What role if any should the state play in regulating religion?

[DC Al Fine]

Inspired by the Crabcake post below which I found very interesting.

I will say that most of those radicalised by Isis have not done so in mosques. Which is not to say that the salafi mosques are not an issue, but I don't know how important they are in the specific context of violent jihadism.

Yeah, I think here they were mostly not welcome in mosques, and those who have gone that far down the rabbit hole are also likely to be paranoid enough to avoid going there, as intelligence services usually know damn well in which mosques they should have infiltrators and sources. Those who are at that stage of radicalization usually meet up in living rooms. Radicalization often does start in these mosques though.

Not completely convinced salafism was the issue here, even though Kurz and Strache did mention political Islam, because they also talked about far-right extremism and ties to the Grey Wolves. That's a whole different issue, I'd say. At least organizations tied to the Grey Wolves here are associated with different types of problematic behavior (violent crime, mafia stuff, intimidation of political opponents in other Turkish organizations), but not with salafism, which is more of a problem in Arab than in Turkish mosques in the first place.

Yeah, the Grey Wolves connection is a lot less sticky a reason to target these mosques and organisations; they're basically a criminal syndicate like the Mafia.

I don't think people or religions should be targeted because they are conservative though, as long as they are not preaching hate (calls to genocide etc). That said, I think the state should work with religions to make them less patriarchal and closed off.

I'm on board with this except for your last sentence which I don't understand. What do you mean by that?

I think ideally, religions and the state would work together a bit more. For example, I think the state should clamp down on unregulated madrassas/religious schools and ensure that religious children are not grown up in isolation. Ideally I would ban schools from having religious requirements to enrol entirely, but that might be too much. I also think the state should promote gender parity in religion, and try and cajole as many female inmans/clergy as possible (within theological limits). Maybe there should be more effort in RE classes to teach that all religious perspectives should be treated as equally valid, and that no one centralised book or person has all answers (not state atheism or anything, just a contextualisation of religion).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think this is one area where we meet great chasms between different cultures: because I live in the UK, a country that has a lot of entwining between Church and State (to the degree that even "secular" schools have religious characteristics) it seems only natural that they are going to cooperate in a way that would seem in contravention to the values of the French (who would view it as an attack on secularism) and of Americans (who prefer religions operate as capitalist organisations).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The general impression I get is that a particularly noxious brand of cooperation between church and state leads to the greater promotion of atheism and religious disillusionment (Europe?), religious support for autocracy (Russia), or strains of religious radicalism owing to the perception that mainstream, state-backed faith has sold out (parts of Central Asia).

As for the actual regulation of religion, I believe there are probably certain features of any social activity found to be antithetical to our attempts to create a “universal homogeneous state” that should be curtailed—this would pertain to faiths that seek to overthrow the government, subvert its authority to tax, or encourage the breaking of various laws. That said, I do believe there is a certain “right to be ‘backwards’” that should be respected, if only to blunt attempts at radical left-leaning, top-down intervention in social affairs (ie, even in an age of marriage equality, a religious group should have the right to confine its definition of marriage; the same allowance would not be made to expand it to allowing the marriage of children, though).

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Ideally, practically none.  I support homeschooling and parochial education, but I'm not in favor of public funds going to schools which teach YEC.

I also believe that while no religious institution should be required to recognize same-sex marriages, LGBT students should have access to counselors that will help them rather than push anti-gay dogma or tell them to "repent" of their sexuality or gender.  But that is where things start to get complicated logistically.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Ideally, practically none.  I support homeschooling and parochial education, but I'm not in favor of public funds going to schools which teach YEC.

I also believe that while no religious institution should be required to recognize same-sex marriages, LGBT students should have access to counselors that will help them rather than push anti-gay dogma or tell them to "repent" of their sexuality or gender.  But that is where things start to get complicated logistically.

You could have party political officers installed at every educational institution like SU did with military units.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Ideally, practically none.  I support homeschooling and parochial education, but I'm not in favor of public funds going to schools which teach YEC.

I also believe that while no religious institution should be required to recognize same-sex marriages, LGBT students should have access to counselors that will help them rather than push anti-gay dogma or tell them to "repent" of their sexuality or gender.  But that is where things start to get complicated logistically.

You could have party political officers installed at every educational institution like SU did with military units.

I'm sure you're being snarky here, but mental health really isn't a political matter.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Ideally, practically none.  I support homeschooling and parochial education, but I'm not in favor of public funds going to schools which teach YEC.

I also believe that while no religious institution should be required to recognize same-sex marriages, LGBT students should have access to counselors that will help them rather than push anti-gay dogma or tell them to "repent" of their sexuality or gender.  But that is where things start to get complicated logistically.

