NationStates Jolt Archive

I was prompted to post this thread after a seeming LACK of interest in this perspective among NS players.

Many western (actual) nations consider the separation of state and religion a great triumph. Nevertheless, my question is this:

Are there any other NS leaders out there who believe that better nations can be developed by returning to humanity's religious and spiritual roots?

This thread is intended for discussion, not debate. It is not intended as an avenue for anti-religious flaming.

We have leaders on NationStates? :confused:

This thread is intended for discussion, not debate
Um... you've lost me.

Um... you've lost me.

I was just trying to create an atmosphere for constructive conversation. Not this :headbang:

er...I could tear this apart like a young porn stars first shoot

...but I'm not sure if I'm allowed :(

I was prompted to post this thread after a seeming LACK of interest in this perspective among NS players.

Many western (actual) nations consider the separation of state and religion a great triumph. Nevertheless, my question is this:

Are there any other NS leaders out there who believe that better nations can be developed by returning to humanity's religious and spiritual roots?
How does one develop a country by "by returning to humanity's religious and spiritual roots"?
This thread is intended for discussion, not debate. It is not intended as an avenue for anti-religious flaming.

Religious threads will always attract those critical of religion. That's just life.

And there will be debate. Just because you don't want them to doesn't mean people who don't agree with you won't post here.

so we be having Human sacrifice or Ritual murder starting up again

I was prompted to post this thread after a seeming LACK of interest in this perspective among NS players.

Many western (actual) nations consider the separation of state and religion a great triumph. Nevertheless, my question is this:

Are there any other NS leaders out there who believe that better nations can be developed by returning to humanity's religious and spiritual roots?

This thread is intended for discussion, not debate. It is not intended as an avenue for anti-religious flaming.

Nope religion and politics should remain forever as far apart form each other as is possible.

And there will be debate. Just because you don't want them to doesn't mean people who don't agree with you won't post here.

I acknowledge my utter powerlessness to "will" others to do what I ask. Thanks for the heads up though :)

I was just trying to create an atmosphere for constructive conversation. Not this :headbang:

could you explain it a piece more? are we talking about spirituality in general? cult worship? Fred Phelps?

so we be having Human sacrifice or Ritual murder starting up again

the Sun must rise!!!!!1

Are there any other NS leaders out there who believe that better nations can be developed by returning to humanity's religious and spiritual roots?
Umm... Are you talking about the In Character nations or Real Life nations?

Are there any other NS leaders out there who believe that better nations can be developed by returning to humanity's religious and spiritual roots?
Any positive answers will be something along the lines of "Yes, but only my religious and spiritual roots".

If, indeed, there are religious and spiritual roots common to all humanity then I suspect it would be reasonable to encorporate a consideration for those into any system of government. The challenge is to find such roots.

I demand a goat sacrifice!

We have leaders on NationStates? :confused:hmm.. NO.
What we have is: different degrees of Influence.

For example Lancaster, Corneliu, Eutrusca, are veterans and they have influence on my threads, on the way post, on how often I post.. I expend more of my precious free time because of them.

I cannot say they are my leaders.. but they do "lead" me do do weird things. ;)

Its very simple.

Religion is against freedom and civil rights. If you have a religious government, you cant have democracy.

the Sun must rise!!!!!1
yes it must
I demand a goat sacrifice!

Human sacrifice not goat

Human sacrifice not goat
Human sacrifices so not appease the Weasel God. She demands a goat sacrifice!

Its very simple.

Religion is against freedom and civil rights. If you have a religious government, you cant have democracy.

I can't agree with that. But I will concede that relioign is only interested in their own people. It is this reason, that a religous goverment will make laws that directly effeft those that do not sure that faith, that is more important.

Human sacrifices so not appease the Weasel God. She demands a goat sacrifice!

ok both kill two birds with one stone

ok both kill two birds with one stone

Two birds?? But birds aren't goats! ;)

I was prompted to post this thread after a seeming LACK of interest in this perspective among NS players.

Many western (actual) nations consider the separation of state and religion a great triumph. Nevertheless, my question is this:

Are there any other NS leaders out there who believe that better nations can be developed by returning to humanity's religious and spiritual roots?

This thread is intended for discussion, not debate. It is not intended as an avenue for anti-religious flaming.

Define "humanity's religious and spiritual roots". Better still, get everyone to agree on the answer.

er...I could tear this apart like a young porn stars first shoot

...but I'm not sure if I'm allowed :(

Sig'd.

TO the OP.

I understand your poorly worded meaning...you want debate...not bitching.

I think including "Spiritualism" in Government as it relates to value sets can be a good thing. But only because the basic value sets of major faiths is essentially the same...dont steal, dont kill, dont rape, dont lie, you get the idea.

But including "Religion" in Government is Baaaaad, very Baaaad.
Iran includes religion in Government to almost the exclusion of Spiritualism.
The "Spirit" of Islam can be quite beautiful...the Religion can be very ugly.

see where i am going.

TO be inclusive "religion" can not be included....but it can not be Excluded...so it must be Seperated.

I as a religious person would never want a country where say...Atheism was a crime because next it would be a crime to be Agnostic, the BUddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, then Sectarian divides would come into play.

A government sensitive to the "SPiritual" nature of humans without being Religious would be very intelligent.

Atheists are free to confirm themselves as not adhering to a classical Divine Religion, or Jews and Muslims are freeto debate the story of Isaac. Or the modern situation on the Gaza strip without fear of one side being ostricized by the governemnt for their beliefs.

and so forth and so on.

So yes I support Spiritual sensitivity in government, in as much of government as possible...but I support the absolute and unyileding seperation of Religion and the State.

I will keep my Religion out of your Legislation, keep your Legislation out of my Religion.

Anything else frightens me.

Spiritual principles... what would those be? compassion, 'ubuntu', turning the other cheek?

Spiritual principles... what would those be? compassion, 'ubuntu', turning the other cheek?

...to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.

...to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.
I was being serious since I do not know that term.

We have leaders on NationStates? :confused:


Um... you've lost me.

He wants a bunch of folk who'll agree with him, not those who'll challenge him.

I, for my part, demand that all people on NSG have a basic working knowledge of history and why it is bad to have church and state entwined.

I was being serious ...

So was I - Kali's thugee sect were as spiritual as any sect.

Thank you everyone for all of your either insightful or amusing input! I deliberately posted this topic in a vague manner, hoping to generate discussion to act as a starting point. It worked great.

A few points to clear up. I was just playing with language when I mentioned "leaders" in nations states. It was just another way of saying "people of the forum", because we're all, I assume, "leaders" of a NS nation. That's all I meant. No less, no more. Also, Tagmatium asked whether I meant NS nations or real nations. I hadn't considered that too much, only because the only NS nation I'm currently governing, I'm trying to govern how I would actually govern. I know that that's not the point of NationSates, and that many people have fun by governing in other ways. I suppose because of the governing style I'm coming from, I mean real nations, but, in the words of W.S. take it in whatever sense thou wilt.

The other question posed by Call to power, Ifreann, et al, was what I meant by "religious and spiritual roots". I do mean common roots that have been revealed in different parts of the world over the centuries. Skibereen made some excellent points here: all religions ARE based on the same set of core values (don't lie, don't kill, etc.); it's all from the same source. His notion of "Spiritualism" is actually the way religious administration is SUPPOSED to work. Most old religious administrations have since become entirely engulfed by the pursuit of power of individuals and have thus lost sight of this goal. A simple illustration is the absence of democracy in most, though not all, religious administrations. Democracy is a VERY important element in human administrative systems, and spiritual governing bodies are not exempt.

However, there are several problems with the complete separation between state and religion. It forces people to live double-lives. That includes world leaders that need to make important decisions; they're allowed to be spiritual beings in private, but they need to become secular think-tanks in their public lives. Separation also invalidates the wisdom imparted by religious leaders in state decision making which is completely counter-intuitive. Wisdom comes from all different sources; cutting out a source that has been revered by humanity for thousands of years just doesn't make sense.

At this point, the easy thing to do is blame religion for a lot of the world's problems. Religion is a popular scapegoat these days because it allows us to evade taking responsibility for our problems. Before I talk any more about religion, I want to define it, (at the very least, within the context of my descriptions).

