Is religion a threat to democracy?

Post Reply New Topic

It may not be that much of a threat when it comes to monarchistic and/or communist societies but in democracy, a societal structure that centers around the idea of many people of many religions determining the fate of whatever country favors this aforementioned ideal, there sure are a lot of religions that, while varying in ideals, have one common goal; to control all the masses.

Wound't a democratic society be better off without any religion to overshadow or oppress the voices of those whose minds are not controlled or manipulated by obsolete myths? Those whose minds focus on actual socioeconomic and technological development? Hasn't religion held back technology, change and social development long enough?

I mean, the problem I see is that whenever a religion is present within a democratic society, there's a likely chance that the question "is this a democracy or a theocracy" will cross my mind every time.

I mean, who's really in charge of the U.S.A.? God or president Obama?

I don't think we need any of these delusional myths or 'religions' to explain everything. While religion desperately seeks answers to the most complicated of questions by making up what are ultimately ridiculous fantasies, science slowly and patiently finds the answers to all of these questions with careful studies, examinations and techniques all of which are dependent on the only thing that can truly change our lives: what our eyes can see.

I'm sorry but I think we humans have evolved far too much to be held back by a bunch ludicrous fantasies.

When intertwined, yes (though even Iran has a democracy, despite a supreme leader having ultimate say).

When separate, no.

Actually, the amount of Christians who actively reject science is very small. Even among evangelicals, it's 15% at most.

I haven't seen any info for other faiths.

Well, democracy is not the best system in the world to begin with, but saying religion is a threat to it, is like saying "people having different ideas of how the world should be" is a threat to it (because people have, whether it is because their religious believes or not), and if "people having different ideas" is considered a bad thing, then democracy isn't the right system to deal with that anyway.

That's why we have separation of church and state. It's the people who don't want to accept that there is such a separation who present a threat to democracy.

I think that corporatism, lack of transparent governence and public disinterest are greater threats to democracy than religion.

Religion teaches people that it is good and noble to believe things without evidence, so it could lead easily to authoritarianism in that regard.

And you're right about some religions directly subverting democratic processes and the rule of the law. As far as I understand it, a small number of Christian extremists are the reason that gay Australians can't marry eachother, and why our federal government wants to put the issue to plebiscite despite most of the public supporting gay marriage. And don't get me started on churches not paying taxes, infiltrating the education system, and how Australia's most important Catholic has exiled himself to the Vatican to avoid being questioned by a Royal Commission about child abuse.

But I think it's a bit unfair to characterise all religions as wanting to control the masses. Sikhism doesn't seem interested in proselytising and I get the impression that Judaism doesn't exactly make it easy to join up. These religious might not want control the masses, but I think they'd be content with being respected and left alone.

I think that we will always have religion in some form, and that democracy will have to coexist with it in order to survive. My ideal plan would be to raise the living and education standard of each person so that not even the most wretched will have to comfort themselves with fantasies of paradise and eternal suffering for their enemies.

While, of course, many Christians vehemently opposed SSM, the majority of them had no issue with it, and it became legal last year.

The abortion issue is still a big one, and although some of the presidential candidates talk about overturning RVW, not much interest has been shown by the remaining conservative judges in doing so. Even Chief Justice Roberts said he would not try to overturn it. State officials still try to defund providers or place restrictions on abortion, but compared to 3-4 years ago, restrictions have been more moderate, usually 20 weeks, with exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the mother (compared to some being 6-12 weeks, no exceptions). I am curious, however, as to why no effort has been made to make the Hyde amendment permanent, rather than having to be renewed every so often.

I have no strong opinions on either issue.

Unsurprisingly, the answer may be: Depends on the religion.

The major branches of Islam - Sunni and Shia - are currently very much antagonistic towards democracy. This also applies to some aspects of Christianity (although to a lesser extent than Islam) - like the predominantly US-inspired evangelicalism and its rejection of the separation of church and state. Other branches of Christianity like Mainstream Lutheran Protestantism have a more amicable relationship with democracy.

Catholicism has had a love-hate relationship with democracy in Latin America -sometimes supporting democracy and sometimes supporting autocracy - but this is largely a byproduct of the centuries-long absence of political stability in this region.

The Indian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) are probably - in principle - more supportive of democracy than the Abrahamic religions, as they place a greater emphasis on the fundamental equality of individuals. An obvious exception to this, though, is the existence of the infamous caste (Varna) system still prevalent in some branches of Hinduism, but Sikhism is - to my knowledge - the only major religion which has gender equality as an unconditional aspect of its faith.

Hinduism and Buddhism tend to be "Inward" focused, however, and while they may not be in as open conflict with democracy as Islam and historical Christianity, they may not necessarily openly support democracy either.

I find little of value in either.