Given a choice between...

[Meow Mix]

...living in a country that had your exact interpretation of your religion (if you have one) as the basis for its laws and culture and living in a religiously neutral country that didn't favor any particular religion but allowed religious freedom for all, which place would you rather live in?

In the religious state, your religious customs and observances are law: anything your religion forbids is forbidden to everyone, for instance.

Which would you prefer to live in and why?

If you would like to live in a religious state that reflects your exact interpretation of your religion, what would you have to say to those who are born in your country that don't agree with the religious laws of the land? Should they be forced to choose between complying with rules they disagree with or leaving the country (and their families/friends) behind?

 

[Madhuri]

I'd like to live in a country that resembled my interpretation of my religion. The Veda would be the basis for how people lived their life, so things like Balance, Tolerance, Duty, Love and Respect, Gratitude and Kindness to all living entities would be important to that society. Diversity of opinion would be accepted, as it was in ancient times when people of different religious schools (all Vedic/Dharmic) would come together and debate issues but remain friendly and peaceful toward each other.

It is a fantasy of course, because human nature dictates that people cannot remain peaceful and equal for very long.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'd like to live in a country that resembled my interpretation of my religion. The Veda would be the basis for how people lived their life, so things like Balance, Tolerance, Duty, Love and Respect, Gratitude and Kindness to all living entities would be important to that society. Diversity of opinion would be accepted, as it was in ancient times when people of different religious schools (all Vedic/Dharmic) would come together and debate issues but remain friendly and peaceful toward each other.

It is a fantasy of course, because human nature dictates that people cannot remain peaceful and equal for very long.

I might enjoy living in your fantasy country from the way you describe it so far. I agree that it's probably (at least at this time) unattainable though. I have hope that at some future time technology can be used to make a relatively peaceful society compared to today's world.

It was one of Tesla's beliefs that if there were a means for instant communication and learning that most of the ills in societies like racism and other forms of intolerance would practically vanish after a few generations if people had access to information and education universally... I somewhat suspect Tesla is right. It seems to me that there is usually an inverse relationship between education and partaking in really nasty things like hatred and intolerance.

Maybe Tesla's dream can become a reality as more and more people get access to the internet... if they can be otherwise taught to sift through the crap and nonsense on the internet, that is.

Maybe if as internet access grows, respectable online methods of learning might grow as well -- who knows? Maybe in the future everyone (literally everyone) will have access to a quality education and hatefullness, warmongering and its like will mostly be a thing of the past. A girl can dream, right?

 

[Madhuri]

Absolutely I agree.
The idea that knowledge leads to tolerance is integral with Vedic philosophy. That's why we don't have the Abrahamic concept of 'evil', but rather of 'ignorance'.

This technology idea sounds great, although like all powerful technology, it could be used for something far more dangerous. But like you said, a girl can dream!

 

[Sahar]

The fist choice, absolutely. But I wouldn't say my exact interpretation, I have no problem with different interpretations to mine as long as our basics are one. Also, the freedom to elect a political group among others that represent different interpretations and approaches is essential. This is something I wish to see someday.

 

[Muffled]

...living in a country that had your exact interpretation of your religion (if you have one) as the basis for its laws and culture and living in a religiously neutral country that didn't favor any particular religion but allowed religious freedom for all, which place would you rather live in?

In the religious state, your religious customs and observances are law: anything your religion forbids is forbidden to everyone, for instance.

Which would you prefer to live in and why?

If you would like to live in a religious state that reflects your exact interpretation of your religion, what would you have to say to those who are born in your country that don't agree with the religious laws of the land? Should they be forced to choose between complying with rules they disagree with or leaving the country (and their families/friends) behind?

I don't think I would want to live in a chaotic society where anything goes because at least one person believes in it.

My exact interpretation comes from Jesus so the description is of the Kingdom of God. I will live there and want to live there.

I wouldn't want anyone there who didn't want to be there ie who is unwilling to live accrding to the law.

 

[sandandfoam]

I am strongly for the second option.
I am a committed secularist. It bugs the hell out of me that religion in any shape or form has any hand at all in the governance of any country.
Live and let live.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

...living in a country that had your exact interpretation of your religion (if you have one) as the basis for its laws and culture and living in a religiously neutral country that didn't favor any particular religion but allowed religious freedom for all, which place would you rather live in?

The religiously neutral country, definitely. I have no interest in imposing atheism on anyone. I also see secularism as the logical offshoot of mutual respect and empathy: if I want the freedom to believe as I choose and to act on those beliefs, IMO, I'm duty-bound to protect that same freedom for others.

Muffled did bring up a good point, though: I'm not in favour of limitless religious freedom - there are religious practices that I personally find unacceptable. I wouldn't defend religious freedom to the point of supporting someone's right to sacrifice children, for instance. In any society that I would support, religious freedom would have to be limited by the human rights of those who might be affected.



Now... personally, I'm most interested to hear how people answer this:

If you would like to live in a religious state that reflects your exact interpretation of your religion, what would you have to say to those who are born in your country that don't agree with the religious laws of the land? Should they be forced to choose between complying with rules they disagree with or leaving the country (and their families/friends) behind?

Those of you who chose the first option: so, in your ideal society, everyone would follow the Vedas/Quran/Bible/etc. But what happens when that ideal isn't met? What happens if someone doesn't believe what you consider to be ideal? In that circumstance, how would your ideal society respond?

 

[PolyHedral]

I am strongly for the second option.
I am a committed secularist. It bugs the hell out of me that religion in any shape or form has any hand at all in the governance of any country.
Live and let live.

Cheater! It isn't much of a choice when the options are identical.

 

[Kerr]

...living in a country that had your exact interpretation of your religion (if you have one) as the basis for its laws and culture and living in a religiously neutral country that didn't favor any particular religion but allowed religious freedom for all, which place would you rather live in?

In the religious state, your religious customs and observances are law: anything your religion forbids is forbidden to everyone, for instance.

Which would you prefer to live in and why?

If you would like to live in a religious state that reflects your exact interpretation of your religion, what would you have to say to those who are born in your country that don't agree with the religious laws of the land? Should they be forced to choose between complying with rules they disagree with or leaving the country (and their families/friends) behind?

Would rather live in a neutral country with much religious freedom. Except for supporting it because I believe in a secular society... I also happen to like diversity . And as a note, I am not religious, so I do not know how much my opinion is worth in the context of the OP.

 

[sandandfoam]

Cheater! It isn't much of a choice when the options are identical.

LOL Hadn't thought of it like that till you said it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

...living in a country that had your exact interpretation of your religion (if you have one) as the basis for its laws and culture and living in a religiously neutral country that didn't favor any particular religion but allowed religious freedom for all, which place would you rather live in?

In the religious state, your religious customs and observances are law: anything your religion forbids is forbidden to everyone, for instance.

Which would you prefer to live in and why?

If you would like to live in a religious state that reflects your exact interpretation of your religion, what would you have to say to those who are born in your country that don't agree with the religious laws of the land? Should they be forced to choose between complying with rules they disagree with or leaving the country (and their families/friends) behind?

I would immediately live in the religiously neutral country, just on the fact that my religious views today may not be my religious views tomorrow.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

...living in a country that had your exact interpretation of your religion (if you have one) as the basis for its laws and culture and living in a religiously neutral country that didn't favor any particular religion but allowed religious freedom for all, which place would you rather live in?

In the religious state, your religious customs and observances are law: anything your religion forbids is forbidden to everyone, for instance.

Which would you prefer to live in and why?

If you would like to live in a religious state that reflects your exact interpretation of your religion, what would you have to say to those who are born in your country that don't agree with the religious laws of the land? Should they be forced to choose between complying with rules they disagree with or leaving the country (and their families/friends) behind?

No problem here. They are both the same.

 

[Meow Mix]

The fist choice, absolutely. But I wouldn't say my exact interpretation, I have no problem with different interpretations to mine as long as our basics are one. Also, the freedom to elect a political group among others that represent different interpretations and approaches is essential. This is something I wish to see someday.

What happens to someone who's born in this ideal country who disagrees with "the basics," depending on what those are?

Are they forced to choose between complying or leaving the country (and their families) behind?

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't think I would want to live in a chaotic society where anything goes because at least one person believes in it.

My exact interpretation comes from Jesus so the description is of the Kingdom of God. I will live there and want to live there.

I wouldn't want anyone there who didn't want to be there ie who is unwilling to live accrding to the law.

Is a society with diversity of opinion necessarily "chaotic" though? I don't necessarily mean that "anything" would go -- for instance murder would still be unacceptable even if someone had a religious reason for wanting to do it.

Are you saying that you would tear someone away from their family and friends (i.e. exile them) if they just happened to be born in your ideal country and disagreed with some of the religious principles? For instance, if they were homosexual or something -- going off the assumption that your religion forbids homosexuality?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you saying that you would tear someone away from their family and friends (i.e. exile them) if they just happened to be born in your ideal country and disagreed with some of the religious principles?

I guess one solution to that sort of problem would be not to have children. Kinda like the Shakers: no offspring, so everyone who's there chose to be there. You just happen to be completely reliant on converts/immigration.

 

[Meow Mix]

No problem here. They are both the same.

Really? Your ideal religious country incorporates tolerance for other religions, homosexuality, sex outside of wedlock, and other "victimless crimes" usually persecuted by some religions?

Stephenw didn't surprise me by saying so but for whatever reason (and no offense intended) I've had the impression that you might be a little more "hardline" than Stephenw. Maybe I was wrong?

 

[Meow Mix]

I guess one solution to that sort of problem would be not to have children. Kinda like the Shakers: no offspring, so everyone who's there chose to be there. You just happen to be completely reliant on converts/immigration.

That's really interesting; have never heard of the Shakers.

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that other than it being a little odd -- but at least extremely respectful.

I do see something wrong with punishing someone for simply being born in the "wrong" country for them, though. I don't think people are considering the human reality when they try to dismiss it by just saying something like "well they should leave the country if they're not X" (where X is the dominant state religion).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Really? Your ideal religious country incorporates tolerance for other religions, homosexuality, sex outside of wedlock, and other "victimless crimes" usually persecuted by some religions?

Stephenw didn't surprise me by saying so but for whatever reason (and no offense intended) I've had the impression that you might be a little more "hardline" than Stephenw. Maybe I was wrong?

I'm only responsible for my own actions. Others are free to believe what they want and accept resposibility for it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That's really interesting; have never heard of the Shakers.

They may have been the first Pentacostals.

The first members of their group were known as the "Shaking Quakers" because of the ecstatic nature of their services.