Blog Against Theocracy II

Everyone expects, these days anyway, for a blog to provide links to something else as a way to support an argument. And that works when all we're doing is to make comment on an event. Something happens, we link to a report, we state an opinion, 50 percent think it's wonderful and insightful; 50 percent think it's right out to lunch.

OK, the split is often not quite that even, but it comes out in the wash.

There will be no links. There will be no quotes. There will be no dragging up someone's blog or website or ideas. Not this time.

Some people have suggested that Blog Against Theocracy is a gathering of atheists bashing religion. And, in fairness to some of those complainants, that may actually happen. I will make every effort to avoid that and, if I fail, understand that I am as human as those who would become critical of my failure to embrace a particular religion.

As a matter of disclosure, I believe in no particular god. In fact, I believe in no god at all. That's not to say that I wasn't indoctrinated at an early age to accept at least one of the world's religious entities. I remember standing in Roman garb as something of a pageboy doing rites around a Roman symbol of execution. But I chose a different path.

I came to believe in democracy.

Strange word that - democracy. There are many different forms of it and many different views. I choose to mix three distinctly different forms: Direct democracy; representative democracy and liberal democracy. In short, the people have a direct say in government, they choose those who will act on their behalf and the minority will be protected from the majority.

Those three forms of democracy, exercised properly allow the voice of the people to be heard, put an executive and legislative body in place and impose limits preventing the individual from being removed of rights.

Religion has a totally different set of tenets. The individual is expected to meet the dogmatic requirements of any particular religion that person has, for whatever reason, agreed to be a member. It goes even further when that religion, for whatever reason, has evolved into segments that, while worshiping the same god, has different rites, different canons of acceptable behaviour and different benchmarks to define religious adherence. Religion, in any form, tends to be stagnant. It is based on ancient beliefs, ancient rituals and a faithful, semi-compliant following.

Clearly, the two, democracy and religion, simply don't mix. Each has its place exclusive of the other.

Free exercise of religion is not an invitation to weave a religious thread through the workings of government. No more than governments which guarantee the free exercise of religion have the right to impose on church doctrine, providing such doctrine does not violate the rule of law.

Simply put, there is nothing preventing religious believers from participating in government. There is something seriously wrong when the religion becomes the participant.

Countries which declare a state religion immediately face the problem of the non-adherent. In countries where the religion is the basis for the canon of laws, behaviour is more controlled, lifestyles are stringently dictated and liberty is curtailed. Minorities, in whatever form, are cast as outsiders. Even in the more tolerant states, the existence of a state religion serves to marginalize any group which does not practice the religious observances dictated or promoted by the state.

In short, the hallmark of governments which impose religion as law is intolerance.

Europe has spent the last four centuries crawling out of the stocks of theocratic government. The 20th Century saw no less than 35 governments disestablish their state religions in favour of completely segregated secular governments. The primary reason for this move was to eliminate the appearance of religious intolerance and allow, not diminish, the free exercise of religion and enhance the rights of individuals.

If people find comfort in their religion I would be the last person to deny them the right to worship. I would however, oppose any suggestion that the religious beliefs of those people be imposed on any individual or group that is not invested in that religion.

Dominionists of all faiths and religions fail acknowledge or choose to ignore the one basic form of democracy which exists to allow them to function - protection of individual liberties. Condemnation of minority groups, not because they are having any ill effect on the state, but because the dominionists find them offensive, is all too prevalent.

Which begs the question: If dominionists are so convinced that non-religious minorities, which cause no harm except to violate the contradictory dictums of ancient texts written for an age long since overtaken by time, what would they do if they occupied the seat of power and someone actually offered them harm?

I suspect we all know the answer to that one.