beginning of the fascism. I'm pro the 'modern' tribalism. Every high-cohesive group should have their own 'accepted' rules. Instead of a common national constitution, social contract & Commonwealth (Leviathan) a la Hobbes or 'Du Contrat Social' of Rousseau I'm for treaties between high-cohesive groups. Society = many different high-cohesive groups together. Each high-cohesive group in a common society needs to have own rules. I'm talking about pluralism, about many 'Du Contrat Social' within a society: be it a federal (non-uninational) state, confederalism between 'tribal' communities . To run a society properly is to make good treaties between people and not to obey to only 1 fascist constitution, since groups with a common society do differ from each other. I don't want to go deeper, since it is not the moment to talk about positive and negative liberty/freedom.

Those treaties between high-cohesive groups have nothing to do with God. We shouldn't involve God into the earthly matters.
 
If there has to be a fascist "constitution, oath and anthem" for everybody within let say a nation state, then there should be no reference to god(s). Religion is something personal, you don't have to bring other people in your personal life. That's why I have chosen the first option.
 
Good question.

Has the increased secularisation of the Western world aided economic and social progression over the last few centuries?

On most measures you would have to say yes, so there is an argument for keeping religion and all mentions of God out of the law, out of parliamentary procedure, out of public administration, out of government policy, etc.

Having said that, any tradition which has lasted two millennia has some value of itself - as long as it does not diminish any of the above (economic and social progress).

So I have zero problem with people wanting to follow certain christian practices (such as baptism, marriage, funeral rites, Christmas and Easter) even though they don't really believe in either of the old and new testaments, or the holy trinity, or the resurrection, or the infallability of the pope, etc - as long as there is no hindrance to economic and social progress, people can follow whatever rites they wish.

In the Australian Parliament, and I assume this occurs in other Western parliaments such as in Canada and America, there are non-denominational prayers before the opening of each parliamentary session. This can be viewed as a traditional act, as a moment of reflection, a nod to some higher power, whatever, I don't have a problem with such traditions - as long as it does not hinder economic and social progress.

Re the Christian based holidays, in a country such as Australia, non-christian denominations are probably growing at a faster rate than christian denominations because of migration, although the christian denominations remain the overwhelming majority. At what point does a society question whether it's appropriate to base holidays on one segment of the population? I guess that has to be determined by the citizens of individual nation-states, weighing up tradition, the make-up of religious ideology, the importance attached thereto, cultural significance, the time of year, schooling and business requirements - ultimately through the democratic process.
 
I'm iffy on this. You can't fully separate religion from government because religion is a huge part of society/culture and it's people of societies/cultures who populate our governments. Religious opinion is one type of opinion out of many opinions. An official opinion is expressed by our governments which not everyone agrees with. It's up to us to pick and chose which opinion types should be removed from our governments.
 
some important non-secular theocratic nation states:

ISRAEL
Saudi Arabia
Iran
 
how far do you go?
is a christmas tree a religious symbol?
you can go ad infinitum in these kind of debates, and some people do
I agree with Goga, you can question oaths and anthems too as 'nationalistic'
in the end, you strip all values
 
I'm iffy on this. You can't fully separate religion from government because religion is a huge part of society/culture and it's people of societies/cultures who populate our governments. Religious opinion is one type of opinion out of many opinions. An official opinion is expressed by our governments which not everyone agrees with. It's up to us to pick and chose which opinion types should be removed from our governments.
Opinions are cool, but why atheists need to swear on the bible in court?
 
I agree with Goga, you can question oaths and anthems too as 'nationalistic'
in the end, you strip all values
They are nationalistic, therefore they should unite nation and not divide. They should agree with values of the whole nation, not only part of it. Even if it is a bigger part.
 
They are nationalistic, therefore they should unite nation and not divide. They should agree with values of the whole nation, not only part of it. Even if it is a bigger part.

I don't think replacing religion with nationalism is a good idea.
Everybody should make up his own set of ideas and values, it should not be imposed.
 
Opinions are cool, but why atheists need to swear on the bible in court?

It is a tradition. It can be abolished. But why should atheists have a problem with that. For them it is just a book.
 
It is a tradition. It can be abolished. But why should atheists have a problem with that. For them it is just a book.
For "god sake" bible didn't even stop Christians from lying. Do you want to continue this charade?
 
