Is Religion a Totalitarian System?

[Copernicus]

We usually think of totalitarianism as a type of government that tries to regulate the totality of the individual lives of its citizens. If a totalitarian government decides that everyone should have purple toenails, then it tries to make everyone paint their toenails purple. That's the law. Totalitarianism was a label first coined to describe Italian fascism, but most of us now associate it with Communist governments such as those in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia. Because those governments were driven by a political doctrine that endorsed atheism, they tried to make all of their citizens adopt atheism. It is not uncommon in this forum to see complaints about past atrocities associated with religion, and they are often met with complaints about atrocities associated with atheism. Sometimes the "atheist atrocities" are alleged to have higher body counts than all religious atrocities in the past (which I suppose serves as a sense of pride for some people of faith ).

The question I raise here is whether religion ought not to be considered a totalitarian system. If so, is that a bad thing? The argument that it is, is simply that religions do try to regulate the totality of the believer's life. If one's preferred deity wants you to have purple toenails, you may end up eternally regretting it if you don't get out the purple nail paint and get to work.** Like a totalitarian government, religion can be more or less benign or tolerant in its policies. Nevertheless, it retains the power to control any aspect of life it deems fitting.

I do think of religion as a totalitarian system, although we now live in an age where secularism has driven a wedge between government and religion in many regions of the world. One of the biggest similarities I see between political totalitarianism and religious totalitarianism is that both try to define righteous behavior. Religions traditionally do that by imposing a set of moral rules or restrictions on adherents. Totalitarian governments don't just pass laws, they make those laws govern at the level that religion regulates personal conduct. In the Soviet Union, attending a Communist Party meeting was not unlike attending a revival meeting, complete with confessions of sin (called "samokritika" or "self-criticism") and exhortations of glory to the Party. The faces of local and national Communist leaders would appear as icons on public buildings and in parades. One could be asked to become a martyr for the people, or even to commit acts against strangers that you would not otherwise commit.


**I'm deliberately using a silly example, but I did that for totalitarian governments, too. If you didn't complain then, don't complain now.

 

[Skwim]

Although a religion may be totalitarian in its demands, one of the principal differences between it and a totalitarian government is that one can always opt out of such a religion. I don't see opting out of a totalitarian country being that easy, if possible at all.

As for totalitarian religions, they only succeed because its members find its demands reasonable.

 

[Looncall]

Although a religion may be totalitarian in its demands, one of the principal differences between it and a totalitarian government is that one can always opt out of such a religion. I don't see opting out of a totalitarian country being that easy, if possible at all.

As for totalitarian religions, they only succeed because its members find its demands reasonable.

I'm not so sure. It depends. It might not be wise to try opting out in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Skwim]

I'm not so sure. It depends. It might not be wise to try opting out in Saudi Arabia.

But that would come down to the totalitarian nature of the government.

 

[Copernicus]

The Saudi family has an arrangement the Wahhabi branch of Islam. They can debauch themselves all they want in private outside of Saudi Arabia. In return, they promote the Wahhabi brand of totalitarianism. Hence, any local who converts to atheism can be beheaded, and the government runs one of the most totalitarian theocracies on the planet.

Secularism is a somewhat recent development in Europe. Until the Age of Reason, governments tended to be closely aligned with a religion. The Pope fielded armies, and governments paid to send troops to the Holy Land. In the modern era, secular governments have become well-established, so it is natural for us to look at countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran as having quasi-secular governments. We are careful not to attack the religions or ecclesiastical authorities, but governments are fair game.

Theocracies are usually totalitarian regimes. They assume a right to regulate any aspect of the lives of their citizens. Like to be clean-shaven? The local Taliban will use government facilities to try to change your mind. Even in countries like the US, where religion is supposed to be completely separated from government, local and federal legislatures try to pass laws to regulate the private lives of citizens who might seek to violate certain religious taboos.

 

[Riverwolf]

Religions become totalitarian when they become entangled with politics.

Religions that wisely stay out of politics are generally not totalitarian.

Therefore, no, religion is not inherently a totalitarian system.

If religion is still to be considered totalitarian because of the notion of taking part in one's life, then culture and society ought also be considered totalitarian.

Because of the negative connotation that goes with that word, I doubt the idea will catch on.

 

[Copernicus]

Religions become totalitarian when they become entangled with politics.

Religions that wisely stay out of politics are generally not totalitarian.

Therefore, no, religion is not inherently a totalitarian system.

If religion is still to be considered totalitarian because of the notion of taking part in one's life, then culture and society ought also be considered totalitarian.

Because of the negative connotation that goes with that word, I doubt the idea will catch on.

I agree with you that the connotation is negative, so my claim here is likely to be rejected by many. However, the term did come to have a positive connotation by some in Mussolini's government, and you still find Russian Communists who feel that Stalin's methods were justified.

Personally, I see totalitarian governments as being more or less tolerant, depending on circumstances such as the people running them. In the end, the ability to govern does depend on the consent of the governed, who can be both intimidated and/or bribed into giving that consent. After the Stalin era, Khrushchev considerably liberalized the SU without giving up on totalitarianism--the perception by government and Party (actually, two separate institutions back then, although most Americans didn't make the distinction) that it had the right to dictate any aspect of a citizen's life it felt a need to. For example, when I visited the SU in 1965, I went out on a date in Odessa once. My date and I approached a park where a band was playing some rock'n'roll music, which the Party officially frowned on. Suddenly, we heard the music stop and a loud voice shouted over the loudspeakers: Нельзя твистовать! ("It is forbidden to do the twist!") This was a real-life version of the movie Footloose, Soviet style.

 

[Levite]

Religions per se are not totalitarian. Interpretations can be totalitarian. Theocracies can be totalitarian. But neither of those two things are synonymous with religion. Any entanglement of religion with political power is dangerous and risks twisting both, but not all connections of religion and politics must, by definition, be totalitarian or theocratic.

Fundamentalism lends itself to totalitarianism. But all religion is not fundamentalist. Many interpretations, sects, and communities are pluralistic and tolerant.

 

[Madhuri]

I don't think that Dharmic religions are totalitarian. This is because they are not rule-based. They teach principles, which is why there is so much diversity within those religions and often the practice is highly individualistic.

 

[Copernicus]

Religions per se are not totalitarian. Interpretations can be totalitarian. Theocracies can be totalitarian. But neither of those two things are synonymous with religion. Any entanglement of religion with political power is dangerous and risks twisting both, but not all connections of religion and politics must, by definition, be totalitarian or theocratic.

Fundamentalism lends itself to totalitarianism. But all religion is not fundamentalist. Many interpretations, sects, and communities are pluralistic and tolerant.

Can God read your mind? Does he know everything you think? What aspect of your life is not visible to him? I gave a rather broad definition of "totalitarian" in the OP. It is any system that can regulate any aspect of your total life, in principle. It defines righteous behavior.

I don't think that Dharmic religions are totalitarian. This is because they are not rule-based. They teach principles, which is why there is so much diversity within those religions and often the practice is highly individualistic.

But dharmic religions define righteous behavior, don't they? I don't think that the boundary between "principles" and "rules" is very clear here. Hindus seem just as likely to let religion rule every aspect of their behavior as any other religion.

Let's bear in mind that a totalitarian system need not be felt oppressive by those within it. As long as the individuals in the system feel aligned with the principles governing individual behavior, belonging to such a system can seem perfectly right and satisfying. Not everyone who lives in a Communist society has a problem with all of the rules. Not everyone who lived under Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc., felt that the restrictions imposed on them were wrong. The same is true of those embedded in religious belief systems, although there are always those who feel too restricted and chafe at the bonds.

 

[Madhuri]

But dharmic religions define righteous behavior, don't they? I don't think that the boundary between "principles" and "rules" is very clear here. Hindus seem just as likely to let religion rule every aspect of their behavior as any other religion.

The difference is that in some religions, the ones I would consider to be more totalitarian, you have to do specific things to gain the reward and specific things to gain the punishment.

In Dharmic religions, the general principle is find your path and dedicate yourself to it. Even if we just look at my religion (Hinduism), the teaching is that the path to enlightenment is a choice for those who wish to escape the cycle of reincarnation. You don't even have to be religious if you don't wish to leave the material universe. (We're only here because we wanted to be after all). But for those who have had enough and want to leave, even then we are taught different paths. For example, Bhakti Yoga (devotional practice), Karma Yoga (enlightenment through good action), Jnana Yoga (path of knowledge) and Raja Yoga (meditation). There is also Hatha Yoga and more. The point is, Hinduism holds the idea that everyone is individual and will find their own path to enlightenment based on their personal inclinations.

Yes, people tend to create institutions with rules. But generally, the Dharmic religions allow a wide scope of freedom of interpretation and practice.

