I completely agree that organised religion is, alongside corporations, are responsible for the most human suffering in the history of the world. I’m also completely supportive of getting theism out of government, and in the end getting religion out of the the public sphere for ever, but the ONLY way we’ll achieve this is by education and secularism, never by banning the religions themselves. All banning the religions will cause is for them to go underground, become even more racist, homophobic and misogynist than ever, not to mention attracting hordes of supporters, particularly angry straight white men. Also (and I repeat I am completely against organised religion) some of the worst atrocities ever committed, such as the Holocaust, Stalin’s Russia and Pinochet’s Chile were actually caused by fascists and totalitarian socialists, rather than religious fundamentalists. The Holocaust and Stalinism also both murdered vast amounts of members of certain religions, most notably Judaism. The reason I bring this up is because we need to strike a balance between ridiculously strong governments and ridiculously strong religions and by banning religions, you merely create a very strong government. Likewise if you drastically limit government power, without limiting religious power (The Tea Party of America) than you create a very strong religion.
Thanks for this.
I mostly agree with you and that is why I chose regulate instead of ban in the O.P.
At present, especially in the U.S., I see little separation of church and state so do not have the concerns you do about have a larger entity ruling.
It is already there and cannot get any larger.
As to ridding religions from the public space, France is leading the way and showing us what we should be considering.
They have banned some of the Muslim face masks, minarets on mosques and crosses on churches.
As with the French revolution that helped usher in Democracy, France is now showing us what a true secular state looks like.
Those weren’t communist
The USSR wasn’t communist, it was in a place in between Capitalism and Socialism(State Capitalism), but then Stalin took over and It became a dictatorship.
China was supposed to be Market Socialism, mixed Capitalism and Socialism, but became capitalist in the early stages and because of globalization it became cheap labor central.
Cuba is actually very democratic, most of the poverty there can be attributed to the US embargo on Cuba.
North Korea is a result of the USSRs imperialism and functions like the USSR, it is a dictatorship.
Vietnam and Laos were also the product of the USSRs imperialism and were immediately attacked by the US.
The Kibbutzes were an oppressive form of ethnic nationalism, which goes against Socialism.
Hitler took over a “Socialist” party, but was not actually Socialist, he abandoned all populist ideals once in power, banned all real Socialist/Communist parties and turned the party into a white nationalist party, which goes against the socialist ideals of equality and internationalism.
Pol Pot was like Hitler, he took over a “Communist” party but wasn’t communist. In fact, he was self-describedly not a Communist. In the Cambodian massacre, the U.S funded KM and bombed 900k innocents.
Venezuela doesn’t even have a socialist constitution or economy.
But this doesn’t mean communism is doomed to fail because of “Human Nature”, almost all attempts have been destroyed due to Capitalist imperialism, low technological and economic starting points, and a bad situation to inherit.
Despite this, places like Rojava, Revolutionary Catalonia, Parts of Chiapas (the Zapatistas), Anarchist Argon and many other places have proven Socialism can work.
The USSR wasn’t communist and a lot of other supposedly communist countries were a product of its imperialism.
Man is the most insecure animal on earth.
Our competition, born of that insecurity and our own instincts to be the fittest, will likely never allow us to live in peaceful communal/communistic states. I think past attempts have proven this.
Where do you think we will eventually land in terms of a political system with a decent socio economic demographic pyramid?
Our present on for our democracies look like this one and I do not think the people will tolerate it for too long.
“Cuba is actually very democratic”
I call bullshit. The country is run by the party elite who seek only to help themselves. There is a huge gap in terms of living standards and human rights abuses are aplenty. Now I don’t agree with the embargo on Cuba and I will admit that the Castro dictatorship is certainly a step up from Batista’s regime. Cuba is one of the best educated nations in Latin America and sports some of the best doctors in the 2nd world (even if they are payed like absolute crap). If they could fix some of their corruption problems and make themselves more democratic and less authoritarian, then I could see them being a pretty decent socialist nation. But as of now they have a lot of problems, some of which are America’s fault and some of which aren’t
We got so off topic…
I’m sorry but that makes little or no difference. Banning minarets from mosques, Muslims from wearing face veils and getting the crosses off churches doesn’t make a society sane, secular and rational, it just makes them authoritarian and slightly ridiculous.
I do see what you mean, the USA is very unsecular. However, it’s evidently not true that the influence of religion can’t get any bigger- the church in the USA is quite a lot smaller than Islam in Iran or Saudi Arabia!
Yet more and more E.U. nations are going that way.
I would not look to the Muslim majority countries to support your vies since some of those kill their apostates so those who do not believe would not dare tell the truth.
That is why Iran’s P M. stated there were no gays in his country.
Easy to say and confirm when gays are killed.
No. Separation of church and sate means the government cannot regulate religion. The government has no right to regulate beliefs. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, either have a theocracy (or all powerful government), or maintain a true separation.
Governments already regulate religions tax wise as well as in policy.
The U.S. government, for instance just passed an anti-bigamy law to bring Mormons to heel.
What do you have against stopping the fraudulent lying that religions are doing?
Seems you care more about their right to defraud than the victims right to not be defrauded.
Why are you putting the rights of thieves ahead of rights of victims?
Only tax wise over here. That’s not an excuse to regulate everything.
I don’t think politicians should be the ones regulating lying…
Do you think religions are the only ones who lie?
Well for a start, religions are not thieving. Secondly, I believe in the right of people to believe what they want to, and thirdly, the government has no right to decide those beliefs.
Again you fail to specify what defines a “fraudulent religion”. If the govt. declares all religions fraudulent then that is de facto state atheism, which is not secular and encroaches on one’s personal rights and freedoms (freedom of belief/religion, freedom of assembly).
That is explained in the O.P.
Lying for cash, basically.
No it is not. It is just the government telling citizens which religions are using lies on them for their cash.
Governments, like the rest of us, cannot say with any certainty if a God exists or not, and historically, religions have stated that nothing of the supernatural can be know. They then proceed to all they know of the supernatural which is speculative nonsense and obvious lies.
The government cannot force a belief on you or negate your freedom to believe anything.
If you think it can, then show how it would do so.
Then who should enforce fraud laws?
No. You have done your share if memory serves.
Ah. Another of your lies.
So you are putting the rights of people to believe garbage and lies and impoverish themselves to a fraudster, above the responsibility of the state to prevent fraud.
I think enforcing the law of the land is more important than the right of a fraudster to steal from our most vulnerable and gullible.
No its not, its just the govt telling citizens which religions are using lies on them for their cash
The problem there is that it requires determining whether or not the religion genuinely believed what it was preaching and saw its fundraising as a way to further spread itself or if it was a deliberate scam; in other words, you have to determine intent, which is an extremely difficult and icky mess
Not me. A judge, and they deal in facts and do not care what a person believes as they cannot know as a fact what a person believes.
That is the way of all fraud cases.
If you google the I.D. trial, you will see the judge not caring what the I.D. crowed believed. He cared that they were lying and condemned them for the lie, regardless of the belief.
So you say that intent does not matter, and yet its a core element of the very definition of fraud
Are you referring to the Texas Voter-ID Trial?