My question includes two parts. Firstly, I would like to know whether it is justified to have the division of countries with respect to religion. Secondly, I have heard that in some countries people follow "no religion". Isn't there any way to give this freedom to each and everyone of this world, to follow "no religion"?

  • Depends on who you ask.
    – Neil Meyer
    May 22 '15 at 19:16
  • Voting for closing since too opinion based........
    – user13955
    May 23 '15 at 0:26
  • I don't think it's opinion based. It's a perception about right and wrong. Opinion never can decide our will or freedom. But in this case it is deciding our freedom. I don't know how much you faced, but I have seen situations getting worse for this religion biasness. @Kentaro Tomano
    – Demietra95
    May 23 '15 at 4:05
  • @Demietra95 I don't disagree that an actual final answer to your question would not be opinion-based, but you have no given a framework from which the question should be answered, so if we each answer from our frameworks of beliefs, opinions, philosophies, and ideas, then this becomes opinion-based..
    – virmaior
    May 23 '15 at 10:25
  • You could make a very good that a country like China could use some religion in its government. You know the state enforced sterilisations and the 14 year old age of legal consent laws.
    – Neil Meyer
    May 24 '15 at 8:35

My answer to your very rich and complex question is that religious freedom is not given, it is historically constructed, and in singular ways.

There are countries on which it is relatively easy for people to be unaffiliated to any religious denomination, and to publicly manifest themselves this way. This is a distinct feature of modern cultures, where the effective separation of state and religious traditions has been institutionalized, and republican traditions are strong.

In some others, what happens is that the dominant religion has become more and more tolerant towards how its members treat their private life, and mitigated in the ways it disciplines public conduct, creating what can be viewed as de facto religious freedom. Historically, this has been more frequently the result of the ascension to power of empires that dominates over large regions, constituting multinational and/or multiethnical societies.

These two situations are not the necessary outcome of a deterministic process. Social and political expressions of religion are very dynamic. In a broad sense, and as far as we know, religion is a strong human impulse, pervasive in all cultures and times. Although we can all lean towards the defense of religious freedom as an ethical proposition, is it possible to have a society where religious practice is never strongly binding, and where to be or not affiliate is always a decision taken lightly and playfully? Is it desirable?

The jury is out on these, and other questions. The debate continues.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.