 

[Copernicus]

The difference is that in some religions, the ones I would consider to be more totalitarian, you have to do specific things to gain the reward and specific things to gain the punishment.

In Dharmic religions, the general principle is find your path and dedicate yourself to it. Even if we just look at my religion (Hinduism), the teaching is that the path to enlightenment is a choice for those who wish to escape the cycle of reincarnation. You don't even have to be religious if you don't wish to leave the material universe. (We're only here because we wanted to be after all). But for those who have had enough and want to leave, even then we are taught different paths. For example, Bhakti Yoga (devotional practice), Karma Yoga (enlightenment through good action), Jnana Yoga (path of knowledge) and Raja Yoga (meditation). There is also Hatha Yoga and more. The point is, Hinduism holds the idea that everyone is individual and will find their own path to enlightenment based on their personal inclinations.

Yes, people tend to create institutions with rules. But generally, the Dharmic religions allow a wide scope of freedom of interpretation and practice.

They offer wide scope, especially in the eyes of intellectuals, but the paths to enlightenment all share certain basic guidelines or principles. (BTW, I was instructed in some Hatha Yoga techniques by my Sanskrit teacher, who introduced me to a lot of things about Indian culture. He even dragged me to a worship session, where we had an interesting discussion on material from the Bhagavad Gita.) For the most part, I think that intellectuals tend to have fairly liberal and nuanced interpretations of their religion, but I still tend to think of a religion in terms of the majority of people who practice it, because sheer weight of numbers tends to preserve the religion across generations. And those institutions tend to take on more importance in defining the core of a religion than people would sometimes like to believe.

 

[Levite]

Can God read your mind? Does he know everything you think? What aspect of your life is not visible to him?

The question, IMO, is not what God can do or know, but what He chooses to know and to do. Like some earlier Jewish mystics, I believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient in the sense that He has the power, in theory, to know and do anything. But I think He chooses not to know or do certain things, in order to preserve human free will, and in order to give us opportunities for learning, growth, and evolution.

I gave a rather broad definition of "totalitarian" in the OP. It is any system that can regulate any aspect of your total life, in principle. It defines righteous behavior.

It seems to me that totalitarian systems are not those that merely can regulate any aspect of one's life, but those that do or attempt to regulate all aspects of one's life. And it seems to me that part and parcel of totalitarianism is that it is utterly unidirectional: the ultimate authority wields complete and total power, and those under him or her have no power at all.

And while I can't speak of other religions, Judaism, at least, does not conceive of itself in that fashion. We understand ourselves to be in a covenantal partnership with God: granted, it is not a partnership of equals, and God certainly holds more power than we do. But we are not utterly without authority. That is precisely what is depicted in a classic tale from the Talmud, when Rabbi Eliezer (the head of the Sanhedrin at that time) seeks to prove a certain point at the law by invoking divine aid in the form of miracles to support his position. His opponent of the day, Rabbi Yehoshua, cites part of a verse from Deuteronomy, "It [the Torah] is not in Heaven!" as his refutation of Rabbi Eliezer. He is understood to mean that, once the Torah was given by God to the Jewish People, the authority to interpret Torah and decide what it means and how the commandments are to be understood and observed passed from God to the Jewish People. We no longer accept miracles or signs to decide matters of Jewish Law: we accept the reasoned arguments of jurists trained in Jewish Law-- which is to say, rabbis. This is not a usurpation of divine authority, because we understand that this is what God intended: that, having been given Torah, we cease relying entirely on Him for understanding, but, cultivating our own faculties and expertise, become our own authorities by His leave.

 

[Copernicus]

The question, IMO, is not what God can do or know, but what He chooses to know and to do. Like some earlier Jewish mystics, I believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient in the sense that He has the power, in theory, to know and do anything. But I think He chooses not to know or do certain things, in order to preserve human free will, and in order to give us opportunities for learning, growth, and evolution.

This is an interesting philosophical conundrum. Can an omniscient being choose not to know anything? The moment it does, it is no longer omniscient. So I don't see that as a sensible position. It is a bit like an omnipotent being that chooses to be vulnerable. Once one cancels invulnerability, one is ipso facto vulnerable. That's the problem with the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence. They actually make less and less sense the more you think about them.

It seems to me that totalitarian systems are not those that merely can regulate any aspect of one's life, but those that do or attempt to regulate all aspects of one's life. And it seems to me that part and parcel of totalitarianism is that it is utterly unidirectional: the ultimate authority wields complete and total power, and those under him or her have no power at all.

