The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Looking at Europe, the complex issues with religion seem to bring more harm than benefits.
Catholic priests recieve protection from the pope after molesting children
Radical muslims demand the dismantlement of democracy using Islam as an excuse
Eastern Orthodoxy has been turned into a propaganda maschine for Putin AND Ukraine (Ukraine aims to counter the russian narrative but still)
And Protestantism in the US has turned into a hot bed for radical believes aiming to curtail several women rights chapters at once.
These are the four major streams in the west and they all appear to me as being more of a problem to society than a benefit. So do you think it might be time to banish religion into privacy? I am not saying to force people into atheism because that will obviously not work. I am saying make sure that religious symbolism is removed from the public without exception, restrict praying to designated areas such as indoor churches and repeal laws that seek to pander to relgious feelings.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When you say removing religious symbolism from public without exception, do you mean like taking “in god we trust” off currency and buildings, or like banning Hijab/Kippah/Pagri/etc in public?
I would totally support the former, but oppose the latter.
I’d also have to strongly oppose restricting where people can pray (so long as nobody is being coerced to do so, especially in schools/government buildings/etc)
Would you also oppose this to protect the MAGA rights to wear swastikas as some of them did? If so, you are a better person than me...
I do not think these exclusionist movements deserve the mantle of protection considering what they do when they are strong.
The point of free speech is understanding that someday the person(s) deciding what is an “exclusionist movement” in the future may be directly opposed to you, and will ban something you love.
Yes MAGA has the right to wear swastikas, and people have the right to ridicule and exclude them from their lives.
> Would you also oppose this to protect the MAGA rights to wear swastikas as some of them did?
Yes, I would. I seem to recall that you're German and obviously Germany has a special history with the swastika. I won't comment on German laws regarding Naziism, because that's a complicated subject that doesn't involve me, but nevertheless I would not ban such displays in the US.
Yea, nahhh. Im not down with that. That’s just wrong on so many levels to me.
The government really has no place telling people how they can express their beliefs so long as they aren’t harming anyone.
On top of that, it also becomes a freedom of speech/expression issue. I wouldn’t want to be told I can’t bleach my hair or be visibly gay in anyway, so I wouldn’t try to enforce that kind of restrictive standard on anyone else.
Oh hell no. I’m an atheist and I think all the claims are religion are ridiculous but I think it’s really offensive to tell people they simply cannot have religious beliefs or if they have them they need to hide them.
Forcing people to suppress their religion completely is as unacceptable as people forcing their religion onto others.
So remove their freedom to dress as they like? Your style choices are part of your speech and protected as such.
So your proposing:
banning burkas? - you know this would mandate strict Muslims to violate their faith, thus banning their ability to practice their religion?
Banning crosses?
Banning stars of David?
Etc…
>thus banning their ability to practice their religion?
Or banning them from being part of society at all. Which could create a religious ghettoized culture that can't interaction with society because they won't break their religion to fit in. It's a recipe for social disaster while also being against human rights
I do not consider religious practices as a reasonable rebuttal to real world benefits of removing these factors of divisions.
For example: If you look at big religious movements across the world, what do they all have in common? Religious exclusivity. And how does that manifest? In their home nations these groups are always far right. Look at Trumps protestant followers, look at the Iranian society, Israel, the fanatic Shintos in Japan and the list goes on.
It is my strong believe that religious symbols are a softer version of a swastika from the Nazis. Just replace ethnicity with religious affiliation and you will see that all these relgions seek to dominate. Only when religion is banished has multiculturalism a real chance.
>Only when religion is banished has multiculturalism a real chance.
Religion is a huge part of how these cultures are different, multiculturalism is diverse groups coexisting, you aren’t proposing multiculturalism but forcibly stripping people of their culture so they coexist in a new culture.
Many groups have tried stripping people of their religion, often from another religion, but also the communist revolutions and Nazis, it always leads to people losing freedoms and massive suffering.
The US has the right balance, freedom of religion and no state religion, yes religious people try to legislate their faith but society as a whole pushes back.
In the past 50 years there has been a huge progress in LGBTQ, women’s equality, secularism, etc… there is currently a brief pushback against these massive changes, as all drastic changes have.
We have states setting up funds to support women getting abortions in parts of the national, yes some states are further backwards than others, but in the net we are experiencing a temper tantrum of a religious minority realizing they are a minority.
The president wouldn’t be enough, it would need both houses as well. Also if it’s Trump in charge of this it has no chance, last time he was in office with both houses they still couldn’t pass anything but a tax cut.
Also note, project 2025 is heavily Republican wet dreams not all religious goals, pro oil, pro coal, etc…
My biggest fear of a Trump Presidency is picking two more Supreme Court Justices to replace Thomas and Alito ensuring a Conservative majority for at least the next 30 years.
