In terms of religion: if any government were to pass a law making a particular belief mandatory on threat of death, would that law compel that government's people to believe?
Whether the individual truly “believes” what is proposed, they surely will be compelled to “act” as though they believed.
This is the definition of force, compulsion and tyranny for those who understand.
For those who never knew any other way, their mental landscape wouldn't change, for the law is a steady reminder of their current paradigm, always being reinforced.
Within such a paradigm, there is no room for responsibility or desire on the part of the individual to grow outside their already lawfully declared perception.
When the state demands obedience to something religious, it undermines the human's desire for something greater than themselves, thinking it could legislate a good heart from extreme law making.
Obedience is wrought from fear of consequences, not encouraged through 'love of God' and desire to be righteous.
What if a law passed making illegal any particular belief; would people cease believing?
The same result may occur; outward appearances would show obedience to the law, but inwardly (the heart's condition) may be a different story.
Who can see the heart?
The world's governments have passed many laws throughout times, mostly restricting certain activities that may restrict the rights of others.
Looking at murder as an example; murder is the removal of the right the person killed had, for they had a right to life.
The one who committed the crime of murder would be guilty of violating the right to life of the murdered.
Aside from discussing if any government legitimately holds the right to take any person's life, we see the taking of life in many of the world's governments Today.
The government's activity is justified and enforced, regardless of any individual's opinion of the law.
In some places, publicly voicing your opinion would be cause for death... according to that government's law.
What is unique in secular governments is that personal beliefs are not always considered, regulated, or at issue unless those beliefs begin to restrict or hinder the rights of others.
This allows for people to have varying opinions and beliefs while all people can be both protected and convicted by the same laws, allowing for reason and humanity to grow.
What is unique in governments beholden to religious dogmas is that there is usually little interpretation or very little allowance for the individual to have a difference of opinion or belief from the government's opinion or law.
Rarely do governments admit wrong doing or having been wrong regarding any issue.
What is the possibility of a government, who begets and enforces a national identity according to religious dogmas, humbly acknowledging being wrong?
This issue has been the reoccurring theme throughout man's history.
We can read how some people have formed governments to ensure for the rights of the individual while promoting the freedoms of all peoples... or at least this is the aim of such legislation.
Not all laws nor governments have been perfect, since they are comprised of people... and people are fallible.
What would be the perfect form of government?
One that continues to grow into freedoms of the individual?
Or one that continues to restrict the freedoms of the individual?
If a government system has been developed after the idea that government has no right to form the hearts and minds of its people, why would an individual desire to change that government's aim?
If another government system has been developed after the idea that government has the right to form the hearts and minds of its people, how could an individual desire to change that government's aim if they are restricted from addressing their government?
I've mentioned two different government systems.
Can you guess which one has prospered and grown along with its people, and which one was has not?