On Sunday 07 Aug 2011 2:24:51 am Jon Cox wrote: > * Charles Haynes ([email protected]) [110805 16:36]: > > On Aug 6, 2011 2:51 AM, "Heather Madrone" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 8/4/11 7:18 PM August 4, 2011, ss wrote: > > >> What is a "secular democracy"? How would a non secular democracy work? > > > > Does anyone have any examples of a non secular democracy? > > > > > Israel. > > > > > > Actually there are a fair number of democracies with an official state > > religion. Italy and Spain obviously, but also the UK (CoE) and Ireland. > > > Calling Israel a democracy is like calling white South Africa a > democracy in the days of apartheid. >
Interesting views. Wiki has a page on state religions that lists all states that have official religions and those that don't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion A cursory examination of that list does not indicate (to me) any special connection between the state religion, democracy or absence of it, and lack of secularism - although fine details like that posted by Jon about Israel are missing. I have for long had thoughts about this whole business of religion versus secularism. As far as my knowledge goes, religions like Christianity and Islam either were designed from ground up as systems of governance - i.e to control entire states, or were adapted as convenient tools to do that. The latter may be closer to the truth - but in any case both religions became the basis for running states. Now democracy too is a system to run a state. The difference of course is that laws in a democracy are ultimately derived from the people as opposed to being handed down by God as in the religions. The only "tool" that a democracy can have to hold religion at bay is secularism. Secularism is an exclusionary clause. Secularism is fundamentally anti-religion. Technically one would have to ignore and suppress religious tenets to be secular. The question to me is "Can a democracy be anything other than secular?" If the people must rule, God cannot rule. If rule by God is acknowledged but ignored in order to practice democracy - then the state is secular and its allegiance to religion is fraudulent. (I think the UK is one such state) How this confusion pans out seems to be that neither democracy nor the absence of democracy seem to guarantee secularism, and the existence of secularism in a given state is no indicator of whether that state is democratic or not. The only thing that can be stated as dogma is that a state that avowedly follows religion cannot be secular. But it does appear that only democratic secular states allow debate on the choice between religion and secularism and how far each should be allowed to extend. Perhaps that is the defining feature of "secular democracies"? shiv