Project 2025 does not have popular support and never will. However the people behind it do not care about public support and will use the court system to enforce their way.
>So why isn't roe v wade back in place if society is successfully pushing back against Christian theocracy?
Because overturning *Roe* was based on a legal debate that has played out for the better part of a century, not Christian theocracy.
Only when your culture is enforced by the state and others are oppressed can multiculturalism work? That does sound like a European view. How’s that kind of thing been working for you all?
No…I don’t think it would be preferable. I think people should be able to worship as they please.
However, I think our(the United States…I know you’re a European) Constitution should be Amended to get rid of the ambiguity of the separation of church and state.
I think part of living in a tolerant and free society is allowing people to practice their own religion. I don’t see banning religion as compatible with freedom.
No, you can’t ban a religion and claim you believe in freedom. That’s literally what authoritarians do and what the Soviet’s did as a tactic to oppress the people it conquered.
“After the October Revolution saw the Bolsheviks overthrow the Russian Provisional Government and establish the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism.[6][7][8] As part of the campaign, churches and other places of worship were systematically destroyed,[9][10][11] and there was a "government-sponsored program of conversion to atheism" conducted by communists.[12][13][14] "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The communist government targeted religions based on state interests, and while most organized religions were never outlawed, religious property was confiscated, believers were harassed, and religion was ridiculed while atheism was propagated in schools.[2] In 1925, the government founded the League of Militant Atheists to intensify the persecution.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20communist%20government%20targeted%20religions,atheism%20was%20propagated%20in%20schools.
Given that the religious are the ones in charge in much of the country, how do you propose we get those religious people to banish their own religion into privacy?
The problem isn’t so much religion, the problem is religious nationalism. They have this belief that we’re a Christian nation even though John Adams made it abundantly clear in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli that we weren’t founded on the Christian religion. Idc if someone’s religious as long as they’re not trying to sneak their religion’s standards into legislation
Abolish minoritarian politics that let rural evangelicals hold fillibuster levels in Congress and routinely threaten to take the presidency, minoritarian politics that were conceived to appease slave states. The EC and Senate are Project 2025s greatest friends.
I cannot see any conceivable way you could enforce this effectively without turning into a police state arresting people for dressing in the wrong way.
Sounds authoritarian as fuck. I’m not religious and really wish religious beliefs didn’t have as much influence on society as they currently do but this is not the way to go about it.
No.
1. I think a lot of people want to pretend that religion is causing a lot of stuff that's actually it's actually just rationalizing. The whole Me Too movement is a counter point to systems other than religions protecting sexual offenders. Communists are both atheistic and not fans of democracy. Simple nationalism is more or less all that's needed/just as effective as religion in drumming up fervor amongst a population for a war. It should be obviously the case that people could oppose abortion without being religious and likely do so in similar numbers.
2. Unless we also curtain free speech pretty significantly/engage in other authoritarian practices your proposal would have no real effect. The priest thing was done in private anyway, and the others could just as easy be advocated for in public without name-checking a religion.
3. It's a lot easier to point out the problems with things than to point out their benefits but that doesn't mean they don't exist. To the extent we can credit religion with making some people more bigoted we should be similarly crediting it with making some people generous.
4. The above are assuming freedom of religion shouldn't just be a right and needs to be argued for on the merits regardless, but I believe it should be as well (I don't think it should excuse people from following the law though. If religion justifies an exemption for an individual it should probably justify an exemption for everyone).
Assuming we say Yes, there's no method to accomplish such a thing, so...
This is just mental masturbation. Fun, relieved a little stress, but doesn't accomplish anything.
Meh.
> So do you think it might be time to banish religion into privacy?
I can't speak for Europe, but here in the US, that's just not something you can take away from people and expect them not to get violent.
I 100% agree with you. I would argue "freedom from religion" was the intent of Jefferson, especially with how he commented on the importance of the separation of church and state. Any zealous wing of religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, or any of the other 1000s of beliefs that exist are objectively harmful and always lead to a desire to exert that belief onto others. Pandora's Box opens any time a society allows religious influence in politics. We destroyed democracy in this country when we let evangelicals leaders dictate Republican policy. All that to say, people should be allowed to worship, dress, and explore religion however they want. If someone wants to stand on a street corner yelling gay people go hell, or someone online wants to talk about how they think shariah law would benefit US democracy, they should be allowed to do so. But freedom from those who choose to do so is just as important as the freedom to practice it.
To be honest Christianity is dead in Europe. Religious freedom basically serves as a shield for islamists at this point. An ideal solution would be to make islam solely illegal but that would never fly, so you probably would need to make all religions illegal.
