Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

930 hits Rate me! Share Favorite | Flag 16 years ago by botan_870

Would you rather live where religion rigidly dominates the government and the entire society or where the government has outlawed religion?


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 46)

Bottom Last Post

16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Friday 7/29/05 - 8:37:45 AM EST (GMT-5)
On the surface the outlawing of religion would seem good but, stalin outlawed religion and you saw where that went.

I'd said outlaw religion with one stipulation, that it be also an almost true capatalist democracy. Basically the US banning religion would be ideal, but unrealistic.
There would probablly terrorist factions rebeling.

16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Friday 7/29/05 - 8:42:12 AM EST (GMT-5)
Religious societies, even when they do work(which is never), are hell to live in, they're oppressive on all levels, religious dogma is always anti humanistic and nearly impossible to follow for a regular human being, therefore that type of society would be unlivable. Outlawing religion doesn't give one much hope either, but atleast there, is the possibility of revolution, rebelling against gov't is way easier than rebelling against the Church.
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Friday 7/29/05 - 8:43:54 AM EST (GMT-5)
^ great point
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Friday 7/29/05 - 9:23:24 AM EST (GMT-5)
None..
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Friday 7/29/05 - 4:13:28 PM EST (GMT-5)
Neither would be very good.
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Tuesday 8/9/05 - 8:39:12 PM EST (GMT-5)
It seems like it would be easier to convince people to overthrow the government than give up their faith.
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Tuesday 8/9/05 - 8:40:44 PM EST (GMT-5)
I suppose it would depend on the religion in question.
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Tuesday 8/9/05 - 8:58:16 PM EST (GMT-5)
So basically, Iran or China?
16 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Thursday 8/18/05 - 10:48:12 PM EST (GMT-5)
Oooh, that would be a tough choice. I mean, I'd hate to have my faith dictated to me either way, whether it's by not allow me to practise my own, or by telling me which one I have to practise. I guess my personal solution to either would be to do my own studies/worship privately.
16 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Sunday 8/28/05 - 6:08:35 PM EST (GMT-5)
I'd rather live where they outlawed religion. They may take religion away, but they can't take away ethics and morals, which are not always based on religion. The place where I live can still be a good place with ethics and morals allowed. Also, I can pass my religion off as a philosophy, but I'm sure that such a loophole would be covered.
16 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Monday 8/29/05 - 9:59:08 PM EST (GMT-5)
i like the way we are now
16 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Monday 8/29/05 - 10:05:37 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 8/9/2005 8:58:16 PM Runestone wrote:
So basically, Iran or China?

I'll stick with China.
16 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Monday 8/29/05 - 10:08:45 PM EST (GMT-5)
neither. But since I am atheist, I would choose the second option because I would not like to practice religion at all. I think other people should be able to worship who or what they wish, but I would not want to.
16 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Monday 8/29/05 - 10:09:25 PM EST (GMT-5)
I'd rather go with outlawing religion.

And, by the way, Stalin didn't outlaw religion. Churches, mosques and synagogues continued to function throughout his time. Not all of them, of course, but some.

Interesting historical side note: Before becoming a communist, Stalin was trained for the clergy.

16 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Monday 8/29/05 - 11:29:30 PM EST (GMT-5)
No religion wouldn't bother me at all being an atheist.
16 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Tuesday 9/6/05 - 7:15:33 PM EST (GMT-5)
Both societies would be hellish, IMO. A theocracy would be an absolute nightmare for anyone who did not fall into lockstep with the beliefs of TPTB, and a society where adults are forbidden from engaging in the practice of their faith would be just as bad. First they'd outlaw religion. Then what?
16 yrs ago - Friday 10/7/05 - 12:41:25 AM EST (GMT-5)
religion overpowering...cause then i could piss people off without having to punch them first
16 yrs ago - Friday 10/7/05 - 3:37:53 PM EST (GMT-5)
Ok I feel forced to answer this question because I've gotten this question four times in the past fifteen minutes

I'd have to say neither, I could just move. If I had to pick one, I'd say no religion, seeing as I'm not religious.

16 yrs ago - Friday 10/7/05 - 4:44:37 PM EST (GMT-5)
Even if my government "outlawed" my religion, they wouldn't stop me from beleiving what I beleive.
16 yrs ago - Friday 10/7/05 - 7:02:33 PM EST (GMT-5)
Neither is a good thing in my eyes. I'd prefer to live in a society that outlawed religion... not only because I'm not religious... but because I think it's a little less harsh to have restrictions from practicing rather than being FORCED to practice OR ELSE.
16 yrs ago - Friday 10/7/05 - 7:18:44 PM EST (GMT-5)
I would go with outlawing religion. Even if you can't assemble for worship or whatever, you can still have religious beliefs. Religion could be misused and misinterpreted in a society where religion was a huge part of the government and everyday life. Look at the countries that use Sharia (Islamic Law) in their judicial system. Men get away with rape because one man's word is worth three women's, and homosexuals are severely persecuted. Religion-based governments have always turned into brutal dictatorships.
16 yrs ago - Saturday 10/8/05 - 10:56:30 AM EST (GMT-5)
Either way would be equally horrible.
16 yrs ago - Saturday 10/8/05 - 10:57:59 AM EST (GMT-5)
Easiest question I've seen in a long time on YT.
16 yrs ago - Saturday 10/8/05 - 11:27:27 AM EST (GMT-5)
As a religious person myself, the obvious answer would be the former, but I'm going to go with the latter instead. Religion by force is worthless to me, and govt decrees against it are powerless to stop it anyway.
16 yrs ago - Saturday 10/8/05 - 11:38:35 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 10/8/2005 11:27:28 AM UncleLaughie wrote:
As a religious person myself, the obvious answer would be the former, but I'm going to go with the latter instead. Religion by force is worthless to me, and govt decrees against it are powerless to stop it anyway.

Good reply. Smart reasoning.


Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 46)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 Have you ever had to disguise yourself as a horse?

2 Are you currently menstruating?

3 Is it fair that this woman got away with purposefully miscarrying her two babies?

4 Do you have a NalgeneĀ® bottle?

5 Would you volunteer to be hypnotized on TV?

6 Are sexually transmitted diseases a turn-off?

7 Do you live in a home that has been owned by your family for multiple generations?

8 Would you make love with your clone?

9 Do you think that larger breasts make a woman more attractive?

10 Is there a good story behind your avy?

More Questions
 
Edit