You could have party political officers installed at every educational institution like SU did with military units.

I'm sure you're being snarky here, but mental health really isn't a political matter.

I am, to some extent. That said, if we were to entertain your system for a second and I were pressed for an answer, I imagine I would suggest some sort of “public resource officer” in state employ, presumably with trainining in psychology, social work, Human Resources, or some other relevant discipline.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't think religions should operate as capitalist organisations operating under the free market rules.

[DC Al Fine]

Inspired by the Crabcake post below which I found very interesting.

I will say that most of those radicalised by Isis have not done so in mosques. Which is not to say that the salafi mosques are not an issue, but I don't know how important they are in the specific context of violent jihadism.

Yeah, I think here they were mostly not welcome in mosques, and those who have gone that far down the rabbit hole are also likely to be paranoid enough to avoid going there, as intelligence services usually know damn well in which mosques they should have infiltrators and sources. Those who are at that stage of radicalization usually meet up in living rooms. Radicalization often does start in these mosques though.

Not completely convinced salafism was the issue here, even though Kurz and Strache did mention political Islam, because they also talked about far-right extremism and ties to the Grey Wolves. That's a whole different issue, I'd say. At least organizations tied to the Grey Wolves here are associated with different types of problematic behavior (violent crime, mafia stuff, intimidation of political opponents in other Turkish organizations), but not with salafism, which is more of a problem in Arab than in Turkish mosques in the first place.

Yeah, the Grey Wolves connection is a lot less sticky a reason to target these mosques and organisations; they're basically a criminal syndicate like the Mafia.

I don't think people or religions should be targeted because they are conservative though, as long as they are not preaching hate (calls to genocide etc). That said, I think the state should work with religions to make them less patriarchal and closed off.

I'm on board with this except for your last sentence which I don't understand. What do you mean by that?

I think ideally, religions and the state would work together a bit more. For example, I think the state should clamp down on unregulated madrassas/religious schools and ensure that religious children are not grown up in isolation. Ideally I would ban schools from having religious requirements to enrol entirely, but that might be too much. I also think the state should promote gender parity in religion, and try and cajole as many female inmans/clergy as possible (within theological limits). Maybe there should be more effort in RE classes to teach that all religious perspectives should be treated as equally valid, and that no one centralised book or person has all answers (not state atheism or anything, just a contextualisation of religion).

This is a good example of the cultural difference you were talking about. You are talking about working together, while I'm surprised you think some of these proposals are concessions at all and not the state running roughshod over religious minorities.

Making sure kids don't grow up isolated and unable to function in secular society is fine, but it makes a mockery of religious liberty IMO if the government is interfering with the clergy or our ability to set up religious schools.

I don't think religions should operate as capitalist organisations operating under the free market rules.

I'll take "things that need elaborating" for $300 Alex.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Having religions function as "capitalist" is inevitable in a country that has both assured freedom of religion and large religious diversity.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The governmennt should not regulate religion, but members of government should not leave their faith at the door for policy making- they have to vote in accordance with their faith.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Hands of my church.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The governmennt should not regulate religion, but members of government should not leave their faith at the door for policy making- they have to vote in accordance with their faith.

Exactly, like William Wilberforce.

[catographer]

Basically the question here is should the government promote its own version of religious practice, in this case liberal christianity and islam?
Absolutely not. Let people practice however they see fit. If they wanna be sexist and homophobic, so be it, we should not regulate what people believe or what they are taught in places of worship (short of inciting violence/crime).
I'm skeptical any of you would support doing this outside of the context of cracking down on conservative islam. in reality, we need to treat all religions equally and not interfere in their practice in such an egregious and 1984-esque way.

[catographer]

The governmennt should not regulate religion, but members of government should not leave their faith at the door for policy making- they have to vote in accordance with their faith.

lawmaking should always have a secular justification. if there is only a religious reason for a political decision/vote, then that would be unconstitutional in the US... and i would not want it in a truly secular country.
if a country wants to properly protect minorities and ensure equal treatment of all, allowing religiously based law making would allow the majority religion to persecute minorities and make life inhospitable for nonbelievers. i hesitate to think that you or any other christian would want to live in a country where muslims for example implement religious-based law, but under your belief then that would be permitted.
imho our visions for an ideal government should be universally applicable, not uniquely tailored to the religious or ethnic majority that resides there.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The governmennt should not regulate religion, but members of government should not leave their faith at the door for policy making- they have to vote in accordance with their faith.

lawmaking should always have a secular justification. if there is only a religious reason for a political decision/vote, then that would be unconstitutional in the US... and i would not want it in a truly secular country.
if a country wants to properly protect minorities and ensure equal treatment of all, allowing religiously based law making would allow the majority religion to persecute minorities and make life inhospitable for nonbelievers. i hesitate to think that you or any other christian would want to live in a country where muslims for example implement religious-based law, but under your belief then that would be permitted.
imho our visions for an ideal government should be universally applicable, not uniquely tailored to the religious or ethnic majority that resides there.

