Should religion be separated from the state?

This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 17 September 2008.

This problem arises in a heterogeneous society. Religion should be separated from the state for two reasons. First, to prevent conflict between the different religions. Second, because we can't be sure which religious claim is true.

No, we want to put this position on KIV status until we consider other alternatives on which to base the state.

How about culture? Well, culture is not clearly defined. Also, people differ on how much importance to place on different parts of culture. No, culture cannot be the base for the state.

How about history? That what has worked, or failed to work, in the past be the base for the state. Well, history can change with context. What has worked previously may no longer work, and vice versa. This context sensitivity can apply to both time and place. Also, history is variously recorded; there is no single authoritative version. So, we can't use history as the base for the state.

How about pragmatism? What is pragmatism? It is a method, a matter of things that work. How do we judge if something works? By reference to some truth or values. But what truth or values? Whatever truth or values that the majority find acceptable.

This is a viable alternative base for the state. So we can reject religion as the base.

Conclusion: Religion should be separated from the state.


Our next philosophy cafe session is on 15 October 2008. Venue: Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission. All are welcome.