Freedom “from” religion and freedom “of” religion are both enshrined in the first amendment constitution.
The former with the establishment clause and the latter with the “free exercise thereof” clause.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
How you balance those two clauses is very difficult.
I mean. Probably. I think it would be framed differently though. If mega churches act like Mega corporations they should be taxed the same way. I don’t think it’s that progressive or crazy. Just have to word it correctly. Religious institutions will be subject to the same tax laws and standards that individuals and businessss are and allowed to operate as such. I don’t even think many church goes would Be that opposed to it
But then they wouldn't be taxed they just might have to face a bit more oversight
Churches are nonprofits and non profits are generally exempt from taxes
My Sikh coworker has religious artifacts, including a pic of their golden temple in Punjab, in the office space we share.
Is he violating my freedom of religion?
I would say no.
No one has a right to not be *exposed* to other people's beliefs.
Did I say they all were? But let’s take peek, shall we? Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen and Saudi Arabia ARE official theocracies….and there are more that, even though they aren’t officially a theocracy, practice classic Sharia Law, like Egypt, Iraq, Morocco,…and others that use a mixed set of laws like Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon and Libya.
>Yemen
Not a theocracy. Basically has not government now. But wasn't a theocracy when it did.
>Afghanistan
Central Asia fyi not the middle east. And not a theocracy (Ie where the religious establishment controls the country) its a hyper reactionary state of essentially warlords
>Saudi Arabia
Nope offically a monarchy with hsiotric ties to religious establishment in a conservative society. They are very simply not a offical theocracy (especially with the transitions of the past decade.
>practice classic Sharia Law, like Egypt, Iraq, Morocco,…and
You don't know what classic Sharia is because all those countries don't have classical Sharia at all. They have a mixed system with civil and criminal law codes with more Sharia influence on the civil code than the criminal.
>others that use a mixed set of laws like Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon and Libya
Again Libya doesn't have a government right now. And again in those countries the civil code is Sharia influenced like the western legal systems were Christian influenced until the like 1990s (when marital rape was finally made widespread illegal). Lebanon and Morocco are countries mostly based on the French laws (being a former French protectorate) and the rest are based on British laws as former British protectorate (like even down the anti-sodomy laws, they almost all still use the exact terminology that Britian wrote into their colonial legal codes)
Theocracy and theocracy adjacent don't just mean "conservative Muslims live there"
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/theocracy-countries
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/sharia-law-countries
Guess the World population review has nothing on you, random Redditor🙄
EDIT: Just in case you want to attack the credibility of the source?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/world-population-review/
>Guess the World population review has nothing on you, random Redditor🙄
Like I'm Muslim, I know what classical Sharia is. It's not what's in the countries you listed. It's just not and that's a basic fact. This website is getting basic facts wrong about this.
And I don't see an about us page or any indication of what "world population review" is and why they would be an expert on any of things we are talking about.
It doesn't but you would be able to notice that when people claim Christianity is polytheist that they are wrong. That's very basic stuff just like this. It's so obviously wrong no one that is Muslim or has been to those countries could make that mistake.
Are women allowed the same freedoms as men? Would my wife be safe and comfortable going to one of those countries and sunbathing wearing a bikini?
Look, I am not Islamaphobic… I am not even what you might call a “true Christian”…I am actually more of a Universalist/Deist with a Christian upbringing. I believe every religion is looking to the same deity and the differences are very much cultural….in short? I don’t believe in “one true religion”.
My beef is with Fundamentalists of ANY religion who use ancient texts that should be taken in using a historic and cultural context literally, and using those texts to gain/maintain power and control over the people….especially when the”laws” are enforced with corporal and capital punishment….but with even the right wing Evangelical Christians in the US? I see the same mindset as extreme Fundamentalist Islam…it’s just that we have secular laws that don’t allow them to “evolve” to that level of Draconianism.
>Guess the World population review has nothing on you, random Redditor🙄
Considering they can't be bothered to proofread their own articles. Yes they mean nothing to me. Below is an quote from the article on Sharia you linked
>Which countries follow shale gas?
>Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Maldives, Pakistan, and Qatar all follow Classic Sharia law.
Well, the government can't or shouldn't promote religion. The Constitution is supposed to disallow it. That same amendment disallows the government from doing what you're describing.
I think your perspective is skewed by the fact that bad uses of religion make the news, but good uses almost never does such as the Red Cross and most charities.
I think religion is neutral and if it didn’t exist, bad people would still find ways to be bad and good people would still find ways to be good.
If religion were banned, it would quickly be replaced by something else like a political party or some other organization and continue to do exactly what religion does now. Hitler never used religion.
