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:
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
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
For this kind of empirical information you are referred to:
- International Dossier on
by M. Vincent van Mechelen, last updated on
with a philosophical introduction to this subject
- Freedom of
Thought 2012 — A Global Report on Discrimination Against
Humanists, Atheists and the Nonreligious
the first Freedom of Thought report 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,
('10 December 2012')
- Freedom of thought 70
an article by M. Vincent van Mechelen about the global IHEU Freedom of
Thought Report 2015 on the rights and legal status of and
discrimination against humanists, atheists and the non-religious
(added in 71.CEN)
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
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.
Real inclusivists will find the fact that there are fellow citizens
theodemonists) who abuse or 'steal'
the state in order to impose their own brand of demoninational ideology on
the entire population in their country, regardless of other citizens'
communal or individual beliefs, totally indigestible.
It definitely creates second-class citizens; and, even worse, it turns
the thieves themselves —the state religionists— into
This will be most explicitly felt to be the case in countries where the
constitution grants special recognition and privileges, in a symbolic or
much more concrete fashion, to theists or, for that matter, atheists.
However, even before the fight against this obnoxious state religionism
has started, or even before the permanent or temporary outcome of that
fight is known, the champions of inclusion need not ever be without high
the self-evident is not in the
(If you are in doubt, read that paper by M. Vincent van Mechelen.)
In other words, it is precisely because state religionists have badly felt
the need to legitimize their theft of the state that they admit that state
religionism is not self-evident and has to be foisted on the
Hence, state religionists themselves provide the perfect proof that in
their country a great enough number of people will not of their own
accord automatically support supernaturalist, exclusivist, extremist or
authoritarian religious ideas and manners.
Like racism and sexism, state religionism is not a political or
denominational ideology by itself.
Racists are not likely to call themselves "racists"; sexists not likely
to call themselves "sexists"; and, similarly, state religionists are not
likely to call themselves "religionists who abuse", let alone, "steal the
Instead, they may claim to seek nothing else than peace for all, and even
to shed lots of tears when they hear and read about all the national
and international conflicts in the world to which they themselves, they
suggest, do not contribute, and have not contributed, anything at all.
At the same time they say and do exactly one or more of the kinds of
things which are the causes of such conflicts.
At best they are so naive as not to know the relevant truths, at worst
so hypocritical as to be prepared to lie to others and to themselves.
What their tears are worth?
Just read the poem
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
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 https://mvvm.net/ is followed by Nl/Zaken/Euro/Start.HTM.
(You'll find God's own money at En/ShSt/QuAn/GodsOwn.HTM.)
Tranen over de rand is a poem written on the occasion of this
Dutch 2-euro coin affair, and can be found with the same domain name
followed by Nl/Poezie/Tranen.HTM.
Tainted Tears is partly a translation of Tranen over de