February 23, 2006
-
Should there be a State Religion? What are the Advantages and the Problems?
A Socrates Cafe Discussion
As no one has chosen to comment on this topic, I'll take a stab:
The problems of an Official State religion far outweigh the advantages in my opinion.
Religion is one of the great social institutions (Family, Education, Religion, Government, Economic, et al) and has traditionally had as its major roles Moral and Spiritual guidance as well explanation of exotic phenomena and the purpose of life. In our society Religion must contend with Rationality as it has been developed in other social institutions, notably Science and Philosophy - subsets of the social institution of Education. This has, in our culture, somewhat limited Religion's role, as rational scientific discoveries have proven more useful and correct than religious opinion.
A State Religion puts that institution into a role which infringes on that of the institution of Government in a manner which puts the two at odds. Religion, by its nature, deals in absolutes and moral dogma, while most modern developed societies - including ours- are basically democratic in nature with government which responds to the input of all its citizens and which changes as their opinion changes.
A State Religion must therefore either struggle to enforce its dogmatic rules and opinion or become irrelevant. Such a Religious institution will also be subject to governmental politics and is in danger of being taken over by politicians for their own non-religious purposes.
Another problem with a State Religion is that it is by nature dogmatic and autocratic and this condition makes democracy impossible and more or less breaks the Social Contract upon which our nation is founded.
Comments (18)
Linking you now. I was actually going to write on this topic if I get a chance.
This explains why Christians think the USA is a Christian nation. What could be their motivation?
Well said. I enjoy a rational approach to a subject, but always seem to slant mine from a personal perspective. Keep up the good work! Peace.
I think the present American growth of "Radical Fundimentalism" in Religion has a fairly obvious foundation:
Hell and Damnation preachers are always with us but in the past few years they have found a receptive audience for much the same reason radical fundimentalist Islam is on the rise. This approach very much appeals to people who feel they are being left behind as culture change moves their society in directions they find confusing or abhorant, in the case of America, certain moral trends they feel are wrong or at best distastful, e.g. acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, public use of foul language, etc.
Those leaders of these movments who push for a "return" to a more moral America have involved themselves in politics and don't seem to understand that our insistance on the separation of church and state protects their views as well as everyone else's. Often their intrepertation of the source of our "old days" code of moral and social behavior is faulty or distorted. After all even the devil can quote.....
I agree with the point that the United States is not a Christian country and should not have a state religion. That goes against the origiinal purpose of the country, which was religious freedom. In fact, that freedom is guaranteed to us in the Constitution. I believe that religions freedom includes the freedom not to have a religion. Is that system applicable to all countries, however? Do radical fundamentalists rise from state religions? We see thim both in the US, which has no state relgion, and in countries that do have state religions. Are they an independent entity?
Oops! I meant religious freedom, not religions freedom.
You'll note that I did not mention "Christian" when I was writing about fundamentalism. While most Americans are Christians, Fundamentalism knows no such boundaries, even here. There are fundamentalist Jews and Muslims here also - probably even others as we seem to have at least one of everything here - one of the great advantages of absolute religious freedom.
Some of my fundamentalist friends (and relatives) seem to think that we already have a state religion called "Secularism" or "Humanism". They don't seem to understand that Religious Freedom means exactly that and demands complete separation of the Church and the State so as to insure that such freedom continues. Those people who decry the Supreme Court's decision to ban mandated religious observations from public schools have certainly never read the decision, which specifically encourages the study of religions and the religious background of the U.S.
Some industrially developed countries have State Religions (the Scandinavian countries and Great Britain are examples) A large majority - 85-90% of the people in those countries rate themselves as "not very religious". The two developed countries with the highest percentage of people rating themselves "very religious" (Ireland and the U.S.) specifically prohibit a state religion in their constitutions.
It seems to me that many of the fundamentalists are more interested in influencing the government's laws and policies so that they in accord with the particular beliefs of the sect than they are in establishing themselves officially. Their point of view is always that they have the True Word and the Only Right Way, so any Good government must agree with their world-view. Our guarantee of religious freedom also guarantees that they can continue to try to force their ideas on the rest of us.
I did not mention Christianity in my comment on fundamentalism, either. I also differentiate between fundamentalism and radical fundamentalism. I see no real problem with fundamentalism. Radical fundamentalists scare me. I do believe that their agenda is power, not religion. Why are they so influential?
