Given a choice between...

[Meow Mix]

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

I agree very much with this, and apologize for having an incorrect perception of you. In retrospect I'm not sure why I assumed you'd be more "hardline" about it.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

They were an interesting bunch. I visited here....
The Shakers
...while on picking up a GW Davis steam engine from a volunteer at the museum.
They are still important in the world of industrial design for their elegant simplicity.

 

[Katzpur]

...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?

I would definitely live in the religiously neutral country.

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?

That's an interesting question. I just read the results of a survey taken about Mormonism. I believe 1000 people nationwide were interviewed for their opinions. The interviewer asked each of them quite a few questions, one of which had to do with whether Mormons had an agenda that would be as you just described, that if we could, we would require everyone to observe our laws and customs. The overwhelming majority believed that is the case. The fact is, we don't. I don't.

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 believe that any country should operate that way, but if I lived in a country that did, I would say that those who object to the laws of the land do what they could to change the laws or leave. I don't believe that breaking the laws is the answer.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I agree very much with this, and apologize for having an incorrect perception of you. In retrospect I'm not sure why I assumed you'd be more "hardline" about it.

Probably because I am a self-proclaimed "Narrow-minded Biblist." Nevertheless, I've developed my own view of the Bible by 15 years of studying it for myself rather than accepting the accepted teachings on it.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't believe that any country should operate that way, but if I lived in a country that did, I would say that those who object to the laws of the land do what they could to change the laws or leave. I don't believe that breaking the laws is the answer.

I agree for the most part, but part of the purpose of the question was to sort of open discussion about the human reality of what happens to those who are unfortunately born in a place where they don't get to decide some things for themselves.

Even the most well-intentioned person who believes their religion is best for a society should have to really think about what it can do to someone who disagrees and the only crime they've really committed is being "born in the wrong country:" should they have to leave their family and friends behind to go live somewhere that they can have a different opinion for instance?

Say the country in question bans the consumption of fish on Tuesdays (just making this up): yeah it's not a big deal not to be able to eat fish on Tuesdays but if they want to be able to make their own decisions (let's say that's just one of many things they can't do in this hypothetical country) do they really have to abandon their family to move somewhere that they can be free to make such decisions for themselves?

 

[Willamena]

I'd rather not live in a country. But there's not much choice.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'd love to live in a country which based its laws and culture on reality. However, this seems unlikely, as countries tend to primarily consist of people.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'd love to live in a country which based its laws and culture on reality. However, this seems unlikely, as countries tend to primarily consist of people.

lol.

I've always wondered what it would be like to live in a city where people optionally migrate there to live as part of a nonreligious community, but I always change my mind about it being a good idea. First of all it would go extinct as soon as someone was born that adopted a religion because I certainly wouldn't kick them out or disallow them from practicing their beliefs (if they weren't harming anyone), so it would over time simply become a "normal" city of mixed religion and non-religion anyway.

Secondly I sort of like the diversity I experience in some places, such as my hometown... it's a college town, so there are people from all walks of life: so many different cultures, "races," religions, worldviews, all for the most part living in harmony. If the world were a macrocosm of my little town it would be a nice place. For whatever reason people can get along here but not when we start talking about larger groups/territories. Weird, isn't it?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

lol.

I've always wondered what it would be like to live in a city where people optionally migrate there to live as part of a nonreligious community, but I always change my mind about it being a good idea. First of all it would go extinct as soon as someone was born that adopted a religion because I certainly wouldn't kick them out or disallow them from practicing their beliefs (if they weren't harming anyone), so it would over time simply become a "normal" city of mixed religion and non-religion anyway.

Secondly I sort of like the diversity I experience in some places, such as my hometown... it's a college town, so there are people from all walks of life: so many different cultures, "races," religions, worldviews, all for the most part living in harmony. If the world were a macrocosm of my little town it would be a nice place. For whatever reason people can get along here but not when we start talking about larger groups/territories. Weird, isn't it?

It basically boils down to our tribal nature. We are empathetic, social creatures within the context of our limited size tribe/group/community, yet those who fall outside of our tribe are enemies. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people fall outside of any particular individual's tribe.

You can clearly see this in some other primates. Chimpanzees are very caring, social, and empathetic within their group, but sometimes go to war with other groups and are capable of violently, ruthlessly murdering members of other groups.

Unfortunately, as a species, we're just not wired to connect with large numbers of individuals - particularly those outside of our defined group.

 

[Katzpur]

I agree for the most part, but part of the purpose of the question was to sort of open discussion about the human reality of what happens to those who are unfortunately born in a place where they don't get to decide some things for themselves.

Even the most well-intentioned person who believes their religion is best for a society should have to really think about what it can do to someone who disagrees and the only crime they've really committed is being "born in the wrong country:" should they have to leave their family and friends behind to go live somewhere that they can have a different opinion for instance?

