Religious Freedom? Meh ....

[Evangelicalhumanist]

All good things that we now have, we could have without government, and it would not cost as much.

Are you so certain about that? You think things like standards (weights, measures, railway guages, etc.) can happen without some sort of central negotiation? You think poor places with lots of bedbugs are going to be willing to ban substances like DDT just because folks on the better side of the tracks want to? And if they won't, will DDT be eliminated from the environment? Do you suppose that roads will be completed when they reach the end of one "territory" and bump into another? Why?

I wonder how carefully you have thought out this "no government" thing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All good things that we now have, we could have without government, and it would not cost as much.

Not always and often not. Where I used to live in Indiana, the county seat had a bunch of people who thought that and demanded the trash pick up be privitized. But the city found again and again the private sector would not pick up as much for as cheap.
Medical costs here are outrageous but in First World countries where they have the state as a bargaining agent the cost of medical care is much lower (especially due to it being more able to buy in massive bulk).
In the past private fire departments were an utter failure and a luxury. And, ultimately, even Robert Nozick did see problems later in life with his "ultra minarchist" world where everything (except enforcing contracts and ownership) is privatized.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I wonder how carefully you have thought out this "no government" thing.

Mmm .. I also see anarchism as an emotional reaction that is totally impractical.

A balance between private and public sectors I see as being the best way to go..
..and govt. is a necessary "evil" .. it should be democratically elected, and we only have "ourselves" to blame if it is corrupt.
Unfortunately, it is often the good people on the receiving end of injustice .. but not always.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Why should a secular government allow religious freedom? No, Here's a better question: Why shouldn't a secular government who allows religious freedom, keep religious values out of our governing policies and laws? No, here's the bigger question, why should we remain a secular nation and not incorporate religious values into our governing policies?

I find in the old Hebrew Scriptures at 2 Chronicles 26:16-21 a separation of ' church and state ', so to speak.
The king was the political, the priest was the religious.
The king did Not interfere with the priest/religious and the religious did Not interfere with the king/political.
God chose the religious part to preserve the Bible.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

........................Theocracy is a form of tyranny.

I find the 'modern-day definition' of Theocracy (God Rule) is defined as: rule by clergy or clergy class.
This is the Theocracy such as was run by Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, and Not the Bible's Theocracy.
Whereas, the Theocracy that Jesus backed was Not by governed by clergy or clergy rule.
Rather, Jesus backed God's Kingdom (thy kingdom come... ) as the theocratic government of choice.
(Daniel 2:44)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No, here's an even bigger question - what makes something a "religious" value to begin with? .................

What ever a person puts 'first' in one's life is their religious value to begin with.
Some people even look in the mirror and see their god.

 

[Father Heathen]

I find the 'modern-day definition' of Theocracy (God Rule) is defined as: rule by clergy or clergy class.
This is the Theocracy such as was run by Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, and Not the Bible's Theocracy.
Whereas, the Theocracy that Jesus backed was Not by governed by clergy or clergy rule.
Rather, Jesus backed God's Kingdom (thy kingdom come... ) as the theocratic government of choice.
(Daniel 2:44)

Nope, same thing.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Nope, same thing.

Jesus as King of God's Kingdom (1 Corinthians 15:24-26 ) never promoted any earthly pol./clergy class.