NationStates Jolt Archive

Question: Are religions/belief systems/faiths in general compatible with democratic values?

I've always wondered about this, because I've noticed that religions tend to have characteristics commonly associated with facism (i.e., blaming [insert choice of evil] for bad things, worshipping a supreme diety, etc.). But I am not informed as I would like to be, so I thought I would start a thread to see what other people think.

EDIT: Just wondering, but does anyone else find it funny that the forum doesn't recognize "worshipping" as a word?

Individual religion certainly is...Not entire Sects, however, that is why the Constitution is Secular...

I hear it's working out great in the Middle East.

I hear it's working out great in the Middle East.

lol, you must be joking....

In general I would say that no, they are not compatible.

Theocracies cannot be democratic, if that is what you are asking; but a society comprised of those with religious beliefs certainly can be democratic, else there would be precious few democracies in the world.

Question: Are religions/belief systems/faiths in general compatible with democratic values?

I've always wondered about this, because I've noticed that religions tend to have characteristics commonly associated with facism (i.e., blaming [insert choice of evil] for bad things, worshipping a supreme diety, etc.). But I am not informed as I would like to be, so I thought I would start a thread to see what other people think.

If you go and read the Bible then New Testament Christianity is entirely compatible with democracy, as well as with any other form of government. Because what it's all about is living for faith in God and love of others, and encouraging others to do the same in spite of what the government is doing.

Even an authoritarian atheist Stalinist government that persecutes Christians is compatible with Christianity. The more it oppresses you, the more Christian you are.

In fact, about the only form of government that is not compatible with Christianity is a Christian Theocracy. Because if you're forced under threat of torture, execution, or execution by torture, then there's no virtue in following the teachings of Christ. You will, as Christ puts it, "have had your reward in this world," (not being tortured to death.)

If you live in a Stalinist government in which being Christian can get you killed, or a capitalist democracy in which you are constantly subject to material and carnal temptation, well then you have tremendous opportunities to follow the teachings of Christ every day by risking persecution or resisting temptation.

lol, you must be joking....

Would I ever?

Fundamental religion and Democracy are not compatible.

When they enter politics? Put simply, no: healthy democratic politics requires public reasons for policies, reasons that are in principle acceptable to all, not ones dependent on private subjective faith.

Religion does not "belong" in the private sphere by any standard inherent in itself--indeed, most religions have traditionally been quite political--but that is its only legitimate place in a liberal democracy. This incompatibility is at the heart of the intractability of the political disputes concerning religion in the US.

Come to think of it, religion was the main argument against democracy, yes? Divine Right and all that?

Come to think of it, religion was the main argument against democracy, yes? Divine Right and all that?

You never had a king, did you? Does that emperor truly count?

You never had a king, did you? Does that emperor truly count?

We had President Wilson, who proclaimed that he was ordained by God.

We had President Wilson, who proclaimed that he was ordained by God.

What a dumbass.

What a dumbass.

He was a dumbass in many respects, but a good President in others. His greatest fault, as CM pointed-out earlier, was starting the USian intervention policy.

Theocracies cannot be democratic, if that is what you are asking; but a society comprised of those with religious beliefs certainly can be democratic, else there would be precious few democracies in the world.

lol A democratic theocracy...? Never crossed my mind. While I do agree that religious people can share democratic values, I'm not sure the religion they subscribe to is compatible.

If you go and read the Bible then New Testament Christianity is entirely compatible with democracy, as well as with any other form of government. Because what it's all about is living for faith in God and love of others, and encouraging others to do the same in spite of what the government is doing.

Even an authoritarian atheist Stalinist government that persecutes Christians is compatible with Christianity. The more it oppresses you, the more Christian you are.

In fact, about the only form of government that is not compatible with Christianity is a Christian Theocracy. Because if you're forced under threat of torture, execution, or execution by torture, then there's no virtue in following the teachings of Christ. You will, as Christ puts it, "have had your reward in this world," (not being tortured to death.)

If you live in a Stalinist government in which being Christian can get you killed, or a capitalist democracy in which you are constantly subject to material and carnal temptation, well then you have tremendous opportunities to follow the teachings of Christ every day by risking persecution or resisting temptation.

I disagree with the bolded part. I know that people do practice Jesus's teachings without thinking of God's punishment. But what about God threatening to send people to Hell if they don't "behave and believe"? I can understand that he rewards people who do "behave and believe," with Paradise, but to punish people who don't? Regardless what you think about Hell, it's still a punishment.

I'd also like to point out that people hardly have a say in what happens to them in God's Divine Plan/Will/etc.

He was a dumbass in many respects, but a good President in others. His greatest fault, as CM pointed-out earlier, was starting the USian intervention policy.

Alcoholics?

Alcoholics?

World Police.

World Police.

Oh, he's truly an arsehole then.

Oh, he's truly an arsehole then.

He helped you Brits in WWI because of it.

He helped you Brits in WWI because of it.

We didn't need you militarily.

He helped you Brits in WWI because of it.

We would have won anyway, it just would have taken even longer and cost more lives.

^ The same applies to WWII.

When they enter politics? Put simply, no: healthy democratic politics requires public reasons for policies, reasons that are in principle acceptable to all, not ones dependent on private subjective faith.

Religion does not "belong" in the private sphere by any standard inherent in itself--indeed, most religions have traditionally been quite political--but that is its only legitimate place in a liberal democracy. This incompatibility is at the heart of the intractability of the political disputes concerning religion in the US.

Sorry, you're gonna have to put that in a more simple way... I'm only in high school, I'm not a political science/philosophy major...

^ The same applies to WWII.

All the same, we would have won. And you guys should have joined sooner, thus saving more lives. :mad:

All the same, we would have won. And you guys should have joined sooner, thus saving more lives. :mad:

But you just called Wilson an arsehole for being an interventionist. :confused:

^ The same applies to WWII.

Maybe not in the Pacific. It would have been just us and the Australians.

Maybe not in the Pacific. It would have been just us and the Australians.

Russia eventually joined.

But you just called Wilson an arsehole for being an interventionist. :confused:

It's RoI.

But you just called Wilson an arsehole for being an interventionist. :confused:

I meant every thing after that. And like I said we would have won.

You know, I kinda expected to get thread jacked by Christians vs. Athiests... but I am kinda relieved it ended up like this.

Russia eventually joined.

If Manchuria in August counts, then yeah, I suppose. But really, I think we would have drawn up some treaty with the Japanese. I imagine they'd leave New Guinea and Burma, possibly Indochina, but keep the rest of their conquests.

It's RoI.

"It"?


http://www.nerdles.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pennywise-clown-it.jpg

I meant every thing after that.

So the U.S. is allowed to fight wars and depose of tyrants only when it helps the UK, eh what?

"It"?


http://www.nerdles.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pennywise-clown-it.jpg

Oh, just scar me then will you?

Russia eventually joined.

"It"?


http://www.nerdles.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pennywise-clown-it.jpg
http://hillaryfail.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/scary_clown-300x290.jpg
So the U.S. is allowed to fight wars and depose of tyrants only when it helps the UK, eh what?

No, you guys think you own the fucking world.

No, you guys think you own the fucking world.

And you think you know how every American thinks. Which is the bigger megalomaniac?

http://hillaryfail.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/scary_clown-300x290.jpg

*is terrified*

No, you guys think you own the fucking world.

You wish Britain did, hm? :D You are simply jealous because a bunch of ignorant hicks ripped-off your place.

And you think you know how every American thinks. Which is the bigger megalomaniac?

I personified the US with "you". Problem?

*is terrified*



You wish Britain did, hm? :D You are simply jealous because a bunch of ignorant hicks ripped-off your place.

Precisily, you thieves.



(argh)

Precisily, you thieves.



(argh)

But...the British Empire is the farthest thing from communism the world has ever known. :confused:

You should read about the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and his impact on politics and democracy. This makes me want to say that it is compatible.

You should also read the paper and look at the impact of religion in terms of excusing horrible oppression in many areas of the world today. This makes me want to say it is not.

The truth, as usual is complicated. Religious minorities often need the protection of the state to be able to practice openly. Which is why religious dissidents fleeing countries with established religions ended up founding nations that protected the rights of those who just came up with their own religion, which is now recognised as a cornerstone of democracy.

When I look at it that way, I would say that religious uniformity is not compatible with democracy, while religious plurality both requires and seems to be a requisite for democracy.

Question: Are religions/belief systems/faiths in general compatible with democratic values?

I've always wondered about this, because I've noticed that religions tend to have characteristics commonly associated with facism (i.e., blaming [insert choice of evil] for bad things, worshipping a supreme diety, etc.). But I am not informed as I would like to be, so I thought I would start a thread to see what other people think.

EDIT: Just wondering, but does anyone else find it funny that the forum doesn't recognize "worshipping" as a word?
I haven't read the 3 pages yet, but I want to float a guess first: People who are religious are saying that religion is compatible with democracy, and people who are not religious are saying it isn't. Am I close?

Also, you do realize that not every religion operates that way -- with all that blaming and supremeness and other "fascist" traits -- right?

And you do realize that blaming and supreme beingness are not actually the defining characteristics of fascism, right?

EDIT: Okay, I've read the thread now, and apparently, I got ahead of the game a little. I failed to anticipate the latest dick-measuring hijack. So I'm just going to let my guess sit here and wait for other people who will never read the thread to show up and make the arguments I posited.

And my questions are still pending.

Sorry, you're gonna have to put that in a more simple way...

I'll try, but this is not my strong point. :)

When we make laws in a democracy, we want them to be laws that don't subordinate other people: laws based upon inclusion rather than exclusion, on what is right for all instead of what is in accordance with the interests of only some.

When somebody makes a political appeal that is essentially religious, it can't possibly meet this standard for the simple reason that we don't all follow the same religion: since I am not a Christian, for example, if the government passes a law based upon Christianity, not only would I not be able to agree with such a law, but its justification would not even have any meaning for me.

If our political decisions are based upon religion, then, they are necessarily exclusive rather than inclusive: they cannot fairly treat people who don't accept the religion upon which those decisions are based.

Question: Are religions/belief systems/faiths in general compatible with democratic values?

I've always wondered about this, because I've noticed that religions tend to have characteristics commonly associated with facism (i.e., blaming [insert choice of evil] for bad things, worshipping a supreme diety, etc.). But I am not informed as I would like to be, so I thought I would start a thread to see what other people think.

EDIT: Just wondering, but does anyone else find it funny that the forum doesn't recognize "worshipping" as a word?

They are not at all incompatible, as long as their is not an official religion or one granted political/legal preference.

Fundimentalism, however, tends to be a threat to democracy, especially if its a "kill the heathens" type of religious belief. For obvious reasons.

reasons that are in principle acceptable to all

There are scare few policies that have this.

There are scare few policies that have this.

"In principle", not as a matter of fact.

If I'm a Christian I know (if I am intellectually honest at all) that non-Christians have no reason whatsoever to believe any of the tenets of Christianity. But if I'm (say) a utilitarian who believes in welfare capitalism, I can present reasonable arguments for my views that at the least have intersubjective grounding. Other people may as a matter of fact not agree, but we are having, so to speak, the same conversation: we are not talking past each other the way someone founding everything on the Bible and someone else founding everything on the Church of Scientology will be.

But...the British Empire is the farthest thing from communism the world has ever known. :confused:

Unfortunately that is true, and perhaps a lot of suffering may have been averted if it was communist.

Unfortunately that is true, and perhaps a lot of suffering may have been averted if it was communist.

Why do you love a government that was the total opposite of communism when you, yourself, are a communist?

Why do you love a government that was the total opposite of communism when you, yourself, are a communist?

What government do I supposedly love?

What government do I supposedly love?

The British Empire.

The British Empire.

That's not a government.

I love the British Empire, but I do not love all that it did or stood for.

That's not a government.

I love the British Empire, but I do not love all that it did or stood for.

Well, what exactly is the Empire to you? To me it is either the territories or the government.

Well, what exactly is the Empire to you? To me it is either the territories or the government.

Territories.


I love what our country achieved in such a short space of time.

Yes, and no. It depends a great deal upon the religion in question, the sect of said religion (Given that different sects tends to believe wildly different things and have different organizational structures), their places in the society that has the democracy and the current status of said society.

Or to put it another way, religion has been used to justify absolute monarchy and has also been used to justify democracy.

Territories.

The dirt? :confused:

I love what our country achieved in such a short space of time.

Was what it achieved good?

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's."

Not that hard, now is it?

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's."

Not that hard, now is it?

Debates ensue as to what actually belongs to Cæsar and God.

The dirt? :confused:
And what's under it and on top.


Was what it achieved good?

Spread our language, sports, legal system, ect. around the world.

Debates ensue as to what actually belongs to Cæsar and God.