I don't think replacing religion with nationalism is a good idea.
If there is one religion in a country it will unite people. If there are many religions they will divide a country. Whether you like it or not religion is a nationalistic force. Nation making or breaking.
Everybody should make up his own set of ideas and values, it should not be imposed.
So there shouldn't' be one anthem for all, but everybody should have their own?
 
If there is one religion in a country it will unite people. If there are many religions they will divide a country. Whether you like it or not religion is a nationalistic force. Nation making or breaking.
So there shouldn't' be one anthem for all, but everybody should have their own?

for me it is ok to abolish all religions

I just don't need an anthem either
 
So for you the bible isn't just a book.
That's the point, so swearing on it and expecting positive results is just a farce. That's why it should be stopped. It is even worse for spiritual people of other religions. To acknowledge existence and direct an oath to someone's god is sacrilegious. In what way this will help them to tell the truth and only truth?

Remember that the whole purpose of swearing on the bible is to make people to tell only the truth.
 
I was just listening to an interesting discussion on the radio about why it's so difficult for predominantly Islamic nation-states to follow the secularisation path which the West has followed for hundreds of years.

The overwhelming alignment of religion/politics/economics/law in Islam, actually, the word I'm looking for is stronger than just alignment: inter-connectedness, entwined, interdependence, etc - suggests the quasi impossibility of Islam undergoing its own Reformation, or if it is to undergo its own Reformation, it will be longer, harder and bloodier.

We can trace the roots of this all the way back to the Prophets of the respective religions.

Despite, being the son of God, a part of the Holy Trinity, Jesus still commands his followers to obey the law of Caesar - so there is immediately a distinction between civil law and the law of God from the outset, the two live side by side, and thus the opening to lever one from the other exists and has progressively played itself out in the West to reach the point where we are today (which is a good thing in my view).

Muhammad was an altogether different type of prophet, who was able to spread Islam during his lifetime, as a political leader and military general. During his lifetime he was able to establish the principle that there can only be one law, what we know today to be Sharia law.

Some predominantly Islamic states have occasionally experimented with modernity and a degree of secularisation, Turkey being the most notable, but even then, this tension has always existed which stops Turkey from continuing along that path of secularisation.

Other examples are Indonesia and Malaysia, which both have significant minorities, and have had some success at a form of secularisation, but even then, those same tensions lurk, and underscore the difficulty Islam faces in undergoing its own Reformation.
 
I was just listening to an interesting discussion on the radio about why it's so difficult for predominantly Islamic nation-states to follow the secularisation path which the West has followed for hundreds of years.

The overwhelming alignment of religion/politics/economics/law in Islam, actually, the word I'm looking for is stronger than just alignment: inter-connectedness, entwined, interdependence, etc - suggests the quasi impossibility of Islam undergoing its own Reformation, or if it is to undergo its own Reformation, it will be longer, harder and bloodier.

We can trace the roots of this all the way back to the Prophets of the respective religions.

Despite, being the son of God, a part of the Holy Trinity, Jesus still commands his followers to obey the law of Caesar - so there is immediately a distinction between civil law and the law of God from the outset, the two live side by side, and thus the opening to lever one from the other exists and has progressively played itself out in the West to reach the point where we are today (which is a good thing in my view).

Muhammad was an altogether different type of prophet, who was able to spread Islam during his lifetime, as a political leader and military general. During his lifetime he was able to establish the principle that there can only be one law, what we know today to be Sharia law.
Rome yes, and it was peachy till Constantine made Christianity religion of the state and the dark ages started. It lasted way into Renaissance and beyond. Even in 20th century experimentation with democracy and secularization in Europe collapsed when new ideologies of fascism and dictatorial violent communism took hold in place of religion. There were and are various stages of development of countries, notably in Eastern Europe, when religion comes back with vangines to bite freedoms of others.

Some predominantly Islamic states have occasionally experimented with modernity and a degree of secularisation, Turkey being the most notable, but even then, this tension has always existed which stops Turkey from continuing along that path of secularisation.

Other examples are Indonesia and Malaysia, which both have significant minorities, and have had some success at a form of secularisation, but even then, those same tensions lurk, and underscore the difficulty Islam faces in undergoing its own Reformation.
I don't deny that countries with dominant Islam will struggle for a long time towards democracy, inclusiveness and equality for all citizens, but I don't see their struggle much different than what Europe went through for centuries. Actually their way might be easier and faster, when we give them good example, proven solutions and some slack.
And no, no slack for fundamentalism and terrorism. No tolerance for intolerance.
 

This thread has been viewed 20657 times.

Back
Top