Regarding the religious far-right

[Derleth]

@Monty

That’s irrelevant. My point is that certain leaders of a particular religion, by virtue (sorry) of tbeir position in that religion are granted voting position in one house of parliament. That is not “purely ceremonial”. The earlier question was to indicate that a poster’s assertion was incorrect.

It’s relevant to the extent that, unless the Church of England can mostly disregard the government and act as it will, it has no will, and is instead just the government in a funny hat.

I grant that this might be a bit too far for a country which insists that the Royal is too a Puissant Monarch, even though the Sovereign can never use those powers for anything ever again.

[Monty]

@Derleth

It’s relevant to the extent that, unless the Church of England can mostly disregard the government and act as it will, it has no will, and is instead just the government in a funny hat.

I grant that this might be a bit too far for a country which insists that the Royal is too a Puissant Monarch, even though the Sovereign can never use those powers for anything ever again.

As long as a particular religion has voting rights in the parliament it is not purely ceremonial, regardless of the voting record of its bishops in the House of Lords. One would think that is self-evident.

[Mijin]

The reason why religious conservatives are often anti-gay anti-trans etc is twofold:

1. Humans often have trouble separating out things that disgust us, from immoral actions, since immoral actions also give us a feeling of disgust. So “ick” = wrong.
2. IMHO religious belief relies upon switching off part of one’s critical faculties. A theist is unlikely to ask themselves whether their beliefs make logical sense and/or they’re following what their book says consistently, because if they thought that objectively they’d probably reject the whole shebang eventually. Again, IMHO.

[Slow_Moving_Vehicle]

@Hector_St_Clare

Saudi Arabia isn’t typical of governments which list Islam as the state religion, it’s not even typical of conservative Islamic governments. It’s a unique country which is really typical of nothing other than itself.

Malaysia might be a more typical case of an Islamic conservative party in power, and while I wouldn’t want to live there, it certainly isn’t Saudi Arabia, it’s a high functioning country, and it’s certainly legal to practice other religions,** or none**. (I don’t think it’s legal for Muslims to convert to other religions though).

(bolding mine)

Possibly not. A group of atheists in Kuala Lumpur posted a Facebook photo after a meetup, which has provoked a government crackdown on atheists and apostates:

@Shahidan Kassim

We need to hunt down these groups until the end, because they’ve broken state religious laws. All the States are under Malay rulers, also need to hunt them down, because this country is a country with religion.

We have Islam, and we have other religions: Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism. We don’t have those without a religion.

Even in our Federal Constitution, it says Islam is the religion of the federation, and other religions are also allowed to be practiced peacefully. It doesn’t mention anything about atheism.

The Inspector General of the Police has also warned atheists about “causing worry” for Muslims:

@Khalid Abu Bakar

“I advise this atheist group not to cause uneasiness, particularly among Muslims who reject atheism,”

He also said “the police would scrutinise the existing laws to enable appropriate action to be taken should the atheist group cause anxiety among Muslims.”

Also getting into the act is the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, which asking the public to flag websites that promote “deviant Islamic teachings”.

@Deputy Communications and Multimedia Minister Datuk Jailani Johar

Such a website should not exist because the Malaysian constitution clearly states that Islam is the official religion of the country and any act deemed as deviating from the true teachings of the religion is against the law.

Hemant Mehta over at the Friendly Atheist blog has a nice sample of comments by various Malaysian Muslims concerning the proper way to treat ex-Muslims:

@Various Malaysian Muslims

“After three days from leaving Islam, and the apostate refuses to repent, his blood is halal for slaughter.”

“This is why Islam commands that apostates who refuse to repent should be killed. These people are poison.”

"According to Islamic law as agreed by Islamic scholars, apostates should be punished by with a beheading. The apostate should be given a few days to repent to escape his punishment. If this law is enacted, would there be anyone who would dare leave Islam. Choose Islam. "

To be fair to the Inspector General of the Police, he did say what would happen if the atheists were threatened by Muslims: “If they are threatened and there is an infringement of the laws, we will investigate and take action." No mention of whether the police is investigating the threats posted above.

As you say, this is a modern, relatively liberal democracy. Which I think demonstrates why even in liberal democracies, religion is toxic when mixed in with government.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Hector_St_Clare

I was clearly speaking as a legal matter not “what would my personal preference be”.

General point is that although Malaysia is run by a conservative Islamic (though not Islamist) party, and although you couldn’t pay me enough to live there, it’s not objectively a bad country to live in or a backwater, and many people (including the 30%+ of non-Muslims) seem to like it fine enough. Religious minorities actually enjoy more personal freedoms there than Muslims do, is my general understanding.

It doesn’t really matter - it’s not within the power of the Malaysian government, or indeed any government, to make a person be and/or remain a Muslim. They can only choose to punish people for saying they are no longer Muslims or who decline to participate in religious rituals or who have been ratted out by friends or family as not devout enough or whatever.