A secular society with secular institutions is fundamental to a democracy.

[Warren Stupidity]

8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	A secular society with secular institutions is fundamental to a democracy.
	5 (63%)
	A secular society with secular institutions is not fundamental to a democracy.
	3 (38%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Android3.14]

1. Just ask the Chinese.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. It could also be fundamental to other forms of government.

So you think not required for democracy?

[Android3.14]

8. Of course a secular society is unnecessary

Thinking otherwise shows a person misunderstands the concept of democracy.

[GliderGuider]

2. Not unless you qualify "democracy" a lot more tightly than you have

Many of the societies that enjoyed the early democracies listed in this article weren't even close to being secular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

[pinto]

5. Good point. (nt)

[hrmjustin]

4. The English seem to be doing just fine.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Sure if you like monarchies and state religions.

[hrmjustin]

7. And democracy.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. So that whole separation of church and state thing is irrelevant?

[hrmjustin]

12. To Democracy there, yes.

[okasha]

11. The Spanish seem to be doing just fine, too.

They've had marriage equality longer than we have. (As has Britain, Queen, Archbishop and all.)

Traditional Native American societies weren't and aren't secular, but they're democratic. Ben Franklin learned considerable about the subject of democracy from the Six Fires Confederacy. Unfortunately, he didn't absorb the part about women's participation.

[hrmjustin]

13. But, but, but...

...religion destroys things.

[okasha]

14. Sure does.

Archbishop Tutu fought right alongside Mandela to destroy apartheid in South Africa. Dietrich Bonhoeffer attempted to destroy Hitler, and lost his life for it. MLK and his followers destroyed segregation in the American south. The Berrigans, the American Friends Service Committee and many others from many other faith communities destroyed the credibility of the Viet Nam war.

Such a trail of wreckage......

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. It sucked to have Church of England bishops voting in Parliament against marriage equality

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/7-june/news/uk/bishops-gather-in-lords-to-vote-against-gay-marriage-bill

I don't like them having votes in the Lords when they have an official position opposing assisted dying: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/15/assisted-dying-suicide-church-of-england-split

The UK would be more democratic if it didn't still have some hereditary lords. It would be more democratic if it didn't still reserve places in Parliament for the hierarchy of one sect, which most people do not actually follow - apart from funerals and a fair amount of weddings. it would be more equal if it didn't have a law demanding a daily act of worship of broadly Christian character even in nominally secular schools. It would be more equal if people were allowed to set up a publicly funded school that explicitly would have no act of worship at all, just as non-Christian religions have been allowed to do - but that's been blocked.

Religion is forced on us, by law.

It sucks.

[hrmjustin]

16. You still have democracy. And yes I am not a fan of some of those bishops.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. I would say democracy is better with secular institutions

The UK limps along. Like Iran, the other country in the world that gives a sect official positions in their legislature.

[hrmjustin]

18. I don't agree the UK limps along and is much better than Iran's system.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. Yes, and de facto we're pretty much a secular society with secular institutions.

The role of the CofE, while regrettable, is mostly ceremonial - the only really intrusive part of having a nominal "state religion" here is religious education in schools.

Oh, and the Lords Spiritual. But I doubt they'll last - at some point in the next 20 years we'll get around to reforming the House of Lords into something non-absurd, I suspect.

[Leontius]

9. What is fundamental to a democracy is a people willing to fight for the right to order their

society and government themselves.

[Igel]

19. A society with a primarily secular system

is fundamental to a democracy in a diverse society.

If the society is fairly homogeneous, then you'd really expect the "secular system" to primarily reflect that homogeneity. But it should be open enough to accommodate minority views.

However, saying that the institutions must be secular is an error. For much of the US' history, the primary institutions have not been secular. To say otherwise is to truncate much of the range of public opinion, and say that in a true democracy only some views and some participation counts, while other views and other forms of participation and other portions of civil society are to be ignored. Democratically, of course.

That kind of stricture denies the essence of democracy. It can be "representative" (in the sense that the demos votes for representatives), it can be proportional, it can be liberal, it can have limits put on it to limit majoritarian tendencies, it can be majoritarian without representatives mediating between law and the public. But it cannot simply say, "Some views are too dangerous to allow its adherents to be considered people." "We the people" is inclusive, however much some want it to exclude those they disapprove of as somehow being "non-people" because of their views or their assets. What's really needed is some sort of buy-in.