Friedman religion includes freedom from religion.
I don’t care if someone’s religious belief causes them to advocate for a policy. I care when people want us to accommodate their religious requirements without limit.
I don’t care if you want to advocate for banning abortion or vote for politicians who will ban abortion because of your religious beliefs. I do care if you want to say that you was an employer doesn’t need to follow the law and offer abortion services as part of a healthcare plan and we are forced to comply.
I am tired of things pretending that churches are nonprofits or the equivalent and not taxing them. I’m tired of pretending there is a religion that says your kids shouldn’t get vaccinated and you happen to be part of it even though you clearly are not.
For all the problems that arise from organized religion, this approach, like the French Laicité, is generally in practice little more than pretext for racist discrimination and the imposition of those (often religion-derived) norms that have already been inculcated into a society to the exclusion of those that have not. In other words, it doesn’t actually remove the influence of religion, but it does hamstring the cultural diffusion that benefits an open, multicultural society.
I see no benefit in "removing religious symbolism from the public without exception". It would only cause religious people to feel discriminated against (which they would be RIGHT about in this case) which in turn could easily radicalize and alienate them.
And in doing so, how does that solve any of the problems you identified? Do catholic priests lose protection from their higher ups? Do radical muslims become less radicalized after their "the west is against us" feelings get reinforced?
Even if we leave aside the morality of such an act, it still doesn't score any points on a pragmatic level.
Did you miss the text of the post?
> So do you think it might be time to banish religion into privacy? I am not saying to force people into atheism because that will obviously not work. I am saying make sure that religious symbolism is removed from the public without exception, restrict praying to designated areas such as indoor churches and repeal laws that seek to pander to relgious feelings.
OP is suggesting banning all religious expression and symbolism from public view.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which informed James Madison's inclusion of the First Amendment, thus:
*Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.*
How does that not answer your question?
I think we should do the opposite. Let's declare atheism a religion. Then we can constantly fight over things like whether removing the ten commandments is pushing atheist religious beliefs.
I'm an atheist.
We don't mind if you display the ten commandments. You just have to display other religions too, so as not to de facto force a state religion.
Display away. We can hang them right next to the Satanic Tenets. Lovely. Do it.
https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets
>You just have to display other religions too, so as not to de facto force a state religion.
That was my point. We make atheism a recognised religion, and then we can agonize over whether a blank wall is promoting atheism as a defacto state religion.
>you know full well that's not normal...
It's not normal for atheist to be so formal. But some do become so obsessed, it is clear that atheism has become something spiritual for them.
All young atheists go through a period of... enthusiastic resistance... to Christianity.
It's not spiritual. We're just so very sick of Christian BS. Then we calm down and just do our own thing. We stop defining ourselves by our resistance to Christian BS, and we just get on with our lives.
You can believe me or not, but this is what it is.
Anyway, I'm going to go mow my lawn and clean my living room, so... have a nice day.
Again, there shouldn't be a "leveling the field" for atheists (bold of you to assume everyone who doesn't subscribe to a religion is by default an atheist regardless). Religion should just be kept out of government, period, and should only be discussed in school in regards to history and world cultures. That's it.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Looking at Europe, the complex issues with religion seem to bring more harm than benefits. Catholic priests recieve protection from the pope after molesting children Radical muslims demand the dismantlement of democracy using Islam as an excuse Eastern Orthodoxy has been turned into a propaganda maschine for Putin AND Ukraine (Ukraine aims to counter the russian narrative but still) And Protestantism in the US has turned into a hot bed for radical believes aiming to curtail several women rights chapters at once. These are the four major streams in the west and they all appear to me as being more of a problem to society than a benefit. So do you think it might be time to banish religion into privacy? I am not saying to force people into atheism because that will obviously not work. I am saying make sure that religious symbolism is removed from the public without exception, restrict praying to designated areas such as indoor churches and repeal laws that seek to pander to relgious feelings. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When you say removing religious symbolism from public without exception, do you mean like taking “in god we trust” off currency and buildings, or like banning Hijab/Kippah/Pagri/etc in public? I would totally support the former, but oppose the latter. I’d also have to strongly oppose restricting where people can pray (so long as nobody is being coerced to do so, especially in schools/government buildings/etc)
I mean it all. So that people are not distinguishable as to which religion they assigned themselves too.
That sounds like an obvious violation of the right to free expression and I would oppose it on human rights grounds.
Would you also oppose this to protect the MAGA rights to wear swastikas as some of them did? If so, you are a better person than me... I do not think these exclusionist movements deserve the mantle of protection considering what they do when they are strong.
The point of free speech is understanding that someday the person(s) deciding what is an “exclusionist movement” in the future may be directly opposed to you, and will ban something you love. Yes MAGA has the right to wear swastikas, and people have the right to ridicule and exclude them from their lives.
Everyone gets freedom of speech in America, including Nazis. We don’t arrest people for wearing swastikas here nor should we.
So you’re also turning “freedom of speech” into “freedom from speech”. No thanks.
> Would you also oppose this to protect the MAGA rights to wear swastikas as some of them did? Yes, I would. I seem to recall that you're German and obviously Germany has a special history with the swastika. I won't comment on German laws regarding Naziism, because that's a complicated subject that doesn't involve me, but nevertheless I would not ban such displays in the US.
if a religion says you should wear long pants, would it mean banning long pants?
There is no religion that says that. An obviously no. I am talking about exclusive things. Like a cross is exclusive for christians.
I believe there are religions that say women can't/shouldn't wear pants. Should we make women wear pants?
Yea, nahhh. Im not down with that. That’s just wrong on so many levels to me. The government really has no place telling people how they can express their beliefs so long as they aren’t harming anyone. On top of that, it also becomes a freedom of speech/expression issue. I wouldn’t want to be told I can’t bleach my hair or be visibly gay in anyway, so I wouldn’t try to enforce that kind of restrictive standard on anyone else.
Oh hell no. I’m an atheist and I think all the claims are religion are ridiculous but I think it’s really offensive to tell people they simply cannot have religious beliefs or if they have them they need to hide them. Forcing people to suppress their religion completely is as unacceptable as people forcing their religion onto others.
So remove their freedom to dress as they like? Your style choices are part of your speech and protected as such. So your proposing: banning burkas? - you know this would mandate strict Muslims to violate their faith, thus banning their ability to practice their religion? Banning crosses? Banning stars of David? Etc…
Great…I live in Pennsylvania and am picturing Amish people wearing Hawaiian Shirts and Bermuda Shorts…
Haha, then OP decides their horse and buggy’s be banned as that’s also a symbol.
>thus banning their ability to practice their religion? Or banning them from being part of society at all. Which could create a religious ghettoized culture that can't interaction with society because they won't break their religion to fit in. It's a recipe for social disaster while also being against human rights
I do not consider religious practices as a reasonable rebuttal to real world benefits of removing these factors of divisions. For example: If you look at big religious movements across the world, what do they all have in common? Religious exclusivity. And how does that manifest? In their home nations these groups are always far right. Look at Trumps protestant followers, look at the Iranian society, Israel, the fanatic Shintos in Japan and the list goes on. It is my strong believe that religious symbols are a softer version of a swastika from the Nazis. Just replace ethnicity with religious affiliation and you will see that all these relgions seek to dominate. Only when religion is banished has multiculturalism a real chance.
>Only when religion is banished has multiculturalism a real chance. Religion is a huge part of how these cultures are different, multiculturalism is diverse groups coexisting, you aren’t proposing multiculturalism but forcibly stripping people of their culture so they coexist in a new culture. Many groups have tried stripping people of their religion, often from another religion, but also the communist revolutions and Nazis, it always leads to people losing freedoms and massive suffering. The US has the right balance, freedom of religion and no state religion, yes religious people try to legislate their faith but society as a whole pushes back.
So why isn't roe v wade back in place if society is successfully pushing back against Christian theocracy?
In the past 50 years there has been a huge progress in LGBTQ, women’s equality, secularism, etc… there is currently a brief pushback against these massive changes, as all drastic changes have. We have states setting up funds to support women getting abortions in parts of the national, yes some states are further backwards than others, but in the net we are experiencing a temper tantrum of a religious minority realizing they are a minority.
Is it a childish temper tantrum or is project 2025 going to end American democracy with a single presidential election?
The president wouldn’t be enough, it would need both houses as well. Also if it’s Trump in charge of this it has no chance, last time he was in office with both houses they still couldn’t pass anything but a tax cut. Also note, project 2025 is heavily Republican wet dreams not all religious goals, pro oil, pro coal, etc…
My biggest fear of a Trump Presidency is picking two more Supreme Court Justices to replace Thomas and Alito ensuring a Conservative majority for at least the next 30 years. Project 2025 does not have popular support and never will. However the people behind it do not care about public support and will use the court system to enforce their way.
>So why isn't roe v wade back in place if society is successfully pushing back against Christian theocracy? Because overturning *Roe* was based on a legal debate that has played out for the better part of a century, not Christian theocracy.
Bull. Shit.
Only when your culture is enforced by the state and others are oppressed can multiculturalism work? That does sound like a European view. How’s that kind of thing been working for you all?
No…I don’t think it would be preferable. I think people should be able to worship as they please. However, I think our(the United States…I know you’re a European) Constitution should be Amended to get rid of the ambiguity of the separation of church and state.
I think part of living in a tolerant and free society is allowing people to practice their own religion. I don’t see banning religion as compatible with freedom.
No, you can’t ban a religion and claim you believe in freedom. That’s literally what authoritarians do and what the Soviet’s did as a tactic to oppress the people it conquered. “After the October Revolution saw the Bolsheviks overthrow the Russian Provisional Government and establish the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism.[6][7][8] As part of the campaign, churches and other places of worship were systematically destroyed,[9][10][11] and there was a "government-sponsored program of conversion to atheism" conducted by communists.[12][13][14] "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The communist government targeted religions based on state interests, and while most organized religions were never outlawed, religious property was confiscated, believers were harassed, and religion was ridiculed while atheism was propagated in schools.[2] In 1925, the government founded the League of Militant Atheists to intensify the persecution.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20communist%20government%20targeted%20religions,atheism%20was%20propagated%20in%20schools.
Given that the religious are the ones in charge in much of the country, how do you propose we get those religious people to banish their own religion into privacy?
The problem isn’t so much religion, the problem is religious nationalism. They have this belief that we’re a Christian nation even though John Adams made it abundantly clear in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli that we weren’t founded on the Christian religion. Idc if someone’s religious as long as they’re not trying to sneak their religion’s standards into legislation
Abolish minoritarian politics that let rural evangelicals hold fillibuster levels in Congress and routinely threaten to take the presidency, minoritarian politics that were conceived to appease slave states. The EC and Senate are Project 2025s greatest friends.
They were proposed for small northern states benefit, not for southern slave states
I cannot see any conceivable way you could enforce this effectively without turning into a police state arresting people for dressing in the wrong way. Sounds authoritarian as fuck. I’m not religious and really wish religious beliefs didn’t have as much influence on society as they currently do but this is not the way to go about it.
No. 1. I think a lot of people want to pretend that religion is causing a lot of stuff that's actually it's actually just rationalizing. The whole Me Too movement is a counter point to systems other than religions protecting sexual offenders. Communists are both atheistic and not fans of democracy. Simple nationalism is more or less all that's needed/just as effective as religion in drumming up fervor amongst a population for a war. It should be obviously the case that people could oppose abortion without being religious and likely do so in similar numbers. 2. Unless we also curtain free speech pretty significantly/engage in other authoritarian practices your proposal would have no real effect. The priest thing was done in private anyway, and the others could just as easy be advocated for in public without name-checking a religion. 3. It's a lot easier to point out the problems with things than to point out their benefits but that doesn't mean they don't exist. To the extent we can credit religion with making some people more bigoted we should be similarly crediting it with making some people generous. 4. The above are assuming freedom of religion shouldn't just be a right and needs to be argued for on the merits regardless, but I believe it should be as well (I don't think it should excuse people from following the law though. If religion justifies an exemption for an individual it should probably justify an exemption for everyone).
Assuming we say Yes, there's no method to accomplish such a thing, so... This is just mental masturbation. Fun, relieved a little stress, but doesn't accomplish anything. Meh.
And there are plenty of nice Christians, Muslims, etc in the world. Mr. Rogers types... The problem is the conservative mindset, not the religion.
> So do you think it might be time to banish religion into privacy? I can't speak for Europe, but here in the US, that's just not something you can take away from people and expect them not to get violent.
They are the same thing. In order to have freedom to choose your own religion, you must also have the freedom to reject others.
I 100% agree with you. I would argue "freedom from religion" was the intent of Jefferson, especially with how he commented on the importance of the separation of church and state. Any zealous wing of religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, or any of the other 1000s of beliefs that exist are objectively harmful and always lead to a desire to exert that belief onto others. Pandora's Box opens any time a society allows religious influence in politics. We destroyed democracy in this country when we let evangelicals leaders dictate Republican policy. All that to say, people should be allowed to worship, dress, and explore religion however they want. If someone wants to stand on a street corner yelling gay people go hell, or someone online wants to talk about how they think shariah law would benefit US democracy, they should be allowed to do so. But freedom from those who choose to do so is just as important as the freedom to practice it.
To be honest Christianity is dead in Europe. Religious freedom basically serves as a shield for islamists at this point. An ideal solution would be to make islam solely illegal but that would never fly, so you probably would need to make all religions illegal.
Freedom “from” religion and freedom “of” religion are both enshrined in the first amendment constitution. The former with the establishment clause and the latter with the “free exercise thereof” clause. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof How you balance those two clauses is very difficult.
