That the Czech Republic should become an atheist state

First and foremost, I am new here and I am pretty shocked of the fact that this debate would tackle religion, I am a devotee myself and am practicing it wholeheartedly. Anyways, let me proceed.

The Czech Republic is a European Nation which has a population, comprised mostly of non believers and undeclared status on whether they are currently in a religion. The fact that the people who are believing in a religion are slowly decreasing to a point that I would assume in the future that it would disappear, then the country has all the legality, in basis of its constitution, to become an atheist state. However, this would be contested by people who would go for freedom of religion, the right to believe and all. 

During the communist regime of this country's history, they pushed for the suppression of religion, they always does. This has resulted in the significant decline of the influence of the churches in Czech that the prior regime has instituted to their country. However, it is not the only reason why religion in this country has declined. The population might have its varying tone on whether to be in a religion or not in the future but consider the current situation and a clear assessment of things should revitalize their outlook on whether they should become an Atheist State. And they can actually become one for majority of its citizens are in the 80% bracket that they aren't in a religion or they are atheists. 

The first thing I would like to do is to define an atheist state and look at some examples. Then I would like to tackle the arguments that Pro has presented. When I have done that I will then provide analysis on why religions provide an objective benefit for individuals, why states in general do not have the right to limit freedom of religion in this way and finally look at the specifics of the Czech Republic's situation.

Atheist State: This is an official state policy "to prevent the implanting of religious belief in nonbelievers but also to eradicate "prerevolutionary remnants" already existing. The regime is not merely passively committed to the regime of godless polity but takes an aggressive stance of official forced atheization." [1]

Examples of where state atheism is/was used:

Soviet Union [1]

Albania [2]

China [3]

Cuba [4]

North Korea [5]

I think that characterising state atheism as simply no one being a member of a religion is a relatively pleasant characterisation but ultimately does not address the realities of state atheism as I defined. That being said arguments made are still applicable. The first of those is the general decline in religious believers in the Czech Republic. 

Pro has argued that many individuals being either atheist or non believers means a state can justifiably become atheist. This isn't the case. First of all a decline in religion along side a constitution that protects religious freedoms generally leads to that state being secular (neutrality towards religion) rather than atheism which aims to disprove the existence of any and all gods. To win this argument I think Pro has to prove that an increased neutrality towards religion is a justifiable reason for the state to aggressively undermine religious authority and why individual atheists would support this. 

Pro also defined the timeline of this policy as when religion has completely died out it will then be able to legally change its constitution. The Government with the support of the people can change the constitution and Pro should defend the Government acting on this with religious believers still in the Czech Republic. It would be nearly impossible for us to have this debate realistically if this timeline is accepted as this would probably be decades into the future. Neither of us can adequately predict what the situation if a country will be at that point so that debate would be detrimental.

Finally Pro discusses the reasons that religion is declining. The main reason was the persecution of religions during the communist regime which has lead to the destruction of churches and made people live with the idea that it is dangerous to be religious. This means that many people who otherwise would have grown up knowing religion did not and this lack of visibility and teaching of religion makes it difficult for religion to grow. Second consequence of this is that people are more vocal about the support of the separation of religious institutions and the state [6]. Again this is secularism not atheism. This shows that the country strongly secular which still allows the free practice of religion (which I will go on to prove as a good thing). For Pro to win this it must be prove why state atheism would be better for the Czech Republic than secularism. 

Pro, as a religious believer, may find this argument obvious but I still need to prove it to be true for this debate. 

a) Faith and Hope

Religion is a trade of between your faith in your God to protect you, forgive you and love you in this earthly life and in most occasions after death which gives you hope of a better future and peace and happiness after death. This hope is powerful because most people fear a bleak future for themselves or their loved ones and they are scared of the finality that death appears to be. When this hope is required faith in a god can provide it. When it does it becomes such a powerful motivator in your life because you have given your fears to an all knowing god who you believe will provide. This is a large amount of trust and due to the fact that it is given on "blind" faith alone with the promise of high reward people tend to heavily invest themselves in that faith. 

