2004.11.30
Secular State
There are many reasons that maintaining a secular state is important and why voting purely based on religious impulses is a mistake.
First, if a government advocates a specific religion, then any other religion within the boundaries of the state is instantly a minority. If the numerical majority is not of the official religion then the situation can be worse. Either way oppression ensues, percieved or real.
Second, even if the official religion of a state is very tolerant, the first point is valid.
Third, religion is not by nature tolerant. “Our way is the right/correct/only way to salvation/nirvana/utopia/off the karmic wheel, and yours is not.” The first point is even more valid, and becomes more real than perception.
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
This would be a good lesson in much of the world; America is no exception. I am very much for religion and believe it is integral to the human soul. I also believe that my religion is just as authentic as anyone elses. I would not force mine upon another person, just as I would not want anyone to force theirs on me.
You can follow any responses to this entry with a RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
5 Responses to “Secular State”
- NHK says (December 8th, 2004 at 08:31:51 )
I’m very much against religion and I don’t think people *have* souls. I do agree with you about the importance of maintaining a secular state, though. Not that I expect to see one here in the U.S. during my lifetime.
- dugh says (December 8th, 2004 at 22:03:39 )
what i mean by soul
what i mean by “soul” isn’t just the religious terminology. i also simply mean that quality within (almost) all people to look out at the universe and wonder about it, to question who and what we are, and to wonder at it all. it’s not a very accurate definition of a soul, but even the most devout atheist must admit there is something about being human and self-aware that give us a (possibly entirely) unique characteristic that is not shared by the rest of known life.i am not terribly religious myself, and certainly not in any conformity to an established religion, but i do believe that religion is extremely important to most of humanity. it does have it’s place, and like most things that humanity has its paws on, it can be abused like anything else. it is this possibility for abuse, along with the exclusionary nature of all belief systems (religious and secular), that caused me to write the article.
- NHK says (December 10th, 2004 at 08:52:55 )
“Higher brain function” might be a more accurate way to describe what you discuss than “soul”, but that’s for you to decide. I’m going to go and write about religion, now.
- dugh says (December 10th, 2004 at 21:50:21 )
call it what you will, though “higher brain function” is debatable in relation to humanity. we are tool makers, but so are chimps. anyways, i’m not saying there is an actual real soul necessarily, but a quality in humanity i’m calling a soul. if you have emotions (and i know you do) then you have it, too.
get over bantering semantics and just agree with me already! :)
- NHK says (December 12th, 2004 at 00:15:40 )
I do, in fact, generally agree with you. I just feel the word “soul” has a lot of religious connotation, so yes, I was dickering over semantics. There, I caved. Happy? So crazy cute emoticon, BTW!
