Redefining Religion as Politics

[Balthazzar]

Which is what religion always has been. World politics and forms of government, which at international levels secures the premise that religion is politics. In North America, we make religion controversial, but no less controversial than other forms of government. Shouldn't religion be defined as a political structure, specifically? We don't shun dialogue about other forms of government in our academic institutions. What makes religion any different?

 

[LuisDantas]

Religion is indeed politically significant and probably will always be. After all, those are two different perspectives towards much the same general, wide-appealling concerns: what can be done in the here and now to have the best conceivable present and future?

I fully and enthusiastically support laicism, which is no less than necessary; no government should ever have the goal nor the ability to decide what counts as "proper" or "true" religion or religiosity. The goal is not and can not be to "protect" specific religious groups (which amounts to smothering their competition), but rather to protect the freedom of religiosity from abuse of religious interest groups.

 

[Nakosis]

Which is what religion always has been. World politics and forms of government, which at international levels secures the premise that religion is politics. In North America, we make religion controversial, but no less controversial than other forms of government. Shouldn't religion be defined as a political structure, specifically? We don't shun dialogue about other forms of government in our academic institutions. What makes religion any different?

Sure religion is a form of government called theocracy.
Secularism tries to avoid that type of government.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Shouldn't religion be defined as a political structure, specifically?

No.

 

[Secret Chief]

No.

After much soul searching I have to agree with this analysis.

 

[Balthazzar]

Sure religion is a form of government called theocracy.
Secularism tries to avoid that type of government.

Which is why I prefer our nations present type. Theocracies are political and there are many territories who utilize this type of governance. The defining of specific religions as types of government (like political parties) may open the window for more in depth understanding as an academic for a broader reaching understanding of the world of international politics. It would certainly benefit future effectiveness of would-be aspiring politicians.

 

[Balthazzar]

No.

The premise is so quickly dismissed, while the evidence is monumentally and overwhelmingly supporting the premise already. Our international conflicts, some of which we involve ourselves in are part of this dynamic. Our lack of willingness to acknowledge the specifics of the politics in play and the parties (religious sects) vying to gain power in these theocracies, should dictate the definition and motivate the academic and study. Otherwise, American citizens will not be equipped as we should be to make educated decisions at the booth or truly feel secure in our governance. This is a world government issue and one we can't avoid as citizens anywhere. The better educated we are, the better equipped we'll be as a nation.

 

[crossfire]

Which is what religion always has been. World politics and forms of government, which at international levels secures the premise that religion is politics. In North America, we make religion controversial, but no less controversial than other forms of government. Shouldn't religion be defined as a political structure, specifically? We don't shun dialogue about other forms of government in our academic institutions. What makes religion any different?

No. Religion properly deals with the sacred, whereas government properly deals with the profane. (Separation of church and state.)

 

[Nakosis]

Which is why I prefer our nations present type. Theocracies are political and there are many territories who utilize this type of governance. The defining of specific religions as types of government (like political parties) may open the window for more in depth understanding as an academic for a broader reaching understanding of the world of international politics. It would certainly benefit future effectiveness of would-be aspiring politicians.

I just see it as an evolution to a better form of government though I'm sure some would argue with that.

Some folks believe their God is the ultimate authority over what is right and wrong. I imagine it is hard for them to think beyond this.

 

[Balthazzar]

No. Religion properly deals with the sacred, whereas government properly deals with the profane. (Separation of church and state.)

No ... Some nations, like our own are secular, which is where I like to be. Other territories are governed differently. Our political differences and the dynamics associated with our form of government are fairly clear for Americans, but the dynamics associated in other territories are not so clearly defined. We live in a world where these territories affect us as a nation. With this stated, and despite your "sacred" spin associated with religious thought, religion is political and about governing a people.

 

[Balthazzar]

I just see it as an evolution to a better form of government though I'm sure some would argue with that.

Some folks believe their God is the ultimate authority over what is right and wrong. I imagine it is hard for them to think beyond this.

Are liberals or conservatives any less convicted in our personal ideologies in how we believe our government should operate?

 

[Nakosis]

Are liberals or conservatives any less convicted in our personal ideologies in how we believe our government should operate?

Democracy is better than other forms of government but still has its flaws.
Maybe we'll eventually develop something even better than democracy.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are liberals or conservatives any less convicted in our personal ideologies in how we believe our government should operate?

That is not really the point, though. Allowing literal faith-in-god to become a political principle would only exacerbate the problems.

 

[Balthazzar]

Democracy is better than other forms of government but still has its flaws.
Maybe we'll eventually develop something even better than democracy.

I'd prefer an educated public capable of making important decisions regarding our policies.

 

[crossfire]

No ... Some nations, like our own are secular, which is where I like to be. Other territories are governed differently. Our political differences and the dynamics associated with our form of government are fairly clear for Americans, but the dynamics associated in other territories are not so clearly defined. We live in a world where these territories affect us as a nation. With this stated, and despite your "sacred" spin associated with religious thought, religion is political and about governing a people.

Buddhism is about governing yourself, not ruling over others. Even marriage is considered a secular thing, and Buddhist monks will not officiate a wedding. (There might be Buddhist Priests in some countries who might, though.) I have my own separate "political religion" (or Sacred Clown Tradition) of Pastafarianism.

 

[Balthazzar]

That is not really the point, though. Allowing literal faith-in-god to become a political principle would only exacerbate the problems.

That wasn't even suggested or even remotely relative to anything presented about the nature of religion and politics. The point, specifically is our 1st amendment being this nation's first line of defense, which ensure religious freedom and establishes that no laws shall be made that respect one religion over another. To fully utilize this right, religion should be accepted as an academic, if only to help ensure a capable pool of future representatives due to the overwhelming evidence of politically motivated religious movements across the globe.

 

[Balthazzar]

Buddhism is about governing yourself, not ruling over others. Even marriage is considered a secular thing, and Buddhist monks will not officiate a wedding. (There might be Buddhist Priests in some countries who might, though.) I have my own separate "political religion" (or Sacred Clown Tradition) of Pastafarianism.

I was under the impression that Buddhism is classified as a philosophy.

 

[crossfire]

Some forms of government might define themselves as religious, but Some might define themselves as secular, but religion does not have to be political.

 

[crossfire]

I was under the impression that Buddhism is classified as a philosophy.

Buddhism defines its practice as "the holy life."

 

[Nakosis]

I'd prefer an educated public capable of making important decisions regarding our policies.

I'm thinking cyberocracy where advance AI take the jobs of politicians.
The only problem is that in the beginning people would program their biases into the AI. Though I suspect eventually, computers will be able to remove from themselves this human bias.