NationStates Jolt Archive

Ever stopped to wonder how different our nations would be if religion did not influence it? It would be interesting to have other opinions on this matter, personally I think they should be kept seperate.

What would happen? would sciences flourish? would we acheive world peace of sorts? or would we just have more room to develop more weapons? :mp5:

Ever stopped to wonder how different our nations would be if religion did not influence it? It would be interesting to have other opinions on this matter, personally I think they should be kept seperate.

What would happen? would sciences flourish? would we acheive world peace of sorts? or would we just have more room to develop more weapons? :mp5:

I figure that most countries would end up like the French Revolution (the first one).

I think it depends (just like everything else - one circumstance at a time) In the western sense of religion, they should be kept seperate. However, the Dalai Lama is, in my opinion, one of the best rulers of a nation the world has ever seen. He is the head of both religion and government. With the right attitude, religion can be incorperated into government. When it gets to the stage that religion is deciding who to invade to convert more people; then it has to stop.

I think it depends (just like everything else - one circumstance at a time) In the western sense of religion, they should be kept seperate. However, the Dalai Lama is, in my opinion, one of the best rulers of a nation the world has ever seen. He is the head of both religion and government. With the right attitude, religion can be incorperated into government. When it gets to the stage that religion is deciding who to invade to convert more people; then it has to stop.

You have a valid point there. I suppose religion in moderate amounts is good for us, but when it reaches the French "reign of terror" then it becomes too much, but it also does provide us with the opportunity(sp?)to discover where religion should stop and logic begin, the end result being something like the French Constitution(sp?).

Ever stopped to wonder how different our nations would be if religion did not influence it? It would be interesting to have other opinions on this matter, personally I think they should be kept seperate.

What would happen? would sciences flourish? would we acheive world peace of sorts? or would we just have more room to develop more weapons? :mp5:
Though I hate to admit it, it's highly possible that some countries would go nuts without a moral guide for their lives. On the other hand, women wouldn't be stoned to death/beheaded for adultery in Iran. Hmm. Tough one

Religion was vital in history as a way on societal control. How else would civilisations flourish if there were no religious morals to guide. Our fundamental values are religiously based regardless of whether we are religious or not (read NIETZSCHE for interesting views on morality).

In our modern world we need to re-evaluate these values and the only way to do that is to separate the state and religion.

I think religeon shoul influence governemnt to a point ut should not be a controlling factor....i would want my ruler to be moralistic, and most people do not have the capacity to form an adequate moral code without some fundamental beliefs backing them up...

A few randomly chosen examples of leaders who banned the religions of their nations:
Josef Stalin
Mao Tse-Tung
Pol Pot

Of course, this must be contrasted against the theocracy in Iran, the way the Popes used political power in the Middle Ages, the way the Mormons run Utah, etc.

Maybe this is not an "should-we-have-religious-leaders-or-secular-leaders?" issue, but a "how-do-we-ensure-we-get-good-leaders?" issue.