and its not a requirement to worship, more membership and adherence to codes and so on.

Many states passed laws that required one be Christian to hold office. Would you bring that back?

I would, yeah

the key to the principle-agent problem is that if you cannot align interests, which is often impossible in cases of asymmetrical ownership, then you must align values

otherwise you get perverse outcomes

I don't care if it's a Christian or a bloody Hindu in office, if the people voted them in, and they don't royally fuck up or overstep their (should-be-limited) power, then we can let them do their thing.

@Zayan Watchel in <#452955238186614794> you said that a nation must have a culture, and that a people without a culture are bound to fail. Wouldn't having someone rule over you with a different culture be detrimental to the nation? There is no way that a Hindu has the same culture as a Christian. So why shouldn't a nation require it's leaders to hold to the same culture?

A Hindu can be of similar culture to a Christian, if you think of culture on a scale larger then surface items like religion, food, etc. it(religion) becomes such an insignificant tidbit that it really shouldn't affect shit.

Also, culture should be organized by the people, the state shouldn't be involved.

And I'm an Athiest who holds the same culture as any other Canadian, so I shouldn't be kept out of office.

culture is scalar

@Zayan Watchel that is such bs. Religion has a huge effect on ones culture. Look at the culture of every Christian nation vs every Muslim one. Even the worst Christian nation is better than the best Muslim nation for the average individual.

Sure, but you just cited culture on a macro scale, a country, when we're discussing the culture of individuals running for office.

All you have to do is look at minority communities to see that their different religious values always separate them from the wider society

As an individual who could run for office, I don't want to be kept out of office.

Sure, but you can put religion aside and be a Canadian, for example, first. It's not impossible, just unlikely, it would be unjust to simply assert that only christians should be permitted to run for office.

You're still citing collectives, not individuals.

Your individual interest doesn't matter with regards to the state. The state isn't there to specifically serve you

It is, actually, if it didn't serve the people what good would it be?

Canada is a joke. you have killed your own culture and nation

Agreed. It's a shithole thanks to our piece of shit manlady.

Still haven't addressed my point. I'm an atheist who is culturally the same as any other person in this country, Christian or no, why should I be kept out of office?

I did address it. The state isn't there to serve you. Its purpose is to serve the nation. That includes all individuals, but primarily it is the nation as a whole it serves. Every politician has the responsibility to serve. If they can't do that properly they should not be allowed to hold the office. A hindu does not have the interests of the Christian nation in mind and thus cannot properly be a public servant.
The fact you think you can be atheist and still hold the same culture as Christians shows your ignorance of what a culture is. I can guarantee there is an entire Christian culture you are not privy to as an atheist, unless you live like a Christian despite your beliefs.
Your attempts at trying to bring it back to Canada are vacuous since Canada is so far gone from what a good society should operate like. Canada needs an entire reordering of its society. Part of that includes imposing the cultural heritage onto minorities. If they don't like it they can leave.

Well, Canada is my country of residence so that's what I used. Replace "Canada" with "America" and you're set. What's your definition of "Nation."

and why should government serve a "Christian Nation?"

In every way except religion, I have the same culture as a Christian. Does that make you feel better?

The nation is a group of people who hold a common heritage, tradition, religion, and/or ethnicity.

your assertion that you do means nothing

Sure.

So America isn't a nation?

Nope

Because if it's not that's a pretty useless definition.

it is comprised of multiple nations

Great. So why can't I run for office again?

I mean, you say I can't serve *the nation* correctly, but there's multiple in America?

Why do you think so many states constantly threaten secession? The state cannot serve all of the nations properly which leads to strife between the different regions.

Right, but I don't care about interregional strife, I want to know why I shouldn't be allowed to enter office. Why does my lack of belief in God stop me from serving people well?

The civil war was a tragedy, the states should have remained the predominant authority in peoples lives.

If I entered office I would make 0 religious mandates or policies surrounding religion, with the exception of abolishing any laws that would prevent you from practicing your religion as you please.

The civil war is history, do you have anything recent?

You won't do the things that are in favor of the nation

calexit

What does that mean?

What is, and isn't, "in favour of the nation?"

For a Christian nation you would not be interested in keeping other minority religious groups out.

Sure, I wouldn't. The social order is free to assemble itself, the state shouldn't be involved.

On principle you would have no problem with a mosque being built in the community

Correct!

As long as a church can also be built.

This is why, you don't have the nation in mind

Sure, now why is that bad?

You are undermining the nation, breaking down its identity, and devolving what it means to be a part of it. This is why you Canadians are such cucks, you can't see why your own nation is falling apart. You have no sense of self preservation.

No, not really and I can get to why exactly in a moment. But the first bit is just a reactionary, moral, and emotional statement. Justify it.

Look at Canada, and every western nation, this insistence on liberal secularism is a complete failure.

But that's not what I'm advocating for. I want to abolish all social programs and strengthen the borders.

@The Big Oof still think I'm a lolbert?

Boblert.

Yeah, I want those things too

But I don't want a shitty law that stops me from entering office just because I'm an Athiest. Why can't we be free religiously?

The individuals can be free to worship however they please.

☭ ☭ ☭

But they can't enter office? And they can't build a religious temple?

That's not "free to worship" that's "free to be fucked over."

Honestly the building of religious buildings should fall under the authority of local government, not state, federal, etc.

It should fall under the authority of people and whether or not they can acquire the land.

Why does the state need to enter the equation?

I chose a mosque for a specific reason

They do religious calls to prayer that aren't restricted to their premises

They can call to prayer wherever they like.

They can pray wherever

But making a call to prayer that goes out over entire communities is different

_Why?_

These discussions always go back to why. I don't want a surface level, "because it's bad" or "muh feels." Something substantive, deeper.

When they are not in a specifically muslim community it is an imposition of their religious practice on others

They can't enter another's land against their will... I agree with you there. But if by "community" you mean a town owned by the state, these Muslims can do whatever.

and if they have built a large enough community inside another nation to warrant having a mosque to serve them, then you have the problem of minority communities

Minority communities can do whatever, my only problem is when the state starts pandering.

minority communities have much larger implications

Very.

*sigh*

Continue

having significant minority communities reduces societal trust, and thus social cohesion

"These discussions always go back to why. I don't want a surface level, "because it's bad" or "muh feels." Something substantive, deeper."

Why's it bad.

which leads to all sorts of negative effects

Good.

So you want to violate people's liberty saying they can't live in certain places outside of their own 'nation?'

Never said that

So what's your solution to minority communities?

However, people don't have a right to enter a nation and live among them.

They are free to enter any community that accepts them

So you want to tell them where they can live? And they do have that right, freedom of movement.

Does someone own the community?

Communities have collective self determination. They can choose restrictions for entry.

How do you decide who is inside the 'Community'/'Nation.?'

Because most communities don't work this way.

Most are cancerous and self destructive

This system you're proposing sounds broken. We have communities that decide who lives who and this is backed by state power, we should be sure that no none Christians should enter office, all I am asking is _why!_ Why is there less of a problem with muslim communities in the states, _even though_ America lets them enter into the country and its politics?

First off, most mosques aren't allowed to do their calls to prayer in the United States. They are managed, and they aren't coddled like they are in Europe. Literally it is the state operating in the interest of the nation, rather than allowing them to be completely free to do as they will. We have been stricter on them since the terrorist attacks, instead of making excuses.
I have already given the reason why. I said communities can decide who is allowed in, not where people get to live. Having the requirement that one be a Christian to hold office is only ensuring that the office holder actually has the interests of the nation in mind. It isn't broken, it is exactly the way it used to be. Look at American history or Orania.

Japan monitors the few mosques within their country under surveillance