Say the country in question bans the consumption of fish on Tuesdays (just making this up): yeah it's not a big deal not to be able to eat fish on Tuesdays but if they want to be able to make their own decisions (let's say that's just one of many things they can't do in this hypothetical country) do they really have to abandon their family to move somewhere that they can be free to make such decisions for themselves?

I understand what you're saying, but the problem I see is that at what point is it any individual's prerogative to decide that he doesn't want to obey the laws of the land? Like you said, not eating fish on Tuesdays may not be a big deal, and if a person who wants to eat fish on Tuesdays decides to do so anyway, what difference would it really make? The results of one individual breaking other laws he disagrees with may be a whole lot more serious. Take a law such as speeding, for instance. Suppose the laws regarding how fast we could drive were determined by a religion. If someone decided that he didn't like being restricted to driving 65 miles an hour and wanted to drive 95 miles an hour instead, would that be okay?

 

[Storm]

...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'm in the interesting position of getting to pick both, as my interpretation of the 7 Principles would lead to a secular democracy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand what you're saying, but the problem I see is that at what point is it any individual's prerogative to decide that he doesn't want to obey the laws of the land? Like you said, not eating fish on Tuesdays may not be a big deal, and if a person who wants to eat fish on Tuesdays decides to do so anyway, what difference would it really make? The results of one individual breaking other laws he disagrees with may be a whole lot more serious. Take a law such as speeding, for instance. Suppose the laws regarding how fast we could drive were determined by a religion. If someone decided that he didn't like being restricted to driving 65 miles an hour and wanted to drive 95 miles an hour instead, would that be okay?

Depends. What's the design speed of the highway? Stopping sight distance and the coefficient of friction for rubber on asphalt don't change with a person's religion.

Also, I think the question of seriousness works both ways. It's not just a question of the consequences of breaking the law, but also a question of the consequences of the law itself.

If Meow Mix's hypothetical religion was in charge and I couldn't eat fish on Tuesdays, it wouldn't be a whole lot of skin off my nose.

If I was forced to follow Mormon practice and I couldn't have coffee, this would be a bigger deal, but not the end of the world (...as long as I can have Red Bull instead - there's nothing in the Doctrines and Covenants about Red Bull, is there? ).

OTOH, if I lived in a Jehova's Witness-run society (which I suppose would be a bit of an oxymoron since they avoid political involvement... but just for discussion's sake) where I could not get a blood transfusion, this could potentially be a very big deal for me indeed.

 

[Midnight Pete]

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.

If you are a committed secularirst, you may want to adjust your Title to reflect that. Right now, it identifies you as Christian. You say "live and let live" but I don't think you realize what that phrase means.

 

[Storm]

If you are a committed secularirst, you may want to adjust your Title to reflect that. Right now, it identifies you as Christian. You say "live and let live" but I don't think you realize what that phrase means.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you are a committed secularirst, you may want to adjust your Title to reflect that. Right now, it identifies you as Christian. You say "live and let live" but I don't think you realize what that phrase means.

The two things aren't contradictory.

"Christian" describe's one's own beliefs. "Secularist" describes how one things religion and government (or society) should inter-relate.

 

[Girl Named Tennessee]

Personally I'd rather live in a place where all religions are accepted. What if I changed my mind about my religion? Then I would feel completely out of place. My family always tells me America is a Christian country but I don't agree. Countries and religions should be separate, and religion should not affect the way the government works. Otherwise things will simply be corrupt.

 

[LuisDantas]

I like to think that the two options are indistinguishable. I guess I will choose number two just in case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I like to think that the two options are indistinguishable. I guess I will choose number two just in case.

You're not the first person to say that in this thread, and it's confused me every time.

Personally, I make a clear distinction between the things I think are right or good, that I want to do myself, and the things that I think people should be free to do. There are people out there doing things that I personally think are horrible, but I'm not about to violate their freedom of speech or freedom of conscience to stop them.

 

[LuisDantas]

I understand what you're saying, but the problem I see is that at what point is it any individual's prerogative to decide that he doesn't want to obey the laws of the land? Like you said, not eating fish on Tuesdays may not be a big deal, and if a person who wants to eat fish on Tuesdays decides to do so anyway, what difference would it really make? The results of one individual breaking other laws he disagrees with may be a whole lot more serious. Take a law such as speeding, for instance. Suppose the laws regarding how fast we could drive were determined by a religion. If someone decided that he didn't like being restricted to driving 65 miles an hour and wanted to drive 95 miles an hour instead, would that be okay?

9/10ths Penguim already gave you a very good answer, but I will dare to comment further anyway.

IMO, laws are not necessarily to be followed. While we often think of "unlawful" things as being in some way immoral, there is no causal or even particularly strong a correlation between law and morality. People are allowed to break the law, and in fact it is almost impossible to morally stop them from doing so. They will however have to deal with various consequences, from social stigma to monetary penalties and even incarceration. And in fact, it may be good and necessary to do exactly that. IIRC such notables as Martin Luther King made good use of just such an attitude back in the day.

 

[Politesse]

...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?

There would be no difference, since persecuting another person for their faith is squarely forbidden by mine.