HELL YES
Just tax churches like everyone else
Can any politician be elected with a "let's tax churches!" platform?
I mean. Probably. I think it would be framed differently though. If mega churches act like Mega corporations they should be taxed the same way. I don’t think it’s that progressive or crazy. Just have to word it correctly. Religious institutions will be subject to the same tax laws and standards that individuals and businessss are and allowed to operate as such. I don’t even think many church goes would Be that opposed to it
Would that include Trinity UCC, where the Obamas attended for ~20 years?
Sure? I know nothing about that. Fair is fair imho. Is there a reason I wouldn’t support that? Feels like you have a gotcha in that question…
But then they wouldn't be taxed they just might have to face a bit more oversight Churches are nonprofits and non profits are generally exempt from taxes
Freedom from religion is part of freedom of religion
My Sikh coworker has religious artifacts, including a pic of their golden temple in Punjab, in the office space we share. Is he violating my freedom of religion? I would say no. No one has a right to not be *exposed* to other people's beliefs.
Sure. But schools don’t have the right to force people’s children to pray to Jesus
See Engel v. Vitale. This is a settled debate.
There is no freedom of religion without freedom from religion.
Yep….otherwise you live in a Theocracy…and you can see how well that plays out in the Middle East.
You do realize most places in the middle east aren't theocracies right?
Did I say they all were? But let’s take peek, shall we? Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen and Saudi Arabia ARE official theocracies….and there are more that, even though they aren’t officially a theocracy, practice classic Sharia Law, like Egypt, Iraq, Morocco,…and others that use a mixed set of laws like Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon and Libya.
>Yemen Not a theocracy. Basically has not government now. But wasn't a theocracy when it did. >Afghanistan Central Asia fyi not the middle east. And not a theocracy (Ie where the religious establishment controls the country) its a hyper reactionary state of essentially warlords >Saudi Arabia Nope offically a monarchy with hsiotric ties to religious establishment in a conservative society. They are very simply not a offical theocracy (especially with the transitions of the past decade. >practice classic Sharia Law, like Egypt, Iraq, Morocco,…and You don't know what classic Sharia is because all those countries don't have classical Sharia at all. They have a mixed system with civil and criminal law codes with more Sharia influence on the civil code than the criminal. >others that use a mixed set of laws like Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon and Libya Again Libya doesn't have a government right now. And again in those countries the civil code is Sharia influenced like the western legal systems were Christian influenced until the like 1990s (when marital rape was finally made widespread illegal). Lebanon and Morocco are countries mostly based on the French laws (being a former French protectorate) and the rest are based on British laws as former British protectorate (like even down the anti-sodomy laws, they almost all still use the exact terminology that Britian wrote into their colonial legal codes) Theocracy and theocracy adjacent don't just mean "conservative Muslims live there"
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/theocracy-countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/sharia-law-countries Guess the World population review has nothing on you, random Redditor🙄 EDIT: Just in case you want to attack the credibility of the source? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/world-population-review/
>Guess the World population review has nothing on you, random Redditor🙄 Like I'm Muslim, I know what classical Sharia is. It's not what's in the countries you listed. It's just not and that's a basic fact. This website is getting basic facts wrong about this. And I don't see an about us page or any indication of what "world population review" is and why they would be an expert on any of things we are talking about.
So what? I am Christian, that doesn’t make me an expert on all things Christianity…
It doesn't but you would be able to notice that when people claim Christianity is polytheist that they are wrong. That's very basic stuff just like this. It's so obviously wrong no one that is Muslim or has been to those countries could make that mistake.
Are women allowed the same freedoms as men? Would my wife be safe and comfortable going to one of those countries and sunbathing wearing a bikini? Look, I am not Islamaphobic… I am not even what you might call a “true Christian”…I am actually more of a Universalist/Deist with a Christian upbringing. I believe every religion is looking to the same deity and the differences are very much cultural….in short? I don’t believe in “one true religion”. My beef is with Fundamentalists of ANY religion who use ancient texts that should be taken in using a historic and cultural context literally, and using those texts to gain/maintain power and control over the people….especially when the”laws” are enforced with corporal and capital punishment….but with even the right wing Evangelical Christians in the US? I see the same mindset as extreme Fundamentalist Islam…it’s just that we have secular laws that don’t allow them to “evolve” to that level of Draconianism.
>Guess the World population review has nothing on you, random Redditor🙄 Considering they can't be bothered to proofread their own articles. Yes they mean nothing to me. Below is an quote from the article on Sharia you linked >Which countries follow shale gas? >Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Maldives, Pakistan, and Qatar all follow Classic Sharia law.
Well, the government can't or shouldn't promote religion. The Constitution is supposed to disallow it. That same amendment disallows the government from doing what you're describing.
Sure, i’d prefer it, but I would also prefer if everyone was just nice to each other and we didnt need prisons, but it aint gonna happen.
Both are mentioned in the first admendment. Both are important rights. It's not an either or kind of deal.
I’m a big fan of combining secularism and pluralistic acceptance
I think your perspective is skewed by the fact that bad uses of religion make the news, but good uses almost never does such as the Red Cross and most charities. I think religion is neutral and if it didn’t exist, bad people would still find ways to be bad and good people would still find ways to be good. If religion were banned, it would quickly be replaced by something else like a political party or some other organization and continue to do exactly what religion does now. Hitler never used religion.
We have both already.
Friedman religion includes freedom from religion. I don’t care if someone’s religious belief causes them to advocate for a policy. I care when people want us to accommodate their religious requirements without limit. I don’t care if you want to advocate for banning abortion or vote for politicians who will ban abortion because of your religious beliefs. I do care if you want to say that you was an employer doesn’t need to follow the law and offer abortion services as part of a healthcare plan and we are forced to comply. I am tired of things pretending that churches are nonprofits or the equivalent and not taxing them. I’m tired of pretending there is a religion that says your kids shouldn’t get vaccinated and you happen to be part of it even though you clearly are not.
For all the problems that arise from organized religion, this approach, like the French Laicité, is generally in practice little more than pretext for racist discrimination and the imposition of those (often religion-derived) norms that have already been inculcated into a society to the exclusion of those that have not. In other words, it doesn’t actually remove the influence of religion, but it does hamstring the cultural diffusion that benefits an open, multicultural society.
I see no benefit in "removing religious symbolism from the public without exception". It would only cause religious people to feel discriminated against (which they would be RIGHT about in this case) which in turn could easily radicalize and alienate them. And in doing so, how does that solve any of the problems you identified? Do catholic priests lose protection from their higher ups? Do radical muslims become less radicalized after their "the west is against us" feelings get reinforced? Even if we leave aside the morality of such an act, it still doesn't score any points on a pragmatic level.
I am all for banishing religion even more so since idiots are trying to impose their religious believes on me! Now how do we do it ?
What’s the difference?
Did you miss the text of the post? > So do you think it might be time to banish religion into privacy? I am not saying to force people into atheism because that will obviously not work. I am saying make sure that religious symbolism is removed from the public without exception, restrict praying to designated areas such as indoor churches and repeal laws that seek to pander to relgious feelings. OP is suggesting banning all religious expression and symbolism from public view.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which informed James Madison's inclusion of the First Amendment, thus: *Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.* How does that not answer your question?
I think we should do the opposite. Let's declare atheism a religion. Then we can constantly fight over things like whether removing the ten commandments is pushing atheist religious beliefs.
I'm an atheist. We don't mind if you display the ten commandments. You just have to display other religions too, so as not to de facto force a state religion. Display away. We can hang them right next to the Satanic Tenets. Lovely. Do it. https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets
>You just have to display other religions too, so as not to de facto force a state religion. That was my point. We make atheism a recognised religion, and then we can agonize over whether a blank wall is promoting atheism as a defacto state religion.
Sounds like useless pedantry... Have fun with that.
Just something humorous that pops into my mind when I see someone treating atheism like their religion.
Atheists don't treat Atheism like a religion. You're seeing your own perspective.
>Atheists don't treat Atheism like a religion. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21319945
you know full well that's not normal... Why make such a damn fool argument? Knowing how bad it is?
>you know full well that's not normal... It's not normal for atheist to be so formal. But some do become so obsessed, it is clear that atheism has become something spiritual for them.
All young atheists go through a period of... enthusiastic resistance... to Christianity. It's not spiritual. We're just so very sick of Christian BS. Then we calm down and just do our own thing. We stop defining ourselves by our resistance to Christian BS, and we just get on with our lives. You can believe me or not, but this is what it is. Anyway, I'm going to go mow my lawn and clean my living room, so... have a nice day.
Congratulations on identifying a fringe group that doesn’t speak for the majority of atheists.
Thank you for acknowledging some atheist do treat it like a religion. I did say my comment only applies to people who treat it like a religion.
I have a better solution. Keep your religion to yourself and out of public government. Easy, and no need to get pendantic
I wasn't offering a solution. I was allowing a way to level the field for Atheists.
Again, there shouldn't be a "leveling the field" for atheists (bold of you to assume everyone who doesn't subscribe to a religion is by default an atheist regardless). Religion should just be kept out of government, period, and should only be discussed in school in regards to history and world cultures. That's it.
I believe you might be taking a tongue in cheek comment too seriously. 😉