Why should Religion interfere with the secular issues?

[paarsurrey1]

Why should Religion interfere with the secular issues?

The secular issues are to be managed by the society equitably and with justice to everybody without discrimination of race, color or religion or no-religion. If that is ensured the Religion should not interfere with those who manage/govern/rule the secular issues. Right, please?

Regards

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by paarsurrey1]

It's very hard to define a secular issue vs a non-secular issue.

It's even harder to explain why a person isn't allowed a view on an issue and why they can't base it on whatever reason they want.

Finally, why does the state want to get involved in every issue. Does anyone think the state doesn't eventually try to get involved in everything?

[2ndRateMind]

Finally, why does the state want to get involved in every issue. Does anyone think the state doesn't eventually try to get involved in everything?

The state has responsibilities to it's citizens, just as citizens have responsibilities to the state. And these responsibilities justify the rights of both. If this is something you are not comfortable with, then search the real estate brochures for some sunny, but lonely, private desert island where responsibilities and rights do not arise.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[marco]

Let God do as He wills with these malcontents in the due course of eternity; meanwhile we need only defend ourselves and other innocents against them.

Well we can't do that since entire theocracies have sprung up which advocate stoning for sexual offences. A Christian woman in Pakistan was sentenced to death for blasphemy. An imam who defended her was murdered. The problem is that millions read a holy book and deduce God WANTS this. And some verses indeed suggest he does just as verses in the OT advocate murdering people for sexual offences.

Why do we heed holy books? Or need them?

[2ndRateMind]

Well, I won't seek to defend Islam, which is not my field. But I do notice it was founded 600 or so years after Christianity, and seems to need to catch up those years of theological, philosophical and ethical development.

As for the New Testament, without it we wouldn't have much record of Jesus. As for the Old Testament, without it we wouldn't understand the paradigm shift He wrought on Judaism. So, I do think we need these books. But, my own opinion is that we need to read them in the context of their time and place. They were the state of the art 2000 years ago and more; that does not mean they are state of the art now. But conservatives like a book of rules to follow; it makes them existentially comfortable. And so, I suspect, for a long time to come, there will be tension between them and progressive liberals.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Wootah]

Finally, why does the state want to get involved in every issue. Does anyone think the state doesn't eventually try to get involved in everything?

The state has responsibilities to it's citizens, just as citizens have responsibilities to the state. And these responsibilities justify the rights of both. If this is something you are not comfortable with, then search the real estate brochures for some sunny, but lonely, private desert island where responsibilities and rights do not arise.

Best wishes, 2RM.

That is very confused thinking and an illogical strawman. I have made no statement that I do not want responsibilities or rights.

Do you think the state should have a say in everything?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 15 by Wootah]

If we all have, or majority have, morals why do we need the state again?