Cæsar had half of Europe.

And what's under it and on top.

Oil?

Spread our language, sports, legal system, ect. around the world.

I rather enjoy your language, and fencing is a fine sport. Since you are a communist, I am surprised you do not hate the Imperial British legal system.

Oil?
And other such stuff.


I rather enjoy your language, and fencing is a fine sport. Since you are a communist, I am surprised you do not hate the Imperial British legal system.

I do, but I'm still proud that we spread it around the world.


Any other sports?

Question: Are religions/belief systems/faiths in general compatible with democratic values?

There is no reason to say that religions in general are incompatible with democratic values. In fact, some religions strongly endorse democracy (and don't give me that "Unitarian Universalism is not a religion" nonsense).

Belief systems in general cannot be incompatible with anything. Everyone has a belief system.

As for faiths in general being incompatible with democratic values... Well I have a faith and it's not incompatible with democracy (doesn't really have anything to do with government at all) so...

On the other hand, it's obvious there are a lot of specific religions, belief systems and faiths that are not compatible with democracy.

Looking at it from the other side, democracy is compatible with religions and faiths. It is requiring everyone to be an atheist that is incompatible with democratic values!

I've always wondered about this, because I've noticed that religions tend to have characteristics commonly associated with facism (i.e., blaming [insert choice of evil] for bad things, worshipping a supreme diety, etc.).

Yeah there are lots of fascistoid religions out there, and those get all of the attention, because positive news is not news. (amusing beside: IIRC there is a Buddhist newspaper that contains only positive news)

EDIT: Just wondering, but does anyone else find it funny that the forum doesn't recognize "worshipping" as a word?

Worshiping is not the act of shipping wor ;) .

Question: Are religions/belief systems/faiths in general compatible with democratic values?

I've always wondered about this, because I've noticed that religions tend to have characteristics commonly associated with facism (i.e., blaming [insert choice of evil] for bad things, worshipping a supreme diety, etc.). But I am not informed as I would like to be, so I thought I would start a thread to see what other people think.

EDIT: Just wondering, but does anyone else find it funny that the forum doesn't recognize "worshipping" as a word?

Why yes, yes it is. The problem comes when dogma is brought up.

Well, yes and no.
Democracies were founded by religious people, although the whole process does remind me a bit of Margaret Thatcher in her time : Give people freedom and then be surprised and outraged if they don't behave in the good, old-fashioned, moral and decent ways any more (Maggie did that with economics, democracy did it with all aspects of lif ;) )

Maybe not in the Pacific. It would have been just us and the Australians.

It wasn't interventionism in the pacific, they'd been attacked so it was self-defence :p


When I look at it that way, I would say that religious uniformity is not compatible with democracy, while religious plurality both requires and seems to be a requisite for democracy.

I wouldn't say religious pluarlity is a pre-requisit for democracy - democracy itself just means rule of the people. If you have the majority of people as a single religion they may well vote for imposition of religious restrictions and laws based of a single religious morality. This is still democracy, because it has been voted for by the people, however it's an illiberal democracy. To have a liberal democracy however it's different. In this case I wouldn't say relgious plurality is required to exist to begin with - but because of the fundamentals of freedom of speech, thought and expression which (to varying degrees) lie at the heart of liberal democracies, I believe it does foster religious pluralism (especially if you include non-religion as part of this).

So no, religion and democracy are not incompatible - but to have a liberal democracy the government must be ruled by secular ideals which in turn will probably result in diversity in religions (and non-religion).

Organized religions claim that the supreme authority is their god and in reality it is all about the ecclesiastical elite having the power.

Democracy claims that the supreme authority is the people and in reality it is all about the political elite having the power.

Individual religious views are as different as there are people. Some are compatible with democracy... some are not.

Organized religion, contrary to what some people would tell you, are constantly changing and adapting their beliefs to the new situations (albeit slower than most other things).

Look at the Catholic Church. When democracy started they were one of their main opponents, remember Divine Right. But during the cold war they became all pro-Democracy and anti-communist. And what about the Dalai Lama. He was the inheritor of a feudal state. And now he is all about democracy and shit.

Only to mess with people here that claim otherwise... I am an atheist and I think religion is compatible with democracy. Actually religion is compatible with ANY form of government. Priests always find a way to come to terms with those in power.


"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. "

Thomas Jefferson