Kismet wrote:Of course secular states which are democratic do not 'force' anyone to give up religion (unless they legislate in unauthorized ways).
Not sure what you mean by 'unauthorised' ways in a democratic state, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.
My whole point is that they gradually denude religions of power and efficacy, and so they shrivel up.
I still don't think you understand. A secular State would only remove religion from the influence in the running of the State. What happens to a religion once it no longer has that privilege is of no concern to a secular State.
If a religion, after losing its privileged State support can't survive on its own, then why it expect any outside support to carry on?
Efficacy? What is a religion's efficacy?
This reductionism of religion from inhabiting the public square is I think a bad thing.
I believe religion should be an integral part of politics,
but not in any sectarian fashion.
Religions are notorious for being sectarian, so how would religion(s) be prevented from being sectarian in your idea of a perfect State?
In my view there is no dominant religion of the day.
Truth is eternal and any particular religion is simply an interpretation of that one Being.
And they all interpret it differently and - if we're lucky - just argue about it. If we're unlucky, they will fight to the death for their interpretation.