Why is it unethical for a government to be religious, but it isn't unethical for a secular government to be antireligious, so that they restrict the freedom of religious people simply because what they express relates to religion and for no other reason. France is a good example of this when they banned the wearing of religious clothing such as head scarves and Crosses in public schools.
A mistake in the title. Was supposed to write no difference between religious and antireligious governments...
Abortion for instance is a religious position, likewise also true with the Mormons taking 2 wives, and the same for baking gay wedding cakes. All are in the domain of religious decisions that are 'over' the constitution (as a 'Reserved' right) and outside the purview of gubmint yet da gubmint nonetheless interfered by making laws contrary to the peoples religions based in commercialism, the gubmints religion. Funny how everything can be stretched under the infinitely growing umbrella of commercialism. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. You have the right to freely exercise your religion as long as you do it our way, Signed: Land of the free, Da' Gubmint,
Is it ethical for governments to ban human sacrifice done for religious reasons? It seems to me to be a matter of nuance, it's not a simple yes/no question. My freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose, my freedom to promote religion ends at your right to not be brainwashed by me, as well as many other rights. That being said, it's a sliding scale. I acknowledge the idea that disallowing some religious expression to protect the public, but I don't know that I think that France banning head scarves is the right move.
It would be unethical for a government to be anti-religious (and note that many forms of religious government would be anti other religious by definition). Limiting religious imagery and expression in the government and state spheres isn’t automatically anti-religious though. They’re seeking to prevent the dominance or imposition of any particular religion upon school children. I’d certainly accept that they have pushed that policy to an extreme end and not one I’d specifically support but that doesn’t mean they’re fundamentally anti-religion. They simply hold the position that religion, including the religious induction of children, should remain in the sphere of family homes and religious institutions. Ironically, most proponents of state religion believe the same thing, just limited to every religion other than their own. The ban on Muslim headscarves was much more popular than the ban on Christian crosses.
The only difference is an Extremely religious government discriminates and a oppresses all religious people except one group. While an Anti-religious government discriminates against all religious groups. Both are equally bad in my opinion. I have no problem with government having influence from a religion but when they start making laws that you cant practice your religion that is where every thing goes bad. Laws should be in place to protect the Life Liberty and Pursuit of happiness of the people of the nation.