That would not be unconstitutional in the US.  All that the Constitution says is that we can't establish a state religion or require/ban the practice of a certain religion.  It does not say that we are to be a secular society, nor does it say that legislators need to leave their religions at the door.  "Separation of church and state" is even nowhere to be found in the Constitution.  But, the religious clause of the First Amendment is designed to protect religion from the government, not to protect the government from religion.

[catographer]

The governmennt should not regulate religion, but members of government should not leave their faith at the door for policy making- they have to vote in accordance with their faith.

lawmaking should always have a secular justification. if there is only a religious reason for a political decision/vote, then that would be unconstitutional in the US... and i would not want it in a truly secular country.
if a country wants to properly protect minorities and ensure equal treatment of all, allowing religiously based law making would allow the majority religion to persecute minorities and make life inhospitable for nonbelievers. i hesitate to think that you or any other christian would want to live in a country where muslims for example implement religious-based law, but under your belief then that would be permitted.
imho our visions for an ideal government should be universally applicable, not uniquely tailored to the religious or ethnic majority that resides there.

That would not be unconstitutional in the US.  All that the Constitution says is that we can't establish a state religion or require/ban the practice of a certain religion.  It does not say that we are to be a secular society, nor does it say that legislators need to leave their religions at the door.  "Separation of church and state" is even nowhere to be found in the Constitution.  But, the religious clause of the First Amendment is designed to protect religion from the government, not to protect the government from religion.

SCOTUS disagrees with you. see their "Lemon Test." establishment clause does way more than simply prohibit an explicit state religion.
also even if u were right, i hope you'd want to change the law to make us a secular state. otherwise religious minorities would be subject to oppression, and we'd become a de facto theocracy.

[Ohioguy29]

The general impression I get is that a particularly noxious brand of cooperation between church and state leads to the greater promotion of atheism and religious disillusionment (Europe?), religious support for autocracy (Russia), or strains of religious radicalism owing to the perception that mainstream, state-backed faith has sold out (parts of Central Asia).

As for the actual regulation of religion, I believe there are probably certain features of any social activity found to be antithetical to our attempts to create a “universal homogeneous state” that should be curtailed—this would pertain to faiths that seek to overthrow the government, subvert its authority to tax, or encourage the breaking of various laws. That said, I do believe there is a certain “right to be ‘backwards’” that should be respected, if only to blunt attempts at radical left-leaning, top-down intervention in social affairs (ie, even in an age of marriage equality, a religious group should have the right to confine its definition of marriage; the same allowance would not be made to expand it to allowing the marriage of children, though).

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The state should block people from preaching religion.

[Kingpoleon]

The governmennt should not regulate religion, but members of government should not leave their faith at the door for policy making- they have to vote in accordance with their faith.

“It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law.” - Amy Coney Barrett

I have a similar belief with politicians - you must have your first focus on the good of others and the exchange of viable ideas and solutions, rather than personal convictions.

[Beet]

The state should not have an official religion(s) and try to promote it.

Religion is not a legitimate reason for granting special privileges. It is not legitimate to exempt oneself from laws that would otherwise by applicable to everyone by claiming membership in a religion.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The governmennt should not regulate religion, but members of government should not leave their faith at the door for policy making- they have to vote in accordance with their faith.

“It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law.” - Amy Coney Barrett

I have a similar belief with politicians - you must have your first focus on the good of others and the exchange of viable ideas and solutions, rather than personal convictions.

Ideas about the common good arise from convictions.

[TJ in Oregon]

The governmennt should not regulate religion, but members of government should not leave their faith at the door for policy making- they have to vote in accordance with their faith.

“It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law.” - Amy Coney Barrett

I have a similar belief with politicians - you must have your first focus on the good of others and the exchange of viable ideas and solutions, rather than personal convictions.

It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, but I fully expect legislators to do it all the time. In fact it's corruption for a legislator to vote against their convictions. That and what Cath said. A conviction is simply something you believe is true, typically pertaining to goodness.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Buddhism and Muslims have deemed usuitable for Americans. Since the early 2000's. People have returned to Jehovah as a Witness or in Christianity. Government is indirectly responsible for people's return

[they don't love you like i love you]

The state should block people from preaching religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution