Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Dante Von Hespburg]

As far as I know, Spain's blasphemy laws not only exist, but they are also relatively frequently applied, in comparison to European standards. Even notoriously secular France used to have blasphemy laws in the department of Alsace, because of the region's special religious status established according to the relevant Concordat following WWI, in order to facilitate the integration of Alsace and its German legislation into the French state. Fortunately, it has been abolished a while ago, but apparently, the situation is not improving for every member of the European Union, as in Greece, blasphemy laws have become harsher, possibly also because of the Nazi's increasing influence in politics.

We have a fantastic thing called "offense of religious sentiment" (Ofensa por el sentimiento religioso) in our penal code that can lead you to jail. It is the good old blasphemy. I have not been able to find sentences in which someone has been convicted, but you will suffer at the tribunals for sure.

Beginning the view against the singer-songwriter by the emission of images in which a Christ was cooked

That video ended in court. The Legal Center Tomás Moro filed a complaint for an alleged crime of offense to religious feelings. A court of Colmenar Viejo (Madrid) imposed a bond of 192,000 euros to Krahe and 144,000 to Monserrat Fernández Villa, producer of the program, already disappeared.

The crime of blasphemy continues in the Spanish Penal Code

Judges file most of the allegations for offense to religious sentiment

The courts conclude that in order to impute offenses against religious sentiments it is necessary to prove the will to offend

The sentence that acquitted Javier Krahe remembers that the same act can be insulting for some Catholics and not for others

The Catholic Church remains powerful in Spain and I would say that its power even increases. The most conservative church has found a thread in how in the West we treat Islam and uses this kind of logic: "do you respect that they force their women to wear a veil and you criticize us to simply say that the woman should stay at home taking care of the children?"

Meanwhile, the drag-queen disguised as Christ apologized, the pederast priests did not. And bishops can say with impunity that homosexuals are sick or that, regarding cases of pedophilia, some children are not exactly innocent creatures. "There may be minors who do consent (abuses) and, indeed, there are (abuses). There are 13-year-olds who are minors and are perfectly in agreement and also wanting it. Even if you neglect, they provoke you."

This a whole area i'm quite ignorant in, so i'm a bit shocked from my seemingly anti-speech sheltered Scottish perspective to hear about such things not only still being applied in Spain and other areas of Europe, but for it to be used quite actively. The big debate in the UK centers around our hate-speech laws and if they go too far/not far enough. So it rather puts that in perspective in some ways.

Do you either of you know, both in Spanish and more general European context if these laws are 'hot topics'? I know from your sources Mishkin its controversial perhaps, but do a large percentage of the populace support such rules? and also are they a reaction to the perceived threat of 'non-indigenous' religious influence increasing (both in terms of media coverage and arguably generally- for instance after Atheism, Islam is the fastest rising religious belief in the UK- though that's not hard considering the CoE is in decline as is Catholicism according to the last census) or are they more 'always been this way'. I know Abdulmecid you mentioned it being a reaction to increasing fascist influence so i guess it must be partly that.

It's that rather weird conundrum i suppose, where in at the least the perception of a threat to 'Western values' we actually see the West clamping down in a way that's arguably against those very values- Again UK-centric, in reaction to horrific, but also very minor terrorist attacks (The recent one springs to mind), there's been a mad panic to create back-doors to encryption and force providers to follow suite- despite the government not really seemingly understanding this, or how it works properly and indeed it actually being more of a threat to do as their trying to push as it makes all date more vulnerable- Snoopers Charter is in the same vein, almost pointless in terms of counter-terrorism as many MI5 experts have stated- but its sold under that and gives unprecedented access to citizens lives from the government side. While ironically also putting our lives at risk as UK network security is notoriously poor, and that's a years worth of data on everyone readily accessible to hackers, rouge government employees etc. Eliminating in some ways the very freedoms we express to want to protect.

[mishkin]

@Harith: First af all it is a sadly true topic that there are two spains: a progressive and secular Spain and a conservative and catholic Spain. Generally political ideology and religiosity are deeply united here.

The catholic church certainly have always enjoyed privileged treatment from any spanish government: Less taxes than normal non-profit organizations, the right to register in the civil registry as own properties that were not previously registered (immatriculations), competencies in the education system, etc. I guess this indicates that they clearly have some kind of power.

It is well known that in conservative governments there has always been some Opus Dei (pseudo-secrete / very discreet ultraconservative association) members, as well as in the judiciary and other high-level institutions. (The opus dei only seeks members between the elites and the wealthy classes).

Regarding its ability to influence government / politics through "the masses", the Catholic Church has at least one big television channel (13tv) and the second most important radio station of the country (COPE), both speakers of the most conservative/tradidional/religious currents of Spanish politics. When the "progressive" or "leftist" party rules, they often encourage or launch anti-abortion or "pro family" demonstrations.

I do not have any objective data to say that the church / the more conservative political class is increasing its influence or power, but I have the feeling that it is so. Certainly I have become radicalized and I observe how other people in another political/religious spectrum are radicalized too.

@Dante
Ley Mordaza (Gag Rule) Officially called Public Safety Law: Five actions that the 'gag law' sanctions from July 1

- Manifesting next to the Congress and the Senate

The approved text considers an infraction any "serious disturbance of the citizen security" that takes place in front of the seats of the Congress, the Senate and the autonomous parliaments, although the public representatives are not reunited at that moment. "But what is it and what is not to disrupt citizen security," Greenpeace asks, which denounces how that decision will be at the "discretion" of the police.

- Photographing police

The Gag Law punishes "the unauthorized use of images or personal or professional data" of police officers "that could endanger the personal or family safety of agents, protected facilities or at risk the success of an operation." A limitation that Amnesty International has denounced: "Capturing images of the police, whether by journalists or others with cameras or mobile phones, has sometimes helped to spread information about excessive use of force by the police."
(Like a year ago a woman was sanctioned for posting on twitter the photograph of a poorly parked local police car. There is a good amount of videos of (past) demonstrations in which police brutality is observed. Really obscene images).

- Protest in heights

An article in the Gag Law makes this very clear. The agents will fine "the scaling of buildings or monuments without authorization when there is a certain risk that damage to people or property will be caused." "This article appears to have been drafted specifically to prohibit and prosecute the public acts that Greenpeace carries out based on the right to freedom of expression," says the NGO in the report that drafted against the legislation approved by the PP. "In this case, the commission of the infraction takes place without the need to produce or alter public order, nor damage to citizen security," rifles the collective. The imposition of the sanction will be submitted, under police criteria, only to the existence of a "risk".

- Peaceful and seated resistance

The Gag Law has put an expiration date, according to NGOs, to the peaceful resistance. The new legislation gives the police the ability to fine those who refuse to dissolve meetings and demonstrations in public places once ordered by "the competent authority." It also sanctions "disobedience or resistance to the authority or its agents in the exercise of their functions".

It also legalizes "hot returns" of immigrants: If the authorities see an immigrant who has just crossed the border illegally, they can immediately return him to the other side of the border. No matter his age, health condition or if he is fleeing some totalitarian regime that wants to kill him because of his political ideas.

Minor infractions will be sanctioned with a fine of 100 to 600 euros; The serious ones, from 601 to 30,000 euros; And the very serious ones, from 30,001 to 600,000 euros.

Some measures are more controversial than others. Anyway in the last general elections the people who have put into effect this law was reelected, so I suppose that the majority of Spaniards agrees with all this.

Regarding Islam in spain, thanks god since the last attack (2004) there has been no incident of seriousness in which there were Muslims involved. Sometimes a minister says something really stupid, but only very minority media speak of "the jihadist threat", "the danger of building a mosque" and "the invasion of hordes of immigrants". The normal media they just report it when there is a massive influx of immigrants or corpses appear on our shores, but from a fairly balanced perspective, I think.

Speaking of immigrants I am forced to mention this. The civil guard shot them with rubber balls while they were swimming. At least nine immigrants die in desperate bid to cross Ceuta border

Curiously, in the absence of a credible Islamist terrorist threat (fingers crossed) the government revives the ETA ghost at the slightest opportunity. The judge sends to prison the two puppeteers arrested for extolling ETA After two days in jail and politicians and the press condemning the horribe acts of the puppeteers, it was discovered that the banner that caused everything, written in Basque, did not refer in any way to the terrorist group, simply one of the words written ended in "eta".

Tired of speaking so much in English. I'm going to twitter to see if today they have condemned someone for insulting the king ("insulting the crown": 4 - 24 months of prison)

[Iskar]

There is still a blasphemy paragraph in German law at least, but it is basically unused. The paragraph is not restricted to the Christian churches, though:

§ 166
Beschimpfung von Bekenntnissen, Religionsgesellschaften und Weltanschauungsvereinigungen

(1) Wer öffentlich oder durch Verbreiten von Schriften (§ 11 Abs. 3) den Inhalt des religiösen oder weltanschaulichen Bekenntnisses anderer in einer Weise beschimpft, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
(2) Ebenso wird bestraft, wer öffentlich oder durch Verbreiten von Schriften (§ 11 Abs. 3) eine im Inland bestehende Kirche oder andere Religionsgesellschaft oder Weltanschauungsvereinigung, ihre Einrichtungen oder Gebräuche in einer Weise beschimpft, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören.

Translation:

(1) Whosoever publicly or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) defames the religion or ideology of others in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

(2) Whosoever publicly or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) defames a church or other religious or ideological association within Germany, or their institutions or customs in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall incur the same penalty.

Notice that the German word "weltanschaulich" is not entirely synonymous with "ideology". It only refers to quasi-religious convictions, not ideologies in the wide, political sense.

The important part here being "capable of disturbing the public peace", i.e. simply insulting a religion is only punishable if it is done in a context where it may incite violence/riots/etc.

[Abdülmecid I]

Regarding France, the blasphemy law came to highlight, due to the controversies surrounding Charlie Hebdo's provocative satire towards Islam and the ongoing debate about whether the Muslims of Alsace should enjoy the same status with Catholics and Protestants, the only religious groups recognized by the relevant Concordat. In fact, however, the law was essentially forgotten, which is probably why it was allowed to remain in the state's legislation for so long. Basically, the blasphemy laws had been a dead letter for quite long. Concerning Greece, the linked article mentions several protests against these ridiculous, but given the fact that religious piety in Greece is apparently much higher than the European average and that the Orthodox Church possesses, according to the Constitution, many privileges, I suspect that the society is quite divided on the issue. Perhaps, any gradual movement towards a more secular legislation was slowed down or even interrupted by the rise of far-right extremism, caused by the financial crisis.

[Harith]

It is well known that in conservative governments there has always been some Opus Dei (pseudo-secrete / very discreet ultraconservative association) members, as well as in the judiciary and other high-level institutions. (The opus dei only seeks members between the elites and the wealthy classes).

Well that's interesting.

Regarding its ability to influence government / politics through "the masses", the Catholic Church has at least one big television channel (13tv) and the second most important radio station of the country (COPE), both speakers of the most conservative/tradidional/religious currents of Spanish politics. When the "progressive" or "leftist" party rules, they often encourage or launch anti-abortion or "pro family" demonstrations.

Kind of like France then.

I do not have any objective data to say that the church / the more conservative political class is increasing its influence or power, but I have the feeling that it is so. Certainly I have become radicalized and I observe how other people in another political/religious spectrum are radicalized too.

Cheers for the quick infos.

The important part here being "capable of disturbing the public peace", i.e. simply insulting a religion is only punishable if it is done in a context where it may incite violence/riots/etc.

So assuming AfD gets 15% of the national vote, do you think they would target such law for repeal (which I assume will be controversial among lawmakers even if popular according to polls)? I certainly can see them making it an expensive yet highly rewarding artificial flashpoint to boost their electorate share.

[Iskar]

I'd rather expect them to try and revive the usage of the law to prosecute insults against Christianity and/or Judaism. AfD is not particularly Christian and certainly has anti-semitic elements, but these circles like to use whatever they can find to crack down on Muslim immigration, and as such they might try to exploit anti-Christian and anti-semitic/anti-Judaist tendencies among Muslim immigrants using such a paragraph. Christianity in particular is (ab)used by nationalist and not at all religious circles as "defining element of occidental culture" with the intent to exclude the mostly non-Christian immigrants.

[Harith]

AfD is not particularly Christian and certainly has anti-semitic elements, but these circles like to use whatever they can find to crack down on Muslim immigration, and as such they might try to exploit anti-Christian and anti-semitic/anti-Judaist tendencies among Muslim immigrants using such a paragraph.

Ahah. I actually had the opposite in mind where they would equate it to "Islamic blasphemy laws", throw a "sharia law" or two into the mix and watch the flames go up. Never thought they would use it especially when it can also be, in theory at least, used against them.

Strange times indeed.

[Prodromos]

Heaven forbid the Catholics run radio shows discouraging abortion. We need to ban that kind of behavior to preserve religious freedom!

t. Orwell

[mishkin]

Heaven forbid the Catholics run radio shows discouraging abortion. We need to ban that kind of behavior to preserve religious freedom!

Catholics can do whatever they want (within the law) with their private stations. Nobody has said that this should not be so. You insinuate that I (or anyone) can not criticize what they say through those stations?

Why did you mention Orwell?

[Iskar]

Heaven forbid the Catholics run radio shows discouraging abortion. We need to ban that kind of behavior to preserve religious freedom!

t. Orwell

What exactly are you getting at?

[Prodromos]

Maybe I misread mishkin, however, the general theme of this discussion is the Catholics' "excessive" influence on Spain's society and government, as if only irreligious people are allowed to have a voice. Catholics are the new Jews apparently.

The catholic church certainly have always enjoyed privileged treatment from any spanish government: Less taxes than normal non-profit organizations, the right to register in the civil registry as own properties that were not previously registered (immatriculations), competencies in the education system, etc. I guess this indicates that they clearly have some kind of power.

It is well known that in conservative governments there has always been some Opus Dei (pseudo-secrete / very discreet ultraconservative association) members, as well as in the judiciary and other high-level institutions. (The opus dei only seeks members between the elites and the wealthy classes).

Regarding its ability to influence government / politics through "the masses", the Catholic Church has at least one big television channel (13tv) and the second most important radio station of the country (COPE), both speakers of the most conservative/tradidional/religious currents of Spanish politics. When the "progressive" or "leftist" party rules, they often encourage or launch anti-abortion or "pro family" demonstrations.

-

Note that Europe's blasphemy laws are largely dead letter laws. You can stop worrying about any rumored Inquisition. There is certainly no equivalence to the Islamic ban on blasphemy, which is enforced by society as well as by the government, with numerous killings every year.

[mishkin]

Maybe I misread mishkin, however, the general theme of this discussion is the Catholics' "excessive" influence on Spain's society and government, as if only irreligious people are allowed to have a voice. Catholics are the new Jews apparently..

Again, of course the catholic church is allowed to have a voice. I complain that his voice is, usually, and according to my point of view, very retrograde, and so I would like their influence to be less. You interpret some criticism as persecution? Do you seriously suggest that the Catholic Church suffers some kind of persecution in Spain? Do you have any examples of this persecution? (Besides my critics here)

Refarding blasphemy, If we are talking about Spain of course I do not care at all about the rules that may govern in some Muslim country. I care about the laws that govern this country, whereby a person can have serious "judicial problems" if he offends the Catholic Church. (I have given examples in this regard).

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Maybe I misread mishkin, however, the general theme of this discussion is the Catholics' "excessive" influence on Spain's society and government, as if only irreligious people are allowed to have a voice. Catholics are the new Jews apparently.

I don't think that's what was being aimed at all, at least from what i've taken from this. More that in Spain particularly, and Greece it seems there are issues when a religion has influence over secular affairs that affect those who are not part of said religion.

From my perspective the correct course for western states are for religions to be private affairs removed from political influence. Those members who are part of a religion can consent to be governed by it and abide by its rules, make donations etc. But it should never have any influence over someone who is not part of that group. This way society is kept stable and fair by allowing both freedom of religion, and running on an inherently secular basis, which those of a religious persuasion can adopt their own lives to without forcing their beliefs and ideas on someone else who has no wish to be part of it. But when you have as the Catholic church in those instances Mishkin posted try and exert authority over the wider populace by having secular influence there's an issue.

[Prodromos]

Again, of course the catholic church is allowed to have a voice. I complain that his voice is, usually, and according to my point of view, very retrograde, and so I would like their influence to be less. You interpret some criticism as persecution? Do you seriously suggest that the Catholic Church suffers some kind of persecution in Spain? Do you have any examples of this persecution? (Besides my critics here)

Refarding blasphemy, If we are talking about Spain of course I do not care at all about the rules that may govern in some Muslim country. I care about the laws that govern this country, whereby a person can have serious "judicial problems" if he offends the Catholic Church. (I have given examples in this regard).

I don't think that's what was being aimed at all, at least from what i've taken from this. More that in Spain particularly, and Greece it seems there are issues when a religion has influence over secular affairs that affect those who are not part of said religion.

From my perspective the correct course for western states are for religions to be private affairs removed from political influence. Those members who are part of a religion can consent to be governed by it and abide by its rules, make donations etc. But it should never have any influence over someone who is not part of that group. This way society is kept stable and fair by allowing both freedom of religion, and running on an inherently secular basis, which those of a religious persuasion can adopt their own lives to without forcing their beliefs and ideas on someone else who has no wish to be part of it. But when you have as the Catholic church in those instances Mishkin posted try and exert authority over the wider populace by having secular influence there's an issue.

When most people think of theocracy, usually, they think of things like criminalizing homosexuality, because religion is associated with the banning of "sinful" behavior, even though not all religions call for the criminalization of such things. Theocracy is also associated with repression of members of other religions. These are certainly bad things and should be avoided.

However it is completely different to say that religion has no place in government. In theory, it sounds pretty good, but if you think about it, it's really a double standard and plain bigotry against religion. Virtually all public policy is based on an individual's sense of right and wrong. Some people get this from Christianity, others from Buddhism, or humanism, or Marxism, or any other ideology, text or individual. What is troubling is that only religions are singled out as an invalid basis for policy, as if religion is specially dirty and must be confined indoors, away from the public. Why is a law based on Das Kapital or Mein Kampf legitimate, but a law based on Biblical principles isn't?

To be logically consistent you have to support anarchy, or freedom from ideologies in general, not only religion. For instance, if you like socialism, start a Kibbutz and don't force anyone to participate in it. Etc. Otherwise I don't agree that people should keep religion to themselves. Maybe all people should keep their opinions to themselves and not try to force other, unwilling people to do as they say. Not just religious people.

Which is really the point of this campaign against the Spanish Catholics. The purpose isn't freedom, or freedom of religion. It's freedom from religion, and Christianity in particular.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

When most people think of theocracy, usually, they think of things like criminalizing homosexuality, because religion is associated with the banning of "sinful" behavior, even though not all religions call for the criminalization of such things. Theocracy is also associated with repression of members of other religions. These are certainly bad things and should be avoided.

However it is completely different to say that religion has no place in government. In theory, it sounds pretty good, but if you think about it, it's really a double standard and plain bigotry against religion. Virtually all public policy is based on an individual's sense of right and wrong. Some people get this from Christianity, others from Buddhism, or humanism, or Marxism, or any other ideology, text or individual. What is troubling is that only religions are singled out as an invalid basis for policy, as if religion is specially dirty and must be confined indoors, away from the public. Why is a law based on Das Kapital or Mein Kampf legitimate, but a law based on Biblical principles isn't?

To be logically consistent you have to support anarchy, or freedom from ideologies in general, not only religion. For instance, if you like socialism, start a Kibbutz and don't force anyone to participate in it. Etc. Otherwise I don't agree that people should keep religion to themselves. Maybe all people should keep their opinions to themselves and not try to force other, unwilling people to do as they say. Not just religious people.

Which is really the point of this campaign against the Spanish Catholics. The purpose isn't freedom, or freedom of religion. It's freedom from religion, and Christianity in particular.

I though would differentiate between 'organized' religion and 'spiritualism/moralism/ideological-ism' which is essentially what your talking about in the latter part of your post. I would never say that what you've described as peoples differing moralities should be removed from secular governments, which indeed are often influenced by an individuals immediate environment, or more generally a cultural background sometimes based on a religion, but not 'of' the religion (i.e. i'd argue the 'Western freedoms- and indeed secularism we enjoy are founded in the values of later-Christianity, but i don't have to be a CoE member or say Methodist following their rule sets to 'use' that morality).

What i am talking about though is 'organized' religion- i.e. the Catholic Church, CoE, Sunni-ism etc- which export and enforced a structured belief system with rules, regulations etc onto its own and indeed attempts to force it onto others- that's an issue and something which indeed has no place in modern secularist governance for the very reasons you mentioned formerly. The CoE as a benign non-political force which can help give structure and shape to its adherents lives- great. A CoE which takes active interest in attempting to enforce/lobby the state for a ban on all contraception (as unlikely as that ever will be to happen of course considering their pro-stance - but i didn't want to use a serious example, its more just to highlight a point) for said citizens, that's not on and is an invasion of someone elses private life and freedom.

That for me is the context in which i'm putting forward the complete separation one might say of Church and State.

[Prodromos]

I though would differentiate between 'organized' religion and 'spiritualism/moralism/ideological-ism' which is essentially what your talking about in the latter part of your post. I would never say that what you've described as peoples differing moralities should be removed from secular governments, which indeed are often influenced by an individuals immediate environment, or more generally a cultural background sometimes based on a religion, but not 'of' the religion (i.e. i'd argue the 'Western freedoms- and indeed secularism we enjoy are founded in the values of later-Christianity, but i don't have to be a CoE member or say Methodist following their rule sets to 'use' that morality).

What i am talking about though is 'organized' religion- i.e. the Catholic Church, CoE, Sunni-ism etc- which export and enforced a structured belief system with rules, regulations etc onto its own and indeed attempts to force it onto others- that's an issue and something which indeed has no place in modern secularist governance for the very reasons you mentioned formerly. The CoE as a benign non-political force which can help give structure and shape to its adherents lives- great. A CoE which takes active interest in attempting to enforce/lobby the state for a ban on all contraception (as unlikely as that ever will be to happen of course considering their pro-stance - but i didn't want to use a serious example, its more just to highlight a point) for said citizens, that's not on and is an invasion of someone elses private life and freedom.

That for me is the context in which i'm putting forward the complete separation one might say of Church and State.

I think we largely agree on that, but I disagree with singling religion out. I'd rather prevent all political ideologies from being enforced on people against their will, with basic exceptions such as bans on any violation of human rights. That means people should be able to insult religions, but also genders, ethnicities and nationalities. It means people shouldn't be forced to go to church, but, they also should not be forced to join the military. People should be free to avoid having to pay any church dues, but should also be able to avoid having to pay taxes. A bit radical perhaps, but from a moral perspective, it is right.

[Iskar]

He'So' mu'qaDlIj! He'So' vIpe'qang rup, je!

Qav 'oH yIjatlh.

[Harith]

That for me is the context in which i'm putting forward the complete separation one might say of Church and State.

I often associate separation of state and religion with anti-clericalism and not necessary the religion itself.

For example, due to civil society resistance and the sheer incompetence of the Iraqi state, we still have certain socialist relics within the state. Our laws, as of today at least, are structured such that Civil law is inspired from the French Civil Code, Military law is identical to British Military law and Personal law (inheritance, marriage, divorce, custody) is based on your affiliation. Meaning, a Nestorian would go to court to issue a marriage license (which serves both as a religious and civil license), but would do so from the Nestorian judge and Sunni from a Sunni judge and an Armenian Orthodox from an Armenian Orthodox judge who are formally trained in both civil law and their respective local customs.

Point is, some of the laws (personal mostly) of the state are inspired from religious doctrines or texts. So would you still consider that a separation of state and church given that clerics hold no real or even figurative authority?

[mishkin]

Dr. Legend: A militant catholic politician has as much right to sit in the parliament of a country as a marxist or a neoliberal politician if the electors so decide. That's all in my opinion.

A couple of pages ago someone defended the goodness of Christianity vs. Islam by quoting J.C: My kingdom is not of this world. It seems to be something that we have not yet clear. My kingdom is not of this world but I meet with (secular) ministers and I want to expand my powers within the state educational system and do not dare to offend me because it is a crime according to the penal code.

I wonder how the average European would feel if "the Saudies" (to speak of people with lots of money at their disposal) suddenly began a campaign to influence ideologically (religiously) in European society and governments through the purchase of important mass media.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I think we largely agree on that, but I disagree with singling religion out. I'd rather prevent all political ideologies from being enforced on people against their will, with basic exceptions such as bans on any violation of human rights. That means people should be able to insult religions, but also genders, ethnicities and nationalities. It means people shouldn't be forced to go to church, but, they also should not be forced to join the military. People should be free to avoid having to pay any church dues, but should also be able to avoid having to pay taxes. A bit radical perhaps, but from a moral perspective, it is right.

I actually like this train of thought, your spot on from a moral perspective and i agree with it there. I guess its an almost Utopian like ideal of functional total-individualism. But indeed in practice there has to be some concessions. In terms of government structure and shared tax burden to fund shared expected services. There was an interesting argument regarding your idea, but in a watered down way that we should have the ability to 'direct' within a certain constraint where out tax money get's spent. So for instance if your a pacifist or believe that your state should take a non-interventionist approach, you'd black-list your money from going to the MoD, or if you were a strong radical believer in free-market capitalism you could direct some of it to go directly to innovation funds instead of being spent on government supported 'private' contracts where you end up paying twice- once through government money to the company and then once for the service itself.

I think the reason that organized religion is singled out is because in our current the model, the state exists theoretically for everyone of its citizens and its supposed to make laws that on a personal level are 'neutral' and allow a huge degree of private freedoms. Whereas i think as we both agreed organized religion in terms of Catholicisms stigma around homosexuality (Though in fairness this stance has shifted and there is a great deal of debate i believe around the topic in terms of if its still sinful or not) would if applied at state level actively discriminate. With religions due to their nature being about how to shape a persons private life- an area where political philosophies 'typically' don't (Though again in the UK with the Conservatives (of all people...considering their meant to be pro-individualism) snoopers charter we have a worrying trend).

I do agree with you that in terms of comedy and discussion there should be no limits or lines, as comedy is a very healthy tool to not only 'check' the power of movements and governments (particularly in regard to politics) but also to bring people together and voice opposition in a non-violent way. In this way i actually am not a supporter of 'hate-speech' laws as i believe they go too far, nor am i in favour of laws that ever favour a particular group or religion. But i do accept their is a necessity that there is a hard-limit on our ability to insult in terms of inciting violence. I'm dead against though censorship on the platform of 'that hurts my feelings' and that's where i'm worried many western anti-hate speech and seemingly blasphemy laws actually get blurry- if something isn't a call to rise up and bodily harm/destroy someones property, it should be allowed.

In the case of Spanish Catholicism we were discussing earlier (just to go back a bit) and of Greek orthodox the issue was blasphemy laws protecting a particular ideology from mockery with secular punishments were alive and kicking.

I often associate separation of state and religion with anti-clericalism and not necessary the religion itself.

For example, due to civil society resistance and the sheer incompetence of the Iraqi state, we still have certain socialist relics within the state. Our laws, as of today at least, are structured such that Civil law is inspired from the French Civil Code, Military law is identical to British Military law and Personal law (inheritance, marriage, divorce, custody) is based on your affiliation. Meaning, a Nestorian would go to court to issue a marriage license (which serves both as a religious and civil license), but would do so from the Nestorian judge and Sunni from a Sunni judge and an Armenian Orthodox from an Armenian Orthodox judge who are formally trained in both civil law and their respective local customs.

Point is, some of the laws (personal mostly) of the state are inspired from religious doctrines or texts. So would you still consider that a separation of state and church given that clerics hold no real or even figurative authority?

That's probably a far better way of putting it than my 'organized religion' indeed.

And honestly in the case you provided i would indeed still consider that a separation of church and state as the 'organization' holds no legitimate state-wide authority with clerical entities removed from any secular power, and a government that does not purport (or is influenced by when making wide-scale laws) these clerical ideals on all.

I think for a UK example, its the controversial issue of Shariah law courts. The UK state does not recognize these, having its own legal system that applies in a neutral manner to all citizens (at least theoretically) and with laws tailored in such a way as to theoretically not impact on private freedoms that do not harm someone else. In this context i have no problem with Shariah law courts as they are then a illegitimate (legally speaking) sub-court where a group of consenting individuals have got together and decided to while following UK law, also have there own authority/ rules for living which they all agree to abide by, and is not inflicted on anyone else.

The issue happens when Shariah law courts, or any other such 'group' either attempt to usurp the legitimate secular and supposedly ideologically neutral authority, through say using murder as a punishment while it is banned in the UK. Or attempts to 'force' the participation of unwilling people (This is where the main issue i think with Shariah law resides at least from the Home Office investigations in terms of some people being pressured through one means or another to participate).