But that is not, in fact, what totalitarian governments do. They merely possess the power to regulate any aspect of life. Individual members have no rights at all. This does not mean that they actually dictate every aspect of life. Their power to do so is arbitrary. In fact, a totalitarian government can decide that it is OK for people to dance, that it is required for people to dance, or that nobody can dance. God can decide to be tolerant or not. God's choice, not yours.

And while I can't speak of other religions, Judaism, at least, does not conceive of itself in that fashion. We understand ourselves to be in a covenantal partnership with God: granted, it is not a partnership of equals, and God certainly holds more power than we do. But we are not utterly without authority. That is precisely what is depicted in a classic tale from the Talmud, when Rabbi Eliezer (the head of the Sanhedrin at that time) seeks to prove a certain point at the law by invoking divine aid in the form of miracles to support his position. His opponent of the day, Rabbi Yehoshua, cites part of a verse from Deuteronomy, "It [the Torah] is not in Heaven!" as his refutation of Rabbi Eliezer. He is understood to mean that, once the Torah was given by God to the Jewish People, the authority to interpret Torah and decide what it means and how the commandments are to be understood and observed passed from God to the Jewish People. We no longer accept miracles or signs to decide matters of Jewish Law: we accept the reasoned arguments of jurists trained in Jewish Law-- which is to say, rabbis. This is not a usurpation of divine authority, because we understand that this is what God intended: that, having been given Torah, we cease relying entirely on Him for understanding, but, cultivating our own faculties and expertise, become our own authorities by His leave.

I'm certainly no expert in Judaism, but I do know that there are many different Jewish sects that do not all interpret Judaism the same. So I respect the fact that you can speak for yourself and your particular faction, as you understand it. I do not know how widely your interpretation is accepted, however. Certainly not so much by non-practicing Jews such as my father-in-law.

 

[Levite]

This is an interesting philosophical conundrum. Can an omniscient being choose not to know anything? The moment it does, it is no longer omniscient.

Presuming that you define omniscience as actively knowing everything, rather than having the ability to know everything. If you insist on the former definition, then self-limitation negates omniscience; but if you are willing to accept the latter definition, it does not do so; and that latter definition is my position.

But that is not, in fact, what totalitarian governments do. They merely possess the power to regulate any aspect of life. Individual members have no rights at all. This does not mean that they actually dictate every aspect of life. Their power to do so is arbitrary. In fact, a totalitarian government can decide that it is OK for people to dance, that it is required for people to dance, or that nobody can dance. God can decide to be tolerant or not. God's choice, not yours.

First of all, this is, of course, where free will comes in: God may or may not tell us to do or not do a certain thing, but, generally speaking, He will not compel us to obey Him-- although granted, even in Judaism, which does not believe in Hell, most of us believe that there will be some form of reward for obedience, and some form of negative consequence for gross disobedience.

But also, for Jews, while we believe that our covenant-- which we voluntarily entered into with God, He did not compel us-- obligates us to a vast and extensive array of commandments we have to follow, we also understand that Torah was given to the Jews, not to the entire human race: we don't believe God has any expectation at all that non-Jews keep our commandments. We presume that the moral and spiritual behavior, theology, and social practices of non-Jews is between them and God, and we do not presume to know whether God has given non-Jewish peoples commandments of their own, or has other covenants with them, or merely permits them to determine their own notions and philosophies without His input. Many of our greatest thinkers have been perfectly content with the idea that God offers His input to human societies only to the extent that they wish it, or are able to accept it.

I'm certainly no expert in Judaism, but I do know that there are many different Jewish sects that do not all interpret Judaism the same. So I respect the fact that you can speak for yourself and your particular faction, as you understand it. I do not know how widely your interpretation is accepted, however. Certainly not so much by non-practicing Jews such as my father-in-law.

Well, yes: obviously those who do not practice a religion will not care to interpret it one way or another-- or else they erroneously presume that the interpretation they choose not to practice is the only authentic or extant interpretation. And while there are indeed many different movements and schools of thought in Judaism, they all have the Torah and the Talmud in common: none are going to reject the concepts of covenant or interpretive jurisdiction of the Torah by the Rabbis-- indeed, some movements today broaden the notion of the authority of interpretive jurisdiction of Torah beyond rabbis, to any Jew at all.

 

[Breathe]

Short answer is no, not to me.

I started writing something more detailed out, but then got hungry, so not going to bother.

 

[allright]

Whether to accept Jesus as your Lord and follow him is a matter of free choice.

In fact in the Gospel of John when many of followers were leaving him he turned to his his twelve chosen Apostles and ask "Would you like to leave too?"

 

[Matthew78]

Religions per se are not totalitarian. Interpretations can be totalitarian. Theocracies can be totalitarian. But neither of those two things are synonymous with religion. Any entanglement of religion with political power is dangerous and risks twisting both, but not all connections of religion and politics must, by definition, be totalitarian or theocratic.

Fundamentalism lends itself to totalitarianism. But all religion is not fundamentalist. Many interpretations, sects, and communities are pluralistic and tolerant.

I agree with this. Religions are not totalitarian per se but interpretations or certain theologies can be totalitarian. As an example, I consider Christian fundamentalism and Evangelicalism to be very totalitarian. The very notion that believers are required to make Christ their lord and savior and completely surrender their will and lives to God and make God the one who controls every aspect of their lives is, IMO, as totalitarian as any religion gets. The very notion that you either serve yourself or you serve Christ and that Christ is supposed to decide what job you will have, who you will marry, where you will live, what you will name your kids, where your kids will be born, and what schools you will send them to, as well as every other decision or facet of your life that you can imagine is a totaliarian interpretation.

If I am not mistaken, some Muslim sects have a similar totalitarian theology. I am not sure if there are any Jewish sects which have this type of belief.

 

[Levite]

If I am not mistaken, some Muslim sects have a similar totalitarian theology. I am not sure if there are any Jewish sects which have this type of belief.

Yeah, a lot of the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) communities are pretty totalitarian, in their own ways. Fortunately, they constitute a minority of the Jewish people.

 

[Copernicus]

Presuming that you define omniscience as actively knowing everything, rather than having the ability to know everything. If you insist on the former definition, then self-limitation negates omniscience; but if you are willing to accept the latter definition, it does not do so; and that latter definition is my position.

That isn't an acceptable definition of "omniscience" for most people, but let's go with the claim of willful ignorance on God's part. You are saying that God threw the dice, could have known the outcome, but chose to blind himself to that knowledge. You may think that this somehow allows for free will, but it doesn't. Potential omniscience is just as bad as actual omniscience for free will, because the outcome has to be predetermined for God to have potential knowledge. The dice can still only come up one way.

First of all, this is, of course, where free will comes in: God may or may not tell us to do or not do a certain thing, but, generally speaking, He will not compel us to obey Him-- although granted, even in Judaism, which does not believe in Hell, most of us believe that there will be some form of reward for obedience, and some form of negative consequence for gross disobedience.

This is also a very common method for getting cooperation. Totalitarians also use the carrot-stick approach.

But also, for Jews, while we believe that our covenant-- which we voluntarily entered into with God, He did not compel us-- obligates us to a vast and extensive array of commandments we have to follow, we also understand that Torah was given to the Jews, not to the entire human race: we don't believe God has any expectation at all that non-Jews keep our commandments. We presume that the moral and spiritual behavior, theology, and social practices of non-Jews is between them and God, and we do not presume to know whether God has given non-Jewish peoples commandments of their own, or has other covenants with them, or merely permits them to determine their own notions and philosophies without His input. Many of our greatest thinkers have been perfectly content with the idea that God offers His input to human societies only to the extent that they wish it, or are able to accept it.

This all sounds very convoluted to me, but we're not debating the specifics of how people reconcile their relationship with their deities here. The point is that you acknowledge a desire by God--a supreme leader--for obedience to rules that pretty much cover life in totality. And there is a reward-punishment mechanism in place to enforce obedience. Practicing Jews spend a significant number of heartbeats trying to comply with the terms of the contract. If they don't, then they expose themselves to bad consequences in the end.

Well, yes: obviously those who do not practice a religion will not care to interpret it one way or another-- or else they erroneously presume that the interpretation they choose not to practice is the only authentic or extant interpretation. And while there are indeed many different movements and schools of thought in Judaism, they all have the Torah and the Talmud in common: none are going to reject the concepts of covenant or interpretive jurisdiction of the Torah by the Rabbis-- indeed, some movements today broaden the notion of the authority of interpretive jurisdiction of Torah beyond rabbis, to any Jew at all.

I don't know how my father-in-law fell away from the religion. He was in the fifth wave on Omaha Beach and lasted through the entire Battle of the Hedgerows, including the capture of St Lô. He told me a little bit about that. He didn't like to talk about it much, but I think he had a hard time reconciling that experience with God.