A secular goverment. Impossible?

[Brennan]

I find it difficult to imagine a government where people everyone abandons their religious views temporarily for political decisions, at least when governing on the basis of morality. A true secularist government would require everyone to accept a flexible moral standard. The problem arises when individuals adhere to a particular texts/religious leader’s interpretation of morality. Should this be considered a problem?

For example: the Pope calls for politicians to intervene and stop gay marriage. This act of prejudice does sway the political process. Religion in my mind should be able to, like any other group, voice political opinion. However I do not think they should use God when justifying their political motifs. This is difficult when people live by what they think an absolute authority would want, I know. If a government is diverse in their views the majority will not tend to a particular standard but rather their own beliefs religious or not. Diversity works as long as everyone doesn’t have a same bias.

Question: Does people basing their decision on religious authority undermine the notion of a secular government? Does having a diverse government render such biases irrelevant?

[Katie]

I would think that a secular government can only really work in a country with a high amount of people who are apathetic towards religion in general. A country like Sweden, which is not entirely secular due to the appointment of an official 'state church', still operates like a secular country because not many people care about religion anymore. However, a country like Turkey which is supposed to be secular, still has a large Muslim influence because there are more deeply religious people in that country.

The bottom line is, politicians will either:

a) Use their power to push their own ideals.
or
b) Pander to the demographics that will get them re-elected.

And in highly religious countries, guess what will usually end up satisfying both? This is the entire reason why the dominionists have so much sway in the United States. It's a highly religious country, so politicians are likely to be religious, as well as the majority of their constituents. Therefore, passing laws that uphold religion, or undermine secularism are the best ways to get re-elected. In Canada, where big public displays of religion by politicians are considered tacky, it was the 'public funding for all religious schools' promise that really sunk John Tory's campaign.

[trevor]

Yeah, I agree with Katie.  The problem is that in a democratic country, the majority rules.  If the majority follow a certain religion, they will elect a representative who also follows that religion, who will push for legislation that fits in their moral framework.  Separation of church and state should be an integral part of any democracy, and although some democratized countries include it in their constitutions, many do not abide by it.  See Theocracy Watch for an analysis of the issue in the states.

Of course, if we're talking about non-democratic countries, then there are different issues at play.  According to some sociologists (see Sociocultural evolution), modernization leads to democratization, so in general, I would say that non-democratic countries tend to be affected by religion more, so in those countries, a secular government is a long way off.

China is an interesting example.  The communist government is necessarily atheistic.  Yet according to Rob Gifford, author of China Road, there are more Christians in China than members of the communist party.  He says that as support for the communist party declined, people needed something else to believe in, so they turned to Christianity.  A secular government, in this case, is very dangerous because then the failings of the government get linked to the notion of atheism, and some bloggers (e.g., this one) take the opportunity to coin a ridiculous term like "atheist fundamentalism."

So, yes, I think a secular government can work.  But not right now, not while the majority of the population of any given country is religious.  Hopefully we are moving towards secularism; it seems to me most of the younger generation is apathetic towards religion, and in a way, that's a good thing.  Of course, if you watch the movie Idiocracy, perhaps we can't really count on the future that much

[Brennan]

I agree that a secular government is healthier if a majority is apathetic towards religion. However it still does concern me when people vote for candidates simply because of their personal religious afflictions. Another concern of mine is that being an atheist is still deemed immoral. It’s not easy convincing people that morality isn't derived solely from religion. I feel that the notion of a secular government is undermined as long as people aren’t apathetic towards non-religious views.

Haha yes I saw Idiocracy – anything could happen. It had some funny parts, I thought it was pretty bad.

[X]

 "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
-Sir Winston Churchill

As has been mentioned, democracys reflect the views (be they good or bad) of the people.  Or at least those who can be bothered to vote.

(btw:  If you choose not to vote, don't complain about the results.  That's my rule.  If you opt out of the democratic process, you cannot complain when it doesn't go yuor way.  Even if you don't like the alternatives, you can still spoil it and make it known that the governemnt is not reaching your needs.  But this is another issue, so I'll end my sidetrack here.)

I surmise that China's problem is that it is an Authoritarian regime.  The people are not truly free, as we are, and when support wanes, there is no alternative.

[Gerry]

A true secularist government would require everyone to accept a flexible moral standard.

That's what we have now. Laws are based on the society that they apply to.
The US constitution has been amended many times. (though, it would be nice if their president read it!)
People make new laws when society says so, and will reject existing laws when society says so.
Unfortunately, exceptions to this rule happen when there is a vocal minority who has more influence because others don't bother to stand up and be heard.

Does people basing their decision on religious authority undermine the notion of a secular government?

Yes.

Does having a diverse government render such biases irrelevant?

It helps.

[gliagirl]

This is an interesting debate going on here. I honestly think you all have some good ideas here. Politics should in fact be separated from religion, however, I am under the impression that such a task is daunting. I do not believe there is really anyone that can be 100% unbiased in everything they do. This just is not possible, and I am highly skeptical of anyone who believes someone can. The element of individual experience, and therefore beliefs and preferances, cannot just simply be stripped from  the depths of human psychology in an instance, whether you are an atheist or a religious person. It takes time for people to change. So here is how I see it. Our leaders must be the type of people who can be as unbiased as possible and work to the best of their ability to represent all Americans, not just certain interest or religious groups. I realize that in actual practice, people find this far more difficult than the ease at which I have expressed it. Anyways, nobody is perfect, not even our leaders. They are not by any means flawless in their reasoning and no matter how an election turns out, there will always be someone or some group that feels cheated in the end. Nobody will ever be satisfied. Not in a million years and not on this planet. So my suggestion to people is use your head in life, and be patient and tolerant with others (because if you don't all you will do is drive yourself insane). The great thing about being in America is that when you do feel like someone should know something, then you can share it with them (if they will listen). You can go out and fight for what you believe in and work to change things. You have that right, as long as you are not causing them harm and taking away their rights to do the same thing. Learning to shrug off the things that offend you (and someone, at some point in your life is going to say something that you consider offensive) is a part of intellectual, emotional, and spiritual maturity. I would never wish to live in a place where there is a complete and utter suppression of ideas. What makes America great is the freedom to facilitate and spread ideas. If people are surrounded by different ideas and beliefs, then they are in a position to change, and true change in our country cannot occur if only certain popular views are being introduced, and others are simply left out. Nor can change and growth occur when it is forced upon people. I think for the most part our constitution stands the test of time, and although I may debate with those I disagree with, I would never stand for anything that would supress their ability to refute me, for such a thing would in every way go against the very essence of a free society and be quite an irrational act against myself.

By the way. Go Micheal Phelps. We love you. You are a God. 

[brian]

By the way. Go Micheal Phelps. We love you. You are a God. 

Phew... good thing it was Michael, for a second there I thought you said Fred Phelps 

A couple comments...  First, I think that although people do have the right to express their ideas, I'm going to go on a little Chomsky kick here and say that we are living in a time where a lot of ideas are suppressed by not getting the same coverage in mass/corporate media.  And a lot of the ideas that are suppressed are the ones which would piss off the people that the corporate media represents:  advertisers and the business community.  That is why see things like the media beating the drums of war or portraying neoliberal globalization as inevitable and opponents as crazy punks.  This really influences the publics perception of politics and ensures that only certain policies are implemented in practice.

And as far as the US constitution goes, I've never understood why a document written by a bunch of white slaveowners living in one little corner of the world in the 1700s, before such groundbreaking works such as (for example) Das Kapital is considered by so many to be the top thing in politics, especially when most other countries have similar documents.  You may have your Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, but I am a big fan of the French Liberté, égalité, fraternité.  And my Peace, Order and Good Government isn't too bad.