If a state, that is, the one or more supposedly common political
institutions in a certain territory, exhibits a pro- or anti-religious bias
by means of its symbols, rules, teachings or in any other way, then it
manifests a particular form of exclusivism:
religionism.
State religionism is, in turn, a particular form of religionism:
in the manifestations of this exclusivism it is the state that is the
perpetrator, rather than a single individual or a private group of
citizens.
Obviously, a theocracy is the worst example of religionist government in
practice, but a state religionist country need not be a theocracy, it does
not even need to have an official state religion.
The term state religionism must definitely not be read as state
religion with the suffix ism, even
tho a state with an
established religion flouts the principle of
denominational inclusivity much more
conspicuously, especially when, to top it all, the head of state is by law
also the head of that state religion!
The question of which countries have a state religion in one form or
another, and whether these countries are theocracies or not, is an
empirical one, just like the question of what type of other
state religionist systems and elements are to be found in the same or other
territories.
For this kind of empirical information you are referred to:
- International Dossier on
State Religionism
by Vincent van Mechelen, last updated on
54.14.6,
with a philosophical introduction to this subject
- Freedom of
Thought 2012 -- A Global Report on
Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists and the
Nonreligious
by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) with the
American Humanist Association, Center for Inquiry, Richard Dawkins
Foundation for Reason and Science, and the Secular Coalition for
America,
67.51.4 ('10 December 2012')
The most systematic philosophical and denominational
information on the subject of (state) religionism and
(thought-related subanthropic) exclusivism
in general can be found in the
Model of Neutral-Inclusivity, especially in
chapter 2 of the
Book of Fundamentals:
The Manifestations of Exclusivism.
The question of personal rights is first dealt with in chapter 8 of the
Book of Instruments, especially division 5:
The right to personhood.
The difference between a
normistic and a
theocentric
ideology is a question of denominational
primacy, the subject of the fourth division of the sixth chapter of the
Book of Fundamentals:
The question of denominational primacy.
Still wearing religious blinkers the government of the (Northern)
Netherlands continues to put the motto
GOD ZIJ MET ONS, that is,
GOD BE WITH US, on the edge of the
European two-euro coins.
(It reminds one of the IN
GO[L]D
WE TRUST in some other countries, and, which is even sadder,
of the nazi SS who used the same motto:
GOTT MIT UNS.)
The Dutch Ministry of Finance's arrogant religionist attitude towards
people with a norm- rather than god-centered belief is dealt with and
displayed in an exchange of letters for which you will, however, have
to be able to understand
Deze Taal (with the exception of
section 8 which is written in
This Language and called
"God's Own Money".)
As TRINPsite is a self-contained site, only the address is given here:
the domain name http://mvvm.net/ is followed by Nl/Zaken/Euro/Start.HTM.
(You'll find God's own money at En/ShSt/QuAn/GodsOwn.HTM.)
If you do understand Deze Taal, you may also want to read
Tranen over de rand, a poem written on the occasion of the above
Dutch 2-euro coin affair: http://mvvm.net/Nl/Poezie/Tranen.HTM.
Partly a translation of Tranen over de rand,
Tainted Tears is a
poem which deals with state religionism in a wider context.