Thanks for the visit to my site.
You would be surprised just how interective my online classes are. I teach mostly by asking questions on the discussion board. I frustrate some students, but I point out to them that they are sitting at a computer, so there is plenty of knowledge at their fingertips, all they have to do is find it!
Dear Dick,
Couldn't there be an instance, possibly purely hypothetical, where the dogmas of the religion and the dogmas of the state coincide, thereby establishing a state run by religious leaders? Perhaps in any democracy, a state imposed religion would not work, but before establishing Utah statehood, the Mormons practiced pretty much a political system that was dominated by a state run religion.
Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
Michael's point is well taken. There are several instances in American History, besides the Mormons, where we have had such a situation: Massachusetts Bay Colony is probably the prime example - for more than one hundred years. They expelled dissidents from the colony (Roger Williams, Ann Hutchinson, et al) and enforced rather strict religious laws. To their credit they passed the first laws setting up a public school system (The "Old Deluder" law of about 1650) funded by taxes.
In more modern times; when I first attended public school (On Miami Beach during the 1930's - I was the only non-Jew in most of my classes), we were required to repeat the Lord's Prayer and listen to verses from the KJV of the bible every day in addition to the Pledge of Allegiance (Which in those days did NOT include "Under God") Even as a 10-year-old it seemed strange to me that my fellow classmates would be required to participate in a religious service different from their religion.
To what extent is this presently the case in America?
How far should we go to prevent such an occurrence?
How much protection is the Constitution in preventing this?
I think all these questions are relevant to today's situation.
tychecat, I think your last comment is a very good one, because I think that that is exactly what the extremist fundamentalists are trying to achieve. Unfortunately, many people follow them because, on the surface, what they say has a lot of merit. They ask for a return to values and morality. What they don't say, is that if we give them power, the values and morality will be theirs only and they are not the values of mainstream America.
I don't have a good question here, but maybe you have a comment.
What do you say to those who claim that the Constitution is based on the Ten Commandments? Do you feel it is?
Did you ever actually READ the Ten Commandments? They appear in several forms- the most commonly quoted is that of Exodus 20:2-17. They also appear in Deut. 5:6-21. Different versions appear in Exodus 34, Deut.27 and Levit. 19. What all these versions of the Commandments have in common is the emphasis on religious orthodoxy along with some basic rules found in every society (Be kind to your parents and family and don't kill, lie, cheat, or steal).
Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention of ANY of the Commandments; as a matter of fact it specifically mentions Liberty and Freedom of Religion, both pretty much opposed to the Decalogue's commands.
The Decalogue is of course a part of our general religious heritage and as such certainly had some impact on the writers of the constitution but they were setting up a framework for government not only not based on religion, but opposed to an official religion.
Hosting on Socrates Cafr involves visiting sites and asking questions to keep the discussion going. I see that I did not do it when I visited you, but usually I say something like "Hi, I am your host," so that the person knows what my role is. I try to go back to sites at least 2 or 3 times. Because of all the controversy we have been having , I am actually trying to visit every site every day right now, but I don't comment every time I come.
You do not have to agree with the people that you visit, but you do have to be polite. For instance, if we were discussing abortion, and I was visiting the site of a very pro-choice member, I might ask a question like, "Can you imagine a time when you would not find abortioin acceptable?"
I usually find that I can find something in each entry to ask about, even if I really do not agree with the person. The point is to try to understand, not to reach agreement.
Want to try?
Nancy
OK, Dick, you're on! When I post topic selections this week, I will assign you one.
I agree with what you said; mostly, I think the difficulty with instituting a state religion is that religions tend to involve inflexible moral rules (a kind of thelogical mala probibitum) that, for those people who do not practice the religion, may not seem morally intuitive. For example, how do you rationalize to a non-Christian not taking God's name in vain? Or taking every seventh day off? That's fine if people want to live by these rules, but I see no reason for generating a state which will require everybody to answer to such rules.
I'm a firm believer in religious freedom (so long as the practice of those religions don't require extreme moral transgressions that involve clear victims, like killing people), and as such, since ALL must answer to the rules of the State, it is illogical to make the rules of the State coincide with that of a religion.
Though I do have to admit, that pyramid with the eye on our currency looks pretty damn cool.
Have you given any thought at all with converting your main webpage into German? I know a several of translaters here that will would help you do it for free if you want to make contact with me personally.