Religions should only be private and here is why

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I am, as has been noted, an atheist… I see no reason for
religion, however with said, I am not against religion per se…
I hold that in the public sphere, religion should not have
a place at the table… we should conduct public policy
without, without ANY religious input… we have seen public
discourse where religion, any religion, can bring about strife
and discord… religion is basically an US vs THEM, and
anytime that is played, it is harmful to the public and causes
issues within the public discourse… or said another way…
public religion is harmful to both the state and its society…
does that mean I am attempting to forcible remove religion from
people? Not at all… I am saying that religion must become private,
not public… religion should be between one person and their god…
a private matter… not a public matter… so, we can’t hold to private
religious beliefs in public…so, no laws that reflect religions or their
values…The state, as we know it, should not engage in any religious
matters in any way, shape or form… the organized attempt to
make the private sphere, religions, public must be resisted at all
costs…because absolutely nothing good can come from this…

but how does it happen that religion, the most private of affairs
has turned public? In the U.S, religions and churches,
are, no longer religious/spiritual affairs, but just another social
matter… one joins the church as a matter of being social, not
of being religious… and those who are the ‘‘pretend religious’’
those who proclaim that the US is a ‘‘Christian’’ nation,
would do well to think about this claim…

The claim is that the state/society is better served by
religion, because it helps keep the ‘‘people’’ from acting against
the state, there is no proof of this… publicly, religions don’t
actually, keep people in line or from behaving ‘‘wrong’’ in public…
and here the punishment aspect of religion is supposed to keep
the peace… and yet, we know, from actual experience, that
religion does no such thing…In the U.S, the most religious
areas are within the black community… and yet, we know
from prior experience, that some of the worst riots in American
history have occurred in black, urban areas…
I am old enough to note the race riots of the 60’s, (I lived
outside of Chicago at the time) were some of the worst in
American history… and certainly religion didn’t stop or even
slowed down those riots… religions didn’t keep the public
order as is often claimed by the religious… that even
in very religious areas, religions often come second to
the public disquiet of politics… that the legal and political
aspects of our lives often take precedence over religious concerns…

Which leads us to understanding that the public discourse
that exists within our state or society, exists as legal or
political concerns, not as religious concerns…
and any introductions of religious concerns within a state/
society as a public discourse, leads us astray because
religions are not a public discourse, but a private, personal
one… and as we have noted earlier, that the failure of the
Soviet Union, that the failure of the Soviet Union stems from
turning an economic theory, and that is exactly what the
communism of Marx is, and trying to make it a political
system… therein lies part of the failure of the Soviet Union…
and part of the American failure stems from trying to do the
same thing with religions into a political system, using religions
to formulate public policy… that is the path to failure… because
religions are not meant to be used that way…the point
of religion is to find a path to being ‘‘saved’’ in which case
one gets to go to heaven… there is no public context for
being saved… it is a private matter/act that has no public
context… so, why are people pushing a private, personal
matter into public policy? that path leads to failure, both
publicly and personally… for religions are not meant to
be used as public affairs or public policy… How can being
‘‘saved’’ which is the reason for religions, be turned into
public policy? For which private reasons we have to be
‘‘saved’’ be also turned into public policy? but I can attack
Islam for the exact same reasons, it has, in Iran and Saudi
Arabia, as it turned a private religion into a public context…
and how exactly has these private concerns, turned into
a public context, within Islam…There is no historical case
that suggest that holding to private concerns, such as
religion, helps the state/society become better? or even
the private citizens are better because of a state held
religion? there is no historical evidence of this being true…
Note that the more theological a state becomes, the more
likely it is to become a police state… the two seem to
be connected… increasing religions tend to bring
about more and more political oversight… people being
being ‘‘saved’’ as a public policy, then the state must
by its own policy, become more and more a police state…
exactly as the U.S has turned religion into public policy
has become more and more a police state… the two
are inseparable… the Soviet Union has tried the exact
same thing… as communism was treated as a religion,
and the Soviet Union became more and more a police state…
enough religion in the state and the state will become a
police state…As I am not a fan of living in a police state,
that is just another reason to hold that private religions/beliefs
are not and should not become public policy… for the end
result will be a police state if religions are turned into
public policy…

Kropotkin

2

Not like going to church, temple, mosque? No religious community?

Pretty much any belief system is at odds with other belief systems. If this is a criticism, then both the main US political parties should also become private affairs. Republicans and Democrates are us them entities in direct competition. So, would any political party be.

Well, religious people get to vote by their values.

How do you know this? And if you are correct and it’s just social, there’s no problem, no political position, no values.

Even if your premises are correct, this is correlation not causation. You might want to ask why black people rioted. What a strange argument for a progressive person to make, by the way. It’s almost reactionary.

What is it exactly you are saying that people are not allowed to do? If their religious values are part of why they hold a political position, they must remain silent?

and as we have noted earlier, that the failure of the
Soviet Union, that the failure of the Soviet Union stems from
turning an economic theory, and that is exactly what the
communism of Marx is, and trying to make it a political
system… therein lies part of the failure of the Soviet Union…

And right here comes a stunning argument. A non-religious belief system messed up another country. Exactly! The problem is not where the ideas come from but the ideas themselves. You just counter-argued yourself. You have some factual confusions about Marxism but they are less important, here, than the irony of introducing a secular belief system that led to problems. You just made an argument that any belief system, religious or otherwise, should be a private affair.

I don’t remember any situations where politicians were voting on, discussing legislation in relation to being saved.

Sorry, the genie is already out of the bottle. People treat their beliefs as religious and sacred even if they are secular, in general. You yourself have used us/them rhetoric with great regularly despite not being religious and you are not alone. The secular left does this. The secular right does this.

It’s really hard to tell what you are talking about. The only religious issue you raised was ‘getting saved’, which I haven’t seen being pushed for publically. There is a separate of state and religion in the US, so what are you actually suggesting?

3

At this point, I am pretty sure that if I were to say,
the sun rose in the east and set in the west or
that the Earth was the third planet from the sun,
you would argue that I am wrong and in great detail
lay out how wrong I am… but hay, suit yourself…
I am not really interested in how wrong you claim
every single post/thread I make is… Kinda lost its
interest, a while back…

Kropotkin

4

I think it is impossible to do in a republic.

5

The best outcome would occur if rational philosophy replaced religion until it is fringe. But right now, it is mainstream in a big way.

6

What about the religious cult of woke? You seem happy to spread the gospel of wokery.

7

Atheism is a religion of absence.

They worship the absence of God and force their beliefs on grounds they cannot logically have by there very foundations.

The “proofs” they provide are merely assertions of contexts thus their arguments are relative.

1 Like
8

Well, that is quite convenient, ad hom and incorrect. Yes, I often disagree with points you make. But I think and feel carefully about what you have written and what I disagree on matters to me or I wouldn’t bother. I thought about those points and put time into them. One of the ways to improve your thinking would be to learn from criticism, questions and challenges.

There is virtually no philosopher who’s considered important who did not interact with the ideas of critics, often in dialogue. But if you think my points above were based on nothing, I’m sure you can point that out specifically.

So, again, we have the core idea that religions are us/them and should be private not public. It’s not clear what this means, but in the very essay itself a non-religious belief system is used as a cautionary example (communism). I pointed out that the democratic party and the republican party are ideology with deep us/them ideologies built into them. People as a rule with exceptions, but as a rule, especially nowadays, have us/them thinking, in fact it is built into dozens of your own threads here. And yet, you are not calling for the other secular ideologies to go private. As a minimum it would be good make clear what limits you actually are suggesting we should have. There are limits, but it seems they are not enough. What is it you want the religious to stop doing publically and only do privately? Why only the religious? Why not others who regularly use us/them thinking and especially when this is built into the identity of the group, like with political parties that are always actively us/them?

If these seem trivial matters or asked in bad faith somehow, please let me know how and why you assume this? They seem like perfectly rational points and questions, quite unlike the absurd example of how the sun comes up. Unless you think your philosophical position here is as well-proven as basic astronomy.

9

Oh, but they aren’t us/them.

:roll_eyes:

10

But your views/religion should have a place in the public sphere, correct?

11

So, here’s a basic question: what do you mean by religions should be private? What phenomena that are happening currently should not be happening?

1 Like
12

@Peter_Kropotkin

What do you think of nations like Thailand or India where religions mark a distinct national character to which the governments are fully supportive of?

Yes, I get it you’re an atheist who is heavily invested in being anti-religion.

:clown_face:

13

I think the first problem with the OP is that it isn’t clear what he means by public and private. He even talks about how religions should just be one on one. You and the deity or whatever. Really? No temples and churches? There is a separation of church and state in the US. It seems this is not enough or what would he be complaining about? But what specifically does he mean?

1 Like
14

@greenfuse

Atheists have to be constantly reminded that religious and spiritual people outnumber them 10-1 which is cold water thrown on their aspirations of a 100% secular state.

Maybe if we ever discover intergalactic space travel their dreams of creating an atheist colony somewhere can be realized. Until then they should stop trying to push their views onto others.

:clown_face:

15

Rest assured @MrAuthoritarian , non-religious people know very well what it means to live in countries where religion dominates the public dialogue. Blasphemy laws are a good reminder.

And let’s not start with “who tries to push their views onto others”.

PS: United States declare that they are secular. However, the Texas Senate Bill 10 (Texas public schools must display the Ten Commandements in the classrooms) does not seem very secular to me.

1 Like
16

And this is exactly what I was trying to get PK to show me. He said that religion should be private, one on one with God. That seems extreme to me, but perhaps he wasn’t trying to rule out communal religious events. But given that there is separation of church and state what is he reacting to? Here you give a perfectly legitimate example of religion showing up where it shouldn’t be, to my mind, at least. Certainly blasphemy laws would be a problem, but I think he means primarily the US. I think that’s his focus.

As an example:

Which leads us to understanding that the public discourse
that exists within our state or society, exists as legal or
political concerns, not as religious concerns…
and any introductions of religious concerns within a state/
society as a public discourse, leads us astray because
religions are not a public discourse, but a private, personal
one…

It could simply be poorly worded but it sounds like he’s saying ‘if you have religious values that lead to certain positions, that’s a private matter and should be kept out of public discourse.’ That’s a very odd position, especially if you are then going to say the same thing about communism.

I’m not expecting you to defend or explain PK’s OP, but it is part of the context of Mr. A’s post. A thread seeming to call for religious people to be silent in public about any issues connected with their religions or issues where the values could be traced back to their religions. And, oh, yes, also secular ideologies, because those are like religions. Who decides what is ideology and what is a mere belief system and set of values? The criterion that someone’s group or position leads to us/them thinking pretty much ends the entire political system and makes it private.

1 Like
17

How are these ‘atheists’ trying to push their views?? WTF is an ‘atheist’ anyway? Aren’t Buddhists ‘atheist’? Plenty of so-called atheists believe in all kinds of stupid shit. It’s an idiotic word. Is there a special word for someone who doesn’t belive in brass monkeys?

1 Like
18

I agree with you. The OP’s position seems extreme, we cannot exclude gatherings of religious people, nor we can remove public holidays related to religion (Christmas/Easter for Christians, Ramadan for Muslims etc).

The relations between religion and state are always complex. You cannot reduce religion to a private matter, but you also have to prevent religion from overstepping boundaries.

Just on the complexity of the issue, here is an example:

In Europe, especially in France, there is a lot of discussion on prohibiting Muslim women from wearing burqa or hijab in public places. At first glance, this is against the freedom of expression. However, things get complicated when these women obtain public positions of power.

Imagine a Muslim woman with hijab becoming a judge in a court and there is a legal dispute between a Muslim and an atheist. Seeing a judge wearing hijab is quite intimidating for the atheist. Should we let a judge demonstrate in public his/her religious affiliation?

Judges is one example, but this question is also raised in other public office positions.

1 Like
19

@ghatzige

Honestly, I am just tired of atheists whining about everything. There’s never any pleasing of atheists, they complain about everything and everyone.

:clown_face:

20

@MistressOphelia

It’s clear you know nothing about Buddhism, you should stick with things you know like your Judaism.

:clown_face: