"Civil religion was a vital part of ancient life, religion and politics were joined harmoniously. With the dawn of Christianity, a religion whose focus is not on the state primarily but on the afterlife, the world slowly began to change. Religion was often used to divide rather than unify the commonwealth. Modernity’s problem with Christianity came at the dawn of the Reformation, where Christianity was used to pull people apart and start wars between nations who share ethnic, cultural and religious ties."
By Publicola
read more | digg story
Note: It is rare to find an individual versed and educated enough to understand that the union of religion and state is possible and actually preferable in order to maintain a common sense of unity among the inhabitants of a free thinking society. Too often, people believe that by unifying church and state we will lead our children down the road of the revealed religions. We could give our children a little more credit.
The Roman Numa said, "It was important to provide the Romans with religion because without it they would have fallen victim to the brute passions of a warlike people." Does this sound familiar? Our inability to unite around a reason based religious philosophy that is in keeping with our Democratic political system is leading to social and political strife that is affecting the entire world. It is abundantly clear that revealed religions will only lead to moral and ethical division within our society that will plague the world until a reason based religious philosophy, such as Deism, can unite humankind.
Feliz Navidad y’all
6 days ago
5 comments:
Hi Bob,
While I'm certain that the author of the post you are referring to is more educated and literate than myself, I'm not so sure I would go glorifying the Roman religious system just yet. Roman religion did little to stifle Roman cruelty. While his writing is dated, the historian Gibbon points out that what was good about Rome was stolen from conquered peoples; the only original Roman idea was cruelty.
And Roman religious life was diverse and nominally tolerant, provided one acknowledged the divinity and absolute authority of Ceasar through the confession of "Kaesar kurios!" The early Christians' beef with this confession was what kept them from acceptance in Roman religious life and got them labelled as atheists, even though Christians' accounts of persecutions are exaggerated. Nonetheless, it did not matter how good they were as citizens, their inability to confess Caesar as absolute authority for idealogical reasons was what got them into trouble. Such an exclusion of a group from Roman society because of ideology instead of behavior is hardly what I would call an enlightened rule of law.
The medieval church is another matter, of course. Though it could be argued that Christian Rome and Constantinople adopted the worst of the Empire's politics and the Judeo-Christian scriptures.
I don't think Deism can unite people politically unless it acts as a philosophical approach that still allows a person to believe whatever damned nonsense they want to and reasonably act on it. If Deism is used as a set of enforced religious/philosophical beliefs in the same way that Christianity or Islam operates, it won't fare much better.
Just my $0.02. :)
Why not glorify nearly everything Rome did and stood for, at least when you compare that society to our own. If by referring to brutality you are referring to the sorry conditions that the plebes endured, we are certainly not treating the less fortunate of our society any better. The slaves of the Roman Republic were sheltered, feed, and clothed better than most Americans.
I too read Gibbon, and I disagree with his approach of blaming the downfall of the Roman Empire on Christian/Religious influences. Roman failed because they were not able/willing to unify political and religious thoughts and ideologies.
Don't get me wrong here. I am not advocating the blind following of a state sponsored religion. I mean only to point out that religious strife and political intolerance can be avoided by following reason based and balanced religious philosophies. In my opinion, Deism is the current "best fit".
I would like to thank you for your comment, it was very thought provoking and outlines the emotional values concerning this topic.
For many Americans--including minorities, women, and children--the indoctrination perpetrated by revealed religions has become the new form of slavery. I see it all the time. Until Deism succeeds in making "reason" the norm in our society (and I hope it will), perhaps the best role government can perform is to hear cases brought to Federal courts by members and former members of revealed religions who have become aware that indoctrination has abrogated their First Amendment right to freedom of religion.
Dan,
I whole heartedly agree, but another concept to remember is that government could also do more to distance itself from the revealed religions.
'Don't get me wrong here. I am not advocating the blind following of a state sponsored religion. I mean only to point out that religious strife and political intolerance can be avoided by following reason based and balanced religious philosophies. In my opinion, Deism is the current "best fit".'
Hi Bob,
I agree 100% with this.
Post a Comment