Religion is the spiritual development of an authentic relationship with a Higher Power, and the development of relationships with other human beings based on that initial relationship. That's what religion is (within context). That means that there are a lot of things out there that religion is NOT. Religion is not merely a set of rules—legalism. Religion is not a single idea, or small group of ideas that are exalted fundamentally and fanatically above human life—an ideology. That means that religion is also not the fanatical acts that are committed in "the name of 'religion'", or the blind imposition of a set of rules in "the name of 'religion'". (Citation: Love Power and Justice by Dr. William Hatcher)

Notice that this definition of religion is very similar to that of spirituality that has become a popular substitute when people feel that religion has become a word that is "too strong" or has "bad connotations". In fact, this definition is very close to the aforementioned Spiritualism, which is (as far as I can tell) a somewhat legalist ideology on which to base a secular government; a way of implementing the social teaching of religion, while, at least in part, neglecting the spiritual aspects of religion.

Essentially, what I'm talking about is an administration that recognizes the oneness of religious ("spiritual") teachings throughout history (i.e. not one that says "Well, 'my religion's' right, and 'your religion's' wrong. Now I will pass laws accordingly"). A government that reintroduces the spiritual aspects of "Spiritualism" and implements them in their decision-making process. One that uses the power of religious wisdom to unite its people, instead of separate them.

Are there any other NS leaders out there who believe that better nations can be developed by returning to humanity's religious and spiritual roots?

There are players out there with such beliefs. I am not one of them, thankfully.

There are players out there with such beliefs. I am not one of them, thankfully.

Thanks for the honest response, UVR :)

...to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.

This is best in life...

Thanks for the honest response, UVR :)

You're welcome. Honesty is one of my strengths, I believe.

Thank you everyone for all of your either insightful or amusing input! I deliberately posted this topic in a vague manner, hoping to generate discussion to act as a starting point. It worked great.


I expected more responses myself.


The other question posed by Call to power, Ifreann, et al, was what I meant by "religious and spiritual roots". I do mean common roots that have been revealed in different parts of the world over the centuries.

Got that.


Skibereen made some excellent points here:

Bolded merely because this is so rarely said around here.


all religions ARE based on the same set of core values (don't lie, don't kill, etc.); it's all from the same source.

I beg to differ on this point. Not ALL religions are based on the same set of core values simply most major religions. Bodies make an excellent point about the Thugees...of course there are none left to my knowledge but even at the core their they treated each other with...a set of core values very close to the ones I described.

His notion of "Spiritualism" is actually the way religious administration is SUPPOSED to work. Most old religious administrations have since become entirely engulfed by the pursuit of power of individuals and have thus lost sight of this goal. A simple illustration is the absence of democracy in most, though not all, religious administrations. Democracy is a VERY important element in human administrative systems, and spiritual governing bodies are not exempt.


I beg to differ again.
My notion of spiritualism does not require divinity. An Atheist can be "Spiritual" in the sense of up hold ing the spirit of the aforementioned set of core values. He need no religion to be "Spiritual".


However, there are several problems with the complete separation between state and religion. It forces people to live double-lives. That includes world leaders that need to make important decisions; they're allowed to be spiritual beings in private, but they need to become secular think-tanks in their public lives. Separation also invalidates the wisdom imparted by religious leaders in state decision making which is completely counter-intuitive. Wisdom comes from all different sources; cutting out a source that has been revered by humanity for thousands of years just doesn't make sense.
Excluding religion does not exclud the spiritual nature.
It excludes the religion. I adhere to a religion that requires me to kind to others, to love my enemy inspite of not him but myself. To forgive, when ever asked, and often even when not.
If I in anger look at muslim and shout "Get the fuck out of my way"...then repent, and retract my statement and as forgiveness Islam teaches the Msulim to forgive, because Allah loveth not trangressors. So to remain angry and seek hostility in the face of my repentance and request of forgivness would violate the Spiritualism of the religion of the Most Merciful Allah.
However, the RELIGION, the institution, the organized exclusionary faiths fo the world are far less Spiritual then they are dogmatic. It is the natural course of religion to become dogmatic and therefore dead. Religion in politics would never preclude a leader from thinking "what is the most righteous course of action I could take in the interests of my country"...he must always act in the interests of his nation after all. He merely stops him from saying "Catholicism has devolved into a dogmatic paganism of ritual rites with no glorification of God left in it. It is now illegal, and Baptist is the new state religion." With no seperation of religion from the state things like that become possible.

Many presidents were very spiritual men, they just kept the religion...not the spirit out of hte office.


At this point, the easy thing to do is blame religion for a lot of the world's problems. Religion is a popular scapegoat these days because it allows us to evade taking responsibility for our problems. As it should be religion is dangerous.


Before I talk any more about religion, I want to define it, (at the very least, within the context of my descriptions).

Religion is the spiritual development of an authentic relationship with a Higher Power, and the development of relationships with other human beings based on that initial relationship. That's what religion is (within context). That means that there are a lot of things out there that religion is NOT. Religion is not merely a set of rules—legalism. Religion is not a single idea, or small group of ideas that are exalted fundamentally and fanatically above human life—an ideology. That means that religion is also not the fanatical acts that are committed in "the name of 'religion'", or the blind imposition of a set of rules in "the name of 'religion'". (Citation: Love Power and Justice by Dr. William Hatcher) I prefer to stick with the more biblical definition. Religion being a bad thing. Becoming religious being a bad thing.



Notice that this definition of religion is very similar to that of spirituality that has become a popular substitute when people feel that religion has become a word that is "too strong" or has "bad connotations".
In correct, football can be a religion. Religion and religious behavior are in way == to faith in a higher power. It is indeed a recent connection in language that has grown stronger as the word has been misused.




Essentially, what I'm talking about is an administration that recognizes the oneness of religious ("spiritual") teachings throughout history (i.e. not one that says "Well, 'my religion's' right, and 'your religion's' wrong. Now I will pass laws accordingly"). A government that reintroduces the spiritual aspects of "Spiritualism" and implements them in their decision-making process. One that uses the power of religious wisdom to unite its people, instead of separate them.

The traditional American system did.
It ensured that no religion could yoke the government yet each man being free to practice and participate in any faith could indeed join the government bringing his spiritual out look with him...he just had to keep his religion out of the legislation. IN return the government promised to keep legislation out of religion.

The set of morals/values that you speak of are present without any form of belief in divinity. Secularism is based on these morals independent of any religion they form part of. Problem with religion is that it creates laws and rules to maintain its organisation and cohesion, but ultimately these laws extend to unnecessary and plain bigotted things. Thus religion is still separated from state, and quite rightly so.

Are there any other NS leaders out there who believe that better nations can be developed by returning to humanity's religious and spiritual roots?
---------------------------------
I reckon religion is one thing and spiritual is a totally different thing to me.

I need to take care of my spiritual needs although i'm an atheist.

*wanders off muttering confusedly*

I don't honestly think it could ever work. The world has simply scattered too much. There is so much diversity in nearly every place you go to that it would be hard to unite an entire nation under one spiritual ideal. (unless it were a very tiny, isolated nation)

I assume that's what you mean, because having a government with the blanket statement of "we embrace all forms of spirituality" is more or less what we have now. The problem with what we have now, is convincing the rest of the population (regional, national and world wide) to accept this belief as well. If, for example, we could get all the religions of the world, and their followers, to agree to respect each other and allow the (peaceful) 'to each his own' worship of each and every person on the planet, that, I think, would be the perfect merger between religion and government.

But that is far far from happening either, ovbiously, with most everyone screaming that their way is the only right way. And yes, athiests can scream as loud as anyone else in the cacophony.

I would rather have religion and government seperated. I'm quite happy living my life by the basic 'do onto others' rule. My spirituality is a personal thing, and no one else should have the right to interfere with that, just as I shouldn't have the right to interfere with anyone else's spiritual path.

The set of morals/values that you speak of are present without any form of belief in divinity. Secularism is based on these morals independent of any religion they form part of. Problem with religion is that it creates laws and rules to maintain its organisation and cohesion, but ultimately these laws extend to unnecessary and plain bigotted things. Thus religion is still separated from state, and quite rightly so.

Pretty much.

and I am an evangelical.

I was prompted to post this thread after a seeming LACK of interest in this perspective among NS players.

Many western (actual) nations consider the separation of state and religion a great triumph. Nevertheless, my question is this:

Are there any other NS leaders out there who believe that better nations can be developed by returning to humanity's religious and spiritual roots?

No, nations cannot be better developed by returining to humanity's spiritual roots, because spirituality is an extraordinarily vague metaphysical concept of harmony with the universe. Every individual has a different understanding of the universe and different values as to how this harmony is to be achieved, therefore it is not within the jurisdiction of government authority.

Also, IMO, secular governments are (or should be) built on ethics, not morals. Keep in mind that they are two different things--ethics, which follow directly from reason, involves issues of interaction between human beings, and essentially are rooted in the assertion that it is wrong to impose one's will on others without their consent. Morals, on the other hand, are relative to individual values, which are influenced by but not entirely subject to the values of society.

Religion and Spirituality should be a personal thing and not something that you should institute into government. Want to know what happens when you do, look at the Middle East, countries like Saudi Arabia, etc.

<snip>

Are there any other NS leaders out there who believe that better nations can be developed by returning to humanity's religious and spiritual roots?

<snip>

"WARNING! HIDDEN MESSAGE DETECTED!"

ORLY?

"YARLY!"

Hmm... I think I see it... let me get out my handy decoding device and make sure...

That's what I thought. If you want to understand why the OP made this thread, replace "returning to humanity's religious and spiritual roots" with "adopting an extrememly politicized form of fundamentalist Christianity (with liberal use of old pieces of Catholic dogma) and adjusting Western laws and culture to force through legislation that makes anything that makes fundamentalist Christians uncomfortable illegal", and you'll be able to see the true meaning of the original post. :)

... so, what he's really trying to do is rally support for a viewpoint that wants to legislate its religious beliefs and taboos on the rest of Western society. :mad:

"WARNING! HIDDEN MESSAGE DETECTED!"

ORLY?

"YARLY!"

Hmm... I think I see it... let me get out my handy decoding device and make sure...

That's what I thought. If you want to understand why the OP made this thread, replace "returning to humanity's religious and spiritual roots" with "adopting an extrememly politicized form of fundamentalist Christianity (with liberal use of old pieces of Catholic dogma) and adjusting Western laws and culture to force through legislation that makes anything that makes fundamentalist Christians uncomfortable illegal", and you'll be able to see the true meaning of the original post. :)

... so, what he's really trying to do is rally support for a viewpoint that wants to legislate its religious beliefs and taboos on the rest of Western society. :mad:

Well, that was presumptuous. I'm not even a Christian.

I found the point about ethics interesting, but I personally disagree for the same reason that I don't agree with defending spirituality as a "personal" thing. Based on your definition of ethics (it's unjust to impose one's will onto another's) than the only system of pure ethics would be anarchy. Now, I assume by 'base governments on ethics' you meant ethics in some degree of moderation.

I also liked the point that accepting everyone's right to spirituality is basically the system we have now , but the people that operate in that system insist on proclaiming, "I'm right; you're wrong." I agree with that for the most part--I still think spirituality (divinity included) should play a much greater role in government, but I think that will come to pass once more grassroots efforts develop unity among the people from the ground up. While organizations can create the illusion of power, it is the people who possess the reality of power (in a social context). Furthermore, not all forms of organized religion maintains the exclusive attitudes that can be the cause of disunity among individuals.

Also, I was hoping defining religion differently would discount these ideas already, but the failed fanatical systems in the Middle East are not governments that operate based only on true religion. They are ideological systems of legalism, in which the leaders who dictate laws make decisions to serve their own interests. There's nothing spiritually progressive about that for the leaders or the people. Basically what I'm saying is, "just look at the Middle East" is a wholly insufficient excuse to invalidate the idea that the proper union of religion and (inter)national leadership works. If you try to dance the tango and you fall on your butt, it doesn't mean it's impossible, it just means you're doing it wrong.

I found the point about ethics interesting, but I personally disagree for the same reason that I don't agree with defending spirituality as a "personal" thing.

Sorry, I never finished on the second part of that thought. Yes, spirituality is a personal thing, but I think that we have created an unhealthy taboo in discussing spirituality. The debate and definition of religion aside--people seem to agree (you can never include everyone, but anyway...) that humans as spiritual beings is universal. If it's something that we all have in common, why do we allow varying understandings of it to bar it from conversation? (Obviously, it's an open topic in this thread, but that's not the case in most western social atmospheres). This reluctance always reminds me of the final moments of the South Park clip included in Bowling For Columbine, when all the people run scared and lock themselves away in the suburbs; don't know exactly why; same type of fear I suppose.

Human sacrifices so not appease the Weasel God. She demands a goat sacrifice!

What are the appropriate sacrifices to FSM and IPU?