Can fundamentalist religion and liberal democracies co-exist?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

I don't know.

[ShrimpPoboy]

1. Yes

As long as the fundamentals of that religion don't require violence or oppression.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

2. Fundamentalist understandings of these religions often require violence and submission.

...

[ShrimpPoboy]

8. They usually dont though.

[Hekate]

9. Be specific

[SusanCalvin]

3. If the religion's book condones anti-democratic behavior, no. nt

[gordianot]

4. Since I do not live in a liberal Democracy I do not know.

[linuxman]

5. Sure, right up until the former kills off all the later.

So no.

[Hekate]

6. We always got along with Holy Rollers before Ralph Reed & Co. decided to exploit them...

....for political gain.

It's a big, big country. And being liberal means we can find room for just about everybody. "No religious test" goes both ways.

The caveat is that we don't let the narrower world-views take over the government and try to remake it in their personal god's image.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

7. I'm not using liberal in the American political sense, but the philosophical sense.

If your fundamentalist interpretation of your religion requires you to convert others or murder them, they cannot co-exist.

[Hekate]

14. In this country we are supposed to jusge people on their behavior vis a vis secular law...

....not on ther personal beliefs about gods or the lack thereof. Just as secular law allows a person to accumulate guns and to believe that someone will take them all away, right up until the point their behavior changes and they try to overthrow the government. Then they discover limitations.

Secular laws are what we agree on in a democracy.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

17. I agree.

But fundamentalists believe their religious law supersedes secular law. If your ideology convinces you to make laws that infringe on the rights of others there is no compatibility to be found.

[Hekate]

24. That's why they don't get to establish a theocracy except in small communities like monasteries...

convents, communes, and so on. American history is littered with attempts at creating Utopia or the New Jerusalem. The Puritans came over to try it. The Quakers tried it. The Oneida community. Rajneesh. The early Mormons. The hippies, who thought they invented it.

Go for it. Just don't tell anyone they can't leave when they get sick of it, per secular law. And don't try to run my Constitutional government.

It's a big, big country.

[jwirr]

10. Reading this thread I see that most of the posts are thinking

of fundamentalist religion as something like Islam. Whenever I see those words I think of our own homegrown rw religions. They have really screwed up our government since the 1980s when their followers started working against government and Democrats.

I don't think that it has to be limited to just religions that are foreign and jihadist. I think our own rwers do a very good job of destroying Democracy.

[Just reading posts]

11. Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish

[ForgoTheConsequence]

18. They exist outside of society for the most part.

Maybe the answer is yes, fundamentalists can exist as an insular group.

[Just reading posts]

21. Then yes again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough_Park,_Brooklyn

Borough Park is home to one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities outside of Israel, with one of the largest concentrations of Jews in the United States, and Orthodox traditions rivaling many insular communities.

[Zynx]

12. In general, no.

We see that with our own theocrats. They aren't content to let other people live their lives. Liberal democracy only functions when people are willing to accept the way others live.

[smirkymonkey]

13. No.

n/t

[TimeToEvolve]

15. no

a liberal democracy is the product of our increasing enlightenment about our world and ourselves; which itself is the product of our evolution.

fundamentalist religions appeal to emotions rather than through argument and logic, which is why fundamentalist systems are often full of fervor and instability; they have completely abandoned rationality, i.e. the capacity to carry on in a rational manner.

so, no.

[Agnosticsherbet]

16. In a free society, yes

[ForgoTheConsequence]

20. Free society doesn't mean you're free to oppress and murder.

...

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. People can be free to hate and still be held responsible

For hateful actions.

[Joe the Revelator]

19. No.

And I say that as a guy who is on the conservative-liberal side of my religion.

There needs to be clear and firm separation.

[dawg]

22. Depends on what "fundamentalist" means.

To some of you, I might be considered a fundamentalist. I'm certainly not shy about my beliefs. But I'm also no threat to liberal democracy.

But if "fundamentalist" means theocrat, then, yes, there is an existential conflict between the two.

[rockfordfile]

23. I don't think so

I don't think so because Conservative religion is always trying to destroy liberal democracies.

[kairos12]

25. NO.

In an organized, democratic society certain rights must be extended to all regardless of any type of orientation or background. When one group is fundamentally opposed, to the point of violence, to the recognition of rights of another then you have societal breakdown.

[cali]

26. Yes, of course.

[RKP5637]

27. Mixing people of different cultures and faiths together has the potential to be problematic. n/t

[KansDem]

28. No

Consider these three definitions--

religion--the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

myth--a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

superstition--excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.

Democracy depends on logic and reason and a well-informed public.

[RKP5637]

29. Yep! Well said! n/t

[roamer65]

31. No.

Because their ultimate goal is a religious theocracy, which is inheritantly anti-democratic.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. Absolutely, provided that the latter is dominant. N.T.