Probably not Separating of church & state powers is by democratic institutions guarding discrimination etc and courts Candidates who declare heavy influence (more than values like kindness etc) e.g. Christian dominion, should be ineligible This seems important given your low turn out rates
It is wild to me that you still think it's easy and simple. Are you going to arrest candidates for using code language? What if a candidate says they favor X law but won't say why (so it is obvious their motivation is religious)? What if they share a religious AND a secular motivation for a law?
Esp in the US where, again, the majority is religious, this would mean dozens of sitting legislators being arrested or fined, which would be highly galvanizing to the religious base. If you made it illegal for legislators to talk about religion, our politics will be about literally nothing else
Again, that isn't what I said. Talking about religion is perfectly ok. Saying (for instance) that abortion should be illegal because the Bible says..... Should be a disqualifier. I think it's telling that I can't give an example of a politician whom I thought was honestly religious.
You're not gonna end religion by legislating it away. And you're not gonna end religiously-motivated law before you end religion - any attempt to do so will make it stronger. Persecution is pretty great for reinforcing beliefs Far better to let people vote their consciences, and try to change that
Religion will I expect basically die of it's own natural uselessness. The percentages are in regular decline But people can believe in whatever Having a greater loyalty to something other than that you are elected to govern might be a current problem The status quo is a problem, not a solution
I used to think that was true, but its 2025, we've had instant global communication and widespread Internet access for more than a decade, and the hold of religion in the US seems stronger than it was 10 years ago. People are hungry for purpose and a life after death, and religion gives you both
These are different cases. Many sig differences between the laws and culture Practical things like voting reform may help when you reconstruct Imagining things anew seems useful as what you have is being destroyed by the far (at least token) religious right. You'll get a chance one day soon I hope
I doubt the decline will show more than a blip Au is heading for more people happy that no gods exist than Christian, probably within a decade. 39-44% now (see pic 2) USA some way behind but still tracking down (pic 1)
Well...I was describing an ideal world
Ok cool so I guess if we agree that there's absolutely no way you could make this work in our actual world unless you could snap your fingers and magically make people not religious (in which case, you wouldn't need a law prohibiting religion in legislation anyway)
That sounds more ideal (and more accomplishable, though obvs it's not) than saying religious people aren't allowed to know whether politicians share their values The latter sounds like a pretty terrible place that I as an atheist wouldn't want to live, where religious people are 2nd-class citizens
The thing is that a self identified nazi candidate would be arrested here Other Nazi's could not vote for them. They'd never be on a ballot So the theory holds, here at least Yet we let a corrupt Pentecostal become PM. We were soft on religions. Never again I suggest
Liars will seek office We should work to prevent that The idea is simple I think I previously wrote it probably would not be easy
No, it wouldn't be easy. I think I'd like to see some kind of expression that not everyone CAN be President. I think that's one reason DJT wasn't prevented from running a second time. Some things disqualify a person. Degenerate Liar would be one of them.
Sorry, you're posting a few things and that was meant as a reply to your next post We should only have people elected to or leading govt structures who are loyal to the country and not preferring some other primary motivation We expect them to be citizens for this reason Seems simple enough
Right? I think (given my own history) that this is the hardest part of understanding their motivations. I mean, it seems clear to ME that DJT is operating as an agent for Putin. I just can't understand 100% of the rest of them following his lead. It seems so clear their destroying America.