Comments on: Is there actually more religious freedom in a secular state than country where there is an official religion?

By: jimbob

jimbob — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:16:59 +0000

In my view, a truly "free" nation is one that allow its citizens to decide for themselves how to live "the good life." By this criterion, no society is perfectly free because every society (out of necessity, perhaps – to preserve the social order) has laws and limitations on human behavior. We can consider a nation to be substantially free, however, if it permits varying conceptions of the good life to "compete" with one another in the marketplace of ideas without interference by the state.

Erik (above) misses the point of your question. By banning religious symbols in schools or government buildings, nations like France and Turkey are being less than free because they are not permitting these conceptions of the good life to compete fairly and freely with one another. If a Muslim girl wishes to wear the hijab to school, why on earth should the French government forbid it? Ostensibly, the answer is found in the motto of the Revolution – liberty, equality, brotherhood – but when it comes down to it, the French are putting their revolutionary vision of an egalitarian society ABOVE the desire of Muslims to set aside their women from those who do not dress modestly and who put their beauty on display for others.

Whether a state has an official religion or not has no bearing upon whether it is a substantially free state.

One final note: perhaps I am betraying my bias as an American, but I believe that religious freedom is one thing that we have done quite well. By constitutional fiat, the U.S. has no state-sponsored religion, and I believe that my nation does an outstanding job of allowing its citizens to choose their own conception of the good life. I do believe, however, that that freedom is under attack in some ways by some forces in our government.
References :

By: eduarodi

eduarodi — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:57:59 +0000

According to my experience, I'd say you're right. I'm in Argentina, where the Catholic Church is official, and it gains so many privileges that it becomes even more powerful and influential, to the point that some things are imposed on people who would like not to have anything to do with it.
References :

By: james i

james i — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:45:59 +0000

i live in australia and we are ment to have religious freedom , but i feel persicuted for my religious belifes. i am not of an orthordox religion , my religious practices incould astral traveling and remote viewing with my 3rd eye and useing telerpathic comunications , i am a time traveling creation spirit . i am the creator of heaven and earth. i am not a jew or christion or a muslim i am not a hindu , but i see truth in all these religions . so because i clam to be god and i dont have 200 million soldiers with me at present . no church will aknolage me as god , nearly every thing but though. so because i’m not suported by church or state i am left with no choice but to exercise my rites and practise my religion and throw them in hell or some like that . and give them no religious freedoms ever again . they will ackolage me as god as all will oneday . so it realy does not matter what religious freedoms you have its the freedom of information as to who i am you should beconcerd with . there is a conspiracy to stop people finding out the truth about me , and it was started by organized religion and goverment departments .so if you want religious freedom try standing up for god and tell all god walks the earth rite now and is not in a good mood. my name is james stewart inglis . i am allah the king of ellohim the farther of life .
References :
i am the lord god almighty

By: khan a

khan a — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:20:59 +0000

No,practically it is generally the other way round.Secular states are more possessive of their majority religion and the so called religious state are more liberal.It rather depends on country to country.
References :

By: john

john — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:58:59 +0000

in some country it's like that but not all country are the same. and i don't fell offended by religions symbols.
References :

By: Rachel B

Rachel B — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:13:59 +0000

I think there is a balance you to far to the left like France then you infringe on people's rights to practice their religion and then you go to far right then the country becomes a battle field like England during the reign of Queen Mary known better as Bloody Mary for killing as many non-Catholics as possible. I can tell you I would say that would infringe on my rights. I could like to live and believe the way I want to not being told by my country what I should believe.. I do think there is a balance though.
References :

By: kingreef777

kingreef777 — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:32:59 +0000

I think that you’ve shown that it depends on the country. I think that you’ve shown that quite well!

Official religion countries like Saudi Arabia included!
References :

By: c13reasons

c13reasons — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:59:59 +0000

religious freedom means to practice it without interference, but most of the countries you mention have it but are also required to be free OF IT. only one nation has it right. that is the U>S> it has froeedom of as well as from religion. the constitution says that the governm,ent may not establish any religion. the suprem court has extended that to also mean freedom from religion. ie the atheist may not be forced to have religion forced upon him/her as would be done if SCHOOL PRAYER had not been stopped! many want it, but if even one doesn't then to allow it would be the estanblishing of a religious practice which even an atheist would have to be exposed to! I"m in agreement with the supreme court, schoolprayer is establishing religion when the constitution says it may not be done by any governing body. this protects everyone, not just the minority. and hurts no one not even the majority!
References :

By: dumpfinds

dumpfinds — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:10:59 +0000

It is the freedom of religion and expression of that religion that allows each of us to practice; adhere to; and utilize the doctrines, beliefs, and relics of our religion. That is what has also made America a nation, until recent years, a very religiously free nation – it has not been the Christian outcry that has caused freedom of religion to take such a beating in the media and in laws – but it is other religions that have felt they were not given equality, primarily due to their small number in our country, and therefore wanted to receive federal assistance – which has been the long standing taboo – if you want to be of a religious organization then you must choose to not claim federal assistance and the only benefit to that is no taxes – whereas, if you want federal assistance then you must allow for that assistance to be dictated as to how you can use it – this upset those religions who thought they could have their federal assistance and freedom of religion and hence; we now have a country that is totally out of kilter between its freedom to practice any religion and its right to not expect the government to stay out of it if its going to ask for federal assistance.

I preferred it when the government stayed out of religious matters and morals and ethics; and the law dealt with the criminals.
References :

By: gratvol

gratvol — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:48:59 +0000

its an interesting question

look at the United States it has no official religion but many of its citizens are very religious.

while the Soviet Union also was a secular state and banned all religion.

and with your examples I think it can go either way depending not on what is the official national religion but what are the laws of the land
References :