This hope and feeling of protection from the uncertainty of the future provides individuals a massive benefit in terms of psychological and emotional well being. Not being scared of the future allows you to have the confidence to strive for high achievements and this is accompanied with your faith in a god and a detailed moral compass on how you can achieve good. 

b) Community 

Organised religions are more than just an individuals faith though because it is the encompassment of all the people who share that faith. This gives you a community which necessarily understands much of what is important in your life i.e. your faith and hope. This means you are more likely to feel accepted and having somewhere to belong. This means that there is a support network for people to help them if they are struggling and it means you are less likely to feel isolation within your life. This community and your guidance from the religious teachings give you a purpose in life and a support structure to help you achieve that purpose.

c) Structure 

Daily structure offered by religion is also important to your health and well being. Religious teachings provide times in which you should pray, eat, wash, sleep etc. This routine helps keep you stimulated and active. This means you are less likely to loose confidence and focus on the goals you set yourself. Achieving goals even small ones allows individuals to feel a sense of accomplishment which is used to attempt larger and larger goals. This means that you are likely going to want and be able to constantly strive to better yourself. 

The right to practice religions should be given by states because a state cannot ever understand every individuals lived experiences and choices. A state cannot say it is wrong for an individual to practice a religion because it was not created with the ability to understand the individual's unique experience of faith or understand why they believe that in their situation it is beneficial for them to practice this faith. Practicing a religion (as a free choice) is always a unique moral decision which a state should not have the capacity to undermine because it cannot understand what it is trying to limit. 

When religions are practiced peacefully and respectfully there are no third party harms but there are tangible benefits to the individual as I proved in my first argument. Therefore a state is not justified in banning or stopping these practices. A state does however have a duty to protect individuals freedom of choice because when an individuals choice is limited even once this has an unknowable impact on all of the future choices that individual has to make. You as an individual have to live with the consequences of of the choices you have made or been forced to make therefore  limiting the choices of another individual forces them to live with consequences that you cannot possibly foresee and that you do not have to experience. This is why freedom to choice is so important and is the freedom that a state has to defend as part of the social contract created with the creation of the state.

This extends to right to practice religion freely because to limit the options that an individual has in faith limits the choice that that individual can make which leads to unknowable harms. The state would be limiting all individuals freedom to choice if it were to enact state atheism which is morally wrong as shown and unjustifiable because peaceful practice of religion causes no third party harms. Secularism provides the freedom to find your own faith because it protects to right to free practice of all religion. This is important because as I explained above religion determines nearly every aspect of your life therefore you have to be able to choose that consequence of your own accord because it is so hard to undo the integration of faith in your life if it was the wrong choice for you. 

Due to prior communist rule, which people fought to remove themselves from, those practicing religion are now in the minority. This minority would be publicly and rather brutally undermined and devalued by the state as has happened in every other instance of state atheism. This creates divisions within communities and distrust or resentment of the government. This means that civil unrest is likely to take place in the form of protests and lobbying. These would have to be shutdown to comply with the policy of state atheism which leads to stricter and stricter governmental censorship of the people and the media as has happened in China, North Korea and the Soviet Union. This policy is so divisive but demands that a government be aggressive in its implementation such that the Government has to continuously suppress the public to remain in control and keep the order and peace. This makes it hard for countries to build effective trade negotiations with large liberalised trading partners because this type of suppression is seen as immoral. This happened with Cuba and America (obviously this is not the only reason but lack of freedoms such as religious freedoms and the subsequent violent control of the population had a lot to do with the on going difficult relationship between Cuba and America). It is difficult to enact effective social policies when censorship and hostile control of the population becomes the most important thing to enacting state atheism and international relations particularly with it's European neighbours would become strained. This makes it difficult for the state to function effectively. This is particularly true of a country that has already fought to remove communist rule and gain independence. The only state that has not yet failed or is failing to enact their state atheism is North Korea which is exists under extreme forms of Government control and suppression. 

[1] http://www.jstor.org/stable/128810?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[2] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-04-18/news/0704170802_1_albanians-foreigners-religion

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/study-rising-religious-ti_b_811665.html

[4] http://scholar.harvard.edu/jill/publications/sanctioning-faith-religion-state-and-us-cuban-relations

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7LwwKBTxhw

[6] http://www.jstor.org/stable/41133174?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents