Agnostic.com

35 11

Would you want to move to or live in a country, State, or society that is basically the same as your current one except that religion is actually banned?

I'm not talking about forcing anyone to give up their religion, everyone would willingly elect to participate, but anyone who changes their mind would be required to leave.

And is this necessarily a bad thought experiment to contemplate?

prometheus 7 Apr 15
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

35 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

12

No ,non believers are no better than believers in any way as far as I am concerned and from what I have witnessed on this site .I do not choose my friends according to their religion or non belief.A society as you speak of would be no better in my view .

11

No I would not want to be around people that feel superior to others

You mean like religious people?

Atheism is neither necessary nor sufficient for feeling superior.

11

I would not care to live in a country that bans religion. I wish I lived in a country that does more to maintain a separation between state and religion.

Nuke Level 5 Apr 15, 2020

Many countries would benefit from the banning of evangelicalism. Look at the US, Brassil, and soon Venezuala. They all, and many more, have had their political processes taken over by fascists who are evangelical.

you would not need to ban it, just remove any privileges religion enjoys that secular institutions do not.
Most would collapse in a matter of months, without sociological indoctrination an tax exemption.

9

No, I don't want to leave my daughter.

Could you take her with you, or is she ensnared by the dark side?

@prometheus

What dark side? Claire, 30, is not going anywhere.

@LiterateHiker the one that she wouldn't want to go with you? But hey, this thought experiment is all about voluntary actions. I get family over freedom from religion.

8

No..I wouldn’t want to live where anything could be banned. It may seem like a good idea, but if religion could be banned then so could other things. We want ideally, to live in a country where we are free to choose for ourselves whether to have a religion or not, without risk of fear or favour. That actually just about sums up many western countries, my own one the UK, included.

I fear in such a community, if religion itself is not banned, they would quickly take over. "Saving souls" is one of their main objectives and we would be inundated by these missionaries if they were not banned from the community. A town, could be I think turned into a private property to keep these folks out

@misstuffy In the UK and most European and Scandinavian countries religion is becoming an irrelevance. I believe in freedom of choice to practice a religion or not, and basically that is what I already have, so why would I want to change that for a country that bans things...today that could be religion, but tomorrow it may be something else like opposition political parties, for instance.

@Marionville I wish America was as forward thinking as Europe and especially the Nordic countries are, I myself am of Dutch/German/ Swiss and Scottish heritage. We were certainly founded on the ideal, freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Unfortunately, the despots have taken over and are busy taking over not only civilian life, but our government as well. Laws that clearly go against our constitution are being put on the books on a daily basis. You cannot even get elected in this country unless you are saying "God Bless" with every public appearance.

@misstuffy I realise that, and am glad I don’t live in the USA for that reason, and others too...for instance health care. I’m very grateful that we have our NHS. You have my sympathies.

@Marionville Thank you, if any good comes out of this pandemic at all I hope it is the realization we need healthcare for all here. We are unfortunately a very selfish culture and I notice that the most selfish seem to be the more religious folks. They seem to think if you are poor, sick, have health issues of any kind, then you did it to yourself and you are unworthy of good health and a decent living wage. I am still amazed Trump got elected. I call him Dumpster myself and I am a huge fan of the Brits for flying the Baby Trump Balloon, that was sheer brilliance.

8

Bad thought experiment. Believers in America have been wanting to do the exact opposite now for many years. Their dream of a "Christian Nation" drives me nuts.

The idea of a christian caliphate of the American states... nightmarish

How about waking them up?

7

You could just move to japan, about 95% atheist. They don't ban religion, they just ridicule it as is happening in many other countries in the western world, even to a lesser degree in the US. Wait a few generations and your wish may be granted.

7

How about just banning churches from taking money (or other, non-monetary contributions) from people? Do that, and the mythology will eventually disappear.

They could start with an international agreement to make religious tax exemption illegal and each institution charged for retrogressive evasion at 15% of their current holdings for however many years they have existed.

6

Even without religion some people are corrupt.

And hateful .Just look at some of these reply’s and comments.

This is true, but we have common law for that. I'm 100% aware that not being a theist is no prerequisite for being a good player in society. But being free from religion does give the sociopaths and psychopaths one less place to hide and feed on the weak and vulnerable with the usual blind eye turned by government "in the defense of religious freedom".

6

It's a great idea. Sign me up.
That is, ORGANIZED RELIGION would be banned, right? People can still talk about whatever they want?
Is 'spiritualism' allowed?
Card tricks?
Magicians?
Where do we draw the line?

I think I would still allow people to do or believe whatever they want in private which is by definition not public. If your "private" beliefs affect others, no bueno, they are simply not private any more.

And my definition of religion is belief in a high power without reason. Card tricks and magicians are entertainment. No adult of sufficient IQ believes "magicians" have supernatural powers.

I'm not exactly sure what spiritualism is. Could you define what you think it is?

@prometheus You must not have heard of David Blaine...that stuff is REAL!

6

I would prefer to live in agnostic world.....but the comedy would be sorely missed.

@Larry-new

You are right. Agnosticism is the world's greatest source of comedy. Count the imbalance of non religious versus religious comedians

5

Better to live in a world where education was honest enough to not allow religion to lie to children in order to protect it's over privileged position in society.
The if some one is stupid enough to subscribe to religion anyway, there place in society as a waste of learning and some one worthy of mockery would be established rather than revered.

4

This would tear families apart.

MrDMC Level 7 Apr 15, 2020

I think you misread what I said. This is all voluntary. No one is forcing anyone to move to such a society.

I would also say that bringing kids to such a society that don't have empirical and legal autonomy to consent to such a move should be disallowed and would be morally wrong. Since coercing children with religion is page 1 of their memetic mind control playbook I think I'd have to give a free pass to children born in such a society until they attain the age of majority.

I guess a problem world come if most of the world, or regions that sometime had free access to move to, became like it. At that point would society as a whole set up religious "zoos" - protected enclaves where the religious a free to roam and practice their exotica lifestyles. Not that many religions don't already do that by self ghettoisation.

4

No,I do not judge people on their religious ideology nor do I care for people that do ,so why would I want to be a in an environment such as this .

To be free of all the bullshit, evil, and poverty that religion often entails and brings down society as a whole.

4

I have seen "faith" save lives through its ability to give security and shelter to those who feel otherwise alone. When this happens it is a truly beautiful thing for all life is precious. However, we all know that many more lives have been lost in the name of "faith" as well.

It seems to me that the loss of life does not come from the religion itself but from the necessity to assimilate others.

Banning religion is not the answer; the only way to promote free will is to decrease the power base and give greater freedom to the individuals.

No tax shelters, no connection of church and state and no solicitation of faith.

You kill a snake by cutting its head off.

I don't see America ever fixing the tax thing - not in my lifetime and probably a few more after that - and the church and state thing is supposedly the law but they have coopted government to prevent that from being enforced.

Maybe the way to solve it is everyone becomes a church. Everyone is tax free. And everyone of us influences government like they do - isn't it supposed to be government of, for, and by we the people?
Just dilute the crazy by making it banal. Of course that might make them more crazy - I guess we'd find out.

I think there's a chance that atheists could become block voters - but maybe not a great one since we are about as cohesive as a herd of cats (just look at this comment thread!)

4

In two shakes of a lamb's tail! Sign me up!!!

4

Makes no difference to me

bobwjr Level 10 Apr 15, 2020
4

You would first have to arrive at a definition of “religion” that everybody could agree on, and I doubt any two people could do that, let alone a whole state. But, in any case... no.

skado Level 9 Apr 15, 2020

Well that is a very good point. I think it sucks that atheist have to live a life being defined as "not religious". Maybe we could define "rational humanism" and everyone is a-rational a-humanist, or in other words irrationally inhuman.

3

I think such a society would progress and advance quickly... if they didn't have religion holding them back.

2

No. I'll leave banning to the zealots.

So you'd prefer to live in a society where nothing is banned?

2

How does one "willingly participate" in something that is "banned"? If it is banned it is enforced by law whether you like it or not. What would be the mechanism that effectively banned believing a god is the creator and motivation for all there is?

I would prefer if political powers were simply not allowed to give religious belief any relevant weight in deciding public matters. They can have meetings and collect tithes, but they have to keep meticulous records and file and pay taxes just like everyone else. They can confess their sins to one another until their throats are dry from speaking, but their crimes are adjudicated by a secular court. No special consideration should be considered unless justification for that consideration is based on factual, evidence based data and not philosophical beliefs.

I believe with these limitations religious institutions would no longer be the safe haven for many (but not all) of the people that use it for scamming the uneducated and thus greatly reduce the influence religions has in general.

The same way you willingly participate in the terms of service when you use this website, no one forced you to use it, and you have the option not to. Ditto Facebook, Twitter, Google search. Or almost any business when you walk through their door.

Think of Amish communities as an example. Even smaller scale - condominiums and co-ops.

For intents and purposes you could still practice religion privately without bothering anyone. But if you ever made it an issue for others you'd be asked to leave and find some place else.

@prometheus The things you mentioned are not banned. You said that the religion that they practice is banned, but they can freely practice it so long as they don't bother others. Well, banning means it's against the law to do it. So you cannot "freely practice" something that is against the law.

What in your scenario disallows people who all share the same belief from gathering together so long as they are't proselytising and asking the powers that be to accommodate them?

@redbai well many communities in the US ban public nudity and fornication. But in your own homes anything goes. Personally laws that respect privacy in your own home would be fine by me, but I that wasn't really within the scope of what I was proposing.

I would hope though that someone who was emotionally mature enough to elect to move to such a society wouldn't feel the need to "cheat" at home but instead voluntarily leave. But at least they would be effectively admitting that the merits of freedom from religion make it worthwhile sticking around and practicing their religion in private only.

@prometheus You're moving goal posts. The original post said nothing about being banned "publicly". Regardless, in places where public nudity and fornication are banned, you cannot "willingly participate" in either in public without the chance of running into the law. How does that make your point?

@redbai I was just clarifying that privacy laws would trump others - as they generally do in the US. Smoking pot is still illegal in much of the US, but in all practical terms of you do it privately and don't bother anyone and don't advertise the fact then you're safe.

My point about nudity was that generally societies that ban things ban their public manifestations precisely because privacy trumps other considerations. It probably wasn't the best choice though because it's really only the ultraconservative who'd ever give a damn about private nudity.

2

The USA was founded as the first Secular Nation in the US. By now we should have been able to reduce religions place down to the superstitious nonsense that it is. Instead, we have become one of the most religious nations on Earth, with the devout on social media decrying that "America was founded as a Christian Nation" They are dangerous because they out number us even as our own group increases with each passing year. We need a place, a town with its own small farms surrounding it for non believers to live, work, raise their kids and die without the religious symbology and rhetoric forced upon us in the form of prayers at work and everywhere else in our daily lives. If I had the money to start such a town I would. Instead, I would be open to relocating to one. I would much rather line the pockets of like minded people instead of religious people practicing that prospering gospel where its ok to get rich on the backs of others because somehow you are more deserving and Godly. Those folks make me sick. I have had people like that interfere with my career on the racetrack when I would not do their bidding and I have seen them deny jobs to people who were good people, all because they didnt share their beliefs. Those folks believe if you are poor its your own fault and you arent Godly enough. I am fed up with them. So, why don't a bunch of us band together and find a town thats in need of new life? Allow the lederly there to remain and even cart them to their Church on Sundays, offer to buy their properties. Iowa and other midwestern states have tons of towns like this that just need new blood and elbow grease to breathe new life in and if we create our own businesses we might do OK.

I like your thinking and I feel your pain and frustration. If it was to be done I think that's how it should be. In most cases you don't even need to "ban" something - religious people really don't want to be around "godless heathens" or however they categorize us "nones" anyway.

2

Not a bad thought or experiment at all, just stupid.

2

People in CT are pretty mellow & MYOB, so not necessary.

No matter which state of the US you live in, the influence of religion at the Federal level is a huge drag on society IMO.

1

Once something becomes forbidden, it also becomes more attractive. We tend to be contrary like that. It is also in our natures to try to apply justice to unjust situations. We want to blame someone for our losses, even if that someone is imaginary. We want to accredit someone or something for our gains, even if only Karma. One reason atheists are in the minority, at least for now, is because so many of us have not evolved emotionally beyond the need to do that. With the above in mind, I would not be comfortable in an environment where all are not free to draw their own respective conclusions, even if those conclusions differ from my own.

Deb57 Level 8 Apr 16, 2020

You mean if we banned Christianity and Islam they'd be more popular?
THERE'S an unsettling thought.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:484948
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.