Nationalism and religion

[Dawnofhope]

What does your faith or worldview have to say about nationalism? Should religion have anything to do with the concept of sovereign nations in the first place and if so what are the limits? We all live in countries and to some extent have a national identity. We could take pride in our country and its achievements or feel shame and not at ease. However nationalism can become destructive and lead to wars and hatred. There's plenty of examples throughout the twentieth century. Germany, Italy and Japan were countries that embodied some of the worst aspects of nationalism during the second world war.

So my question for this thread is twofold.

(1) Should religion have anything to say about the nature of national sovereignty?

(2) If so, to what extent?

 

[sayak83]

What does your faith or worldview have to say about nationalism? Should religion have anything to do with the concept of sovereign nations in the first place and if so what are the limits? We all live in countries and to some extent have a national identity. We could take pride in our country and its achievements or feel shame and not at ease. However nationalism can become destructive and lead to wars and hatred. There's plenty of examples throughout the twentieth century. Germany, Italy and Japan were countries that embodied some of the worst aspects of nationalism during the second world war.

So my question for this thread is twofold.

(1) Should religion have anything to say about the nature of national sovereignty?

(2) If so, to what extent?

No. Religion and nationalism should not mix.

 

[Sunstone]

As deGaulle said, patriotism is loving your country, nationalism is hating other peoples. Religion has no business involving itself in the hatred of other peoples.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The Baha'i Faith teaches the removal of all prejudices with a particular emphasis on racial, religious or gender. These prejudices should be eliminated. The Baha'i concept goes further in that we should see ourselves predominantly part of one race, the human race. We should see the earth as our common homeland and view mankind as its citizens.

“Let not a man glory in that he loves his country;” said Bahá’u’lláh, “let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind.”

Charlotte Bronté once said "I’m a universal patriot… my country is the world."

The American journalist and author Sydney J Harris contrasted the difference between patriotism and nationalism:

"The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war."

 

[Dawnofhope]

No. Religion and nationalism should not mix.

I agree that religion shouldn't be promoting nationalism, but that wasn't my question. Should religion have anything to say about the concept of national sovereignty?

I believe genuine religion should be supportive of the concept of just government. When the culture of its people turns towards destructive nationalism as it did during world war II I see a moral imperative for religion to speak out. Or should we remain silent when the excesses of nationalism manifest themselves? If so should it also remain silent on questions of racism too?

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
John Stuart Mill

 

[Dawnofhope]

As deGaulle said, patriotism is loving your country, nationalism is hating other peoples. Religion has no business involving itself in the hatred of other peoples.

I agree. There is a long history of religion becoming entwined in nationalism and politics to everyone's detriment. Its probably hard at times to see how religion could provide a voice for moderation, balance and reason. Beyond that, its probably impossible for some of us to see how religion could provide moral guidance for some of the challenging and perplexing problems humanity faces in the twenty first century.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

What does your faith or worldview have to say about nationalism? Should religion have anything to do with the concept of sovereign nations in the first place and if so what are the limits? We all live in countries and to some extent have a national identity. We could take pride in our country and its achievements or feel shame and not at ease. However nationalism can become destructive and lead to wars and hatred. There's plenty of examples throughout the twentieth century. Germany, Italy and Japan were countries that embodied some of the worst aspects of nationalism during the second world war.

So my question for this thread is twofold.

(1) Should religion have anything to say about the nature of national sovereignty?

(2) If so, to what extent?

I would suggest that, it would probably seem you are asking if Religion and the State must be together or separated. But probably that is not what you are asking, right?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I would suggest that, it would probably seem you are asking if Religion and the State must be together or separated. But probably that is not what you are asking, right?

That's right. I'm deliberately taking it back to a much more basic level.

Of course one response to my question could include considering the relationship of church and state. Judaism, Christianity and Islam have all had an established theocracy during some period of history. There was some basis for theocracy both from sacred writings and some of the inspired social thinkers of each faith.

Theocracy is not well regarded as a model for governance in the twenty first century for historic reasons. So if Judaism, Christianity and Islam have to some extent moved away from a theocratic government what do these religions have to say about government now? Beyond that what do they have to say about the concept of nationshood itself. Its an enormously challenging question.

One of the problems for the main world religions is that each was revealed in very different cultural and historic circumstances compared to what exists today. The concept of nationhood today amidst other nations is enigmatic and almost alien to the worldview promoted by religious leaders centuries ago. We have the need for international agreements, governance on an international level and what it means to be a properly functioning nation. Whenever one of the religions of old weigh in on matters of the twenty first century, it can easily appear anachronistic for good reason.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That's right. I'm deliberately taking it back to a much more basic level.

Of course one response to my question could include considering the relationship of church and state. Judaism, Christianity and Islam have all had an established theocracy during some period of history. There was some basis for theocracy both from sacred writings and some of the inspired social thinkers of each faith.

Theocracy is not well regarded as a model for governance in the twenty first century for historic reasons. So if Judaism, Christianity and Islam have to some extent moved away from a theocratic government what do these religions have to say about government now? Beyond that what do they have to say about the concept of nationshood itself. Its an anormously challenging question.

One of the problems for the main world religions is that each was revealed in very different cultural and historic circumstances compared to what exists today. The concept of nationhood today amidst other nations is enigmatic and almost alien to the worldview promoted by religious leaders centuries ago. We have the need for international agreements, governance on an international level and what it means to be a properly functioning nation. Whenever one of the religions of old weigh in on matters of the twenty first century, it can easily appear anachronistic for good reason.

Would you say that original Islam, Christianity or Jewish Faith prophet founders or Holy Books taught nationalism? Or they taught that Religion is to be mixed with government?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Would you say that original Islam, Christianity or Jewish Faith prophet founders or Holy Books taught nationalism? Or they taught that Religion is to be mixed with government?

That's a great question and one I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer well. It would be good to hear from members of each of those faiths. Briefly Mosaic law had provision for judges and priests. The early history of the Hebrew people once they conquered the land of Canaan appears to have been the coexistence of the twelve tribes of Israel and later they were united culminating in the Davidic rule.

Christianity was founded on Judaism and Christ didn't add anything in regards to specific principes of governance. Some of the Apostles Teachings with the establishment of the early churches would no doubt have been useful for when Christianity established temporal sovereignty though I doubt if too many emporers cared. At that stage empires were the norm along with aristocratic rule. The Papacy could arguably be derived from Peter as the first Pope but Matthew 16:18 appears somewhat of a stretch as a foudation for the running of the Holy Roman Empire.

Islam appears to be more advanced that its Abrahamic predecessors with the constitution of Medina. It would be interesting to explore the Quranic basis for the Caliphate and Sultanate. That's a bug bear betwen the Shi'ites and Sunnis.

So in summary, when theocracies have been established they haven't fully been based on the Teachings of the Prophets who founded their religions. Its been mixed in with other ideas prevelant at the time such as how to run an empire. In fact many of the Empires that claim allegiance to Islam or Christianity were probably completely removed from what Muhammad or Christ taught.

Theocracy - Wikipedia

THEOCRACY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[Twilight Hue]

What does your faith or worldview have to say about nationalism? Should religion have anything to do with the concept of sovereign nations in the first place and if so what are the limits? We all live in countries and to some extent have a national identity. We could take pride in our country and its achievements or feel shame and not at ease. However nationalism can become destructive and lead to wars and hatred. There's plenty of examples throughout the twentieth century. Germany, Italy and Japan were countries that embodied some of the worst aspects of nationalism during the second world war.

So my question for this thread is twofold.

(1) Should religion have anything to say about the nature of national sovereignty?

(2) If so, to what extent?

Like anything , it all depends.

Maybe you live in a theocracy where your religion is outlawed.

Or...

You live in a totalitarian state where all forms of religion are oppressed.

Or....

You live in a free world country and are worried about others claiming the country it's based on their specific religion.

Or.....

You live in a free world country and you have concerns about being subject to any of the above or something else.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Like anything , it all depends.

Maybe you live in a theocracy where your religion is outlawed.

Or...

You live in a totalitarian state where all forms of religion are oppressed.

Or....

You live in a free world country and are worried about others claiming the country it's based on their specific religion.

Or.....

You live in a free world country and you have concerns about being subject to any of the above or something else.

My question is what does your faith have to say about nationhood or the principles that should govern a nation. So as a Buddhist, what if anything did the Buddha teach that might be relevant?

There have been theocratic types of government in Buddhist countries.

Theocracy - Wikipedia

Then the question is what, if any basis, was there with the Dharma or Eternal Teachings of Buddha?

 

[Aupmanyav]

“Let not a man glory in that he loves his country;” said Bahá’u’lláh, “let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind.”

Sure, he was seeking followers from all countries, all religions. What else should he have said?

Its probably hard at times to see how religion could provide a voice for moderation, balance and reason. Beyond that, its probably impossible for some of us to see how religion could provide moral guidance for some of the challenging and perplexing problems humanity faces in the twenty first century.

It is apparent what moderation Christianity and Islam have provided to the world. As for moral guidance, they say, percentage of Catholics in US prisons is high (vis-a-vis their population).

We have the need for international agreements, governance on an international level and what it means to be a properly functioning nation. Whenever one of the religions of old weigh in on matters of the twenty first century, it can easily appear anachronistic for good reason.

Headed by Bahai Universal House of Justice? Why are you Bahais so predictable?

My question is what does your faith have to say about nationhood or the principles that should govern a nation.

"Janani Janmabhoomishcha Swargadapi gariyasi" That is what Lord Rama said - Mother and Motherland are greater than heaven. In India, rulers were supposed to treat all their subjects, whatever religion they may be following, equally; as they were all his subjects. That is why communal disturbances did not happen in most native states in India during partition. We did not have this concept of separation. And that is why Partition seemed so unnatural to Hindus.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
John Stuart Mill

Actually Edmund Burke said the above

 

[Dawnofhope]

Actually Edmund Burke said the above

Apparently not!?

Top 10 misattributed quotations

 

[Dawnofhope]

"Janani Janmabhoomishcha Swargadapi gariyasi" That is what Lord Rama said - Mother and Motherland are greater than heaven. In India, rulers were supposed to treat all their subjects, whatever religion they may be following, equally; as they were all his subjects. That is why communal disturbances did not happen in most native states in India during partition. We did not have this concept of separation. And that is why Partition seemed so unnatural to Hindus.

The partition has left a lasting legacy that affects many today according to New Zealanders of Indian descent I’ve been talking to recently. As you say it’s not the inclination of many Hindus to want such a separation though a strong anti-Abrahamic outlook is certainly in the mix.

In regards concepts of a national government the constitution of India wasn’t based on Hinduism but on previous constitutions and on those throughout the Western world.

Constitution of India - Wikipedia

That was the route many countries took after the post colonial era. Democracy as widely established as it is today is a relatively recent phenomena. We could trace the origins back to the Greeks before 500 AD. It’s only been in Europe and some related Western countries that democracy has taken off since 1848.

In terms of concepts of nations, and the relative stability we have now, that’s new too. Before WWI most of the world was run by European colonial powers. After the end of WWII the world had fundamentally changed. It’s as if the old world order had been rolled away and a new one rolled out in its stead. Little wonder that none of the established religions have anything concrete to say about the OP question. None of course except... you guessed it...the Baha’i Faith.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We could trace the origins back to the Greeks before 500 AD.

Little wonder that none of the established religions have anything concrete to say about the OP question. None of course except... you guessed it...the Baha’i Faith.

You are missing out on Indian Janapadas and Mahajanapadas. We had sixteen during Buddha's time with various rules about selection of rulers. Democratic, Oligarchic, hereditary. Aryans had the concept of 'Vish' (Village or a small area).

Mahajanapadas - Wikipedia


Hinduism is perfectly clear about religion. It is a personal thing and should remain personal. It should not go beyond that, and no one else is to interfere in someone's personal beliefs. We follow it even in our families where people may have different beliefs.

 

[oldbadger]

............. Should religion have anything to do with the concept of sovereign nations in the first place and if so what are the limits? ..............

Let's see........ is this a question based upon genuine interest, or could it be yet another Bahai 'sell'?

The Baha'i Faith teaches the removal of all prejudices with a particular emphasis on racial, religious or gender.

OK folks! Question answered by post 4!
---------------------------------

Oh well, I'm here now so might as well contribute one Deist opinion out of millions.
The most powerful presence here on Earth or anywhere else is Nature.......
Nature gives and takes upon a 'stage' wracked by chaos. We are isolated in space. Our Planet is becoming dirty, old fuel sources are redundant or retired, and we are entering a new time with new demands, risks, insecurities and imbalances. All of our countries need to close ranks against these dreadful risks in the future. But greed, hatred, bigotries and prejudices are not going to let that happen so easily, if at all.

And so let everyone find and keep their own beliefs (if any) but let us all hope that big 'R' religion will slowly wain and fade because it's going to be one of several characteristics of humanity which won't help our efforts, imo.
But the biggest and worst risk to our survival is Big 'G' Greed........ and to stamp that out sure is going to be tough, because Nature seems to generate it as a primitive survival condition.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You are missing out on Indian Janapadas and Mahajanapadas. We had sixteen during Buddha's time with various rules about selection of rulers. Democratic, Oligarchic, hereditary. Aryans had the concept of 'Vish' (Village or a small area).

Mahajanapadas - Wikipedia

Historcially the regional divisions are interesting and not suprising that India had regions based around tribal groups as most regions have at one time. Of the 16 regions 2 may have ben republics and the others are oligarchies and monarchies.

It would be helpful to have more reliable information as to the nature of how these regions were governed but I don't think that exists. There are reliable historical records to provide a sense of how democracy worked in Greece 2 1/2 thousand years ago. Here's what I could find:

Gaṇa sangha - Wikipedia

History of democracy - Wikipedia

I am aware of significant contributions from Indian civilisation in regards the Islamic Golden age.

Certainly there have been isolated democratic processes from time to time recorded throughout India's history. There was the election of Gopala in the Pala empire during the 8th century for instance. I don't think there is any doubt democracy hasn't been widely established for long periods until relatively recently.

Hinduism is perfectly clear about religion. It is a personal thing and should remain personal. It should not go beyond that, and no one else is to interfere in someone's personal beliefs. We follow it even in our families where people may have different beliefs.

We're not talking about interfering in another's personal beliefs. We are talking about what religion might say about social structures beyond just the individual that affect us all. That would include the nature of marriage, families, funerals, places of worship, priests and gurus. The caste system has been part of Hinduism, has it not? So whether we like it or not, most religion does have something to say about community life, how to treat others and more. Hinduism appears to have had little to say about institutions of government and nationhood.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Oh well, I'm here now so might as well contribute one Deist opinion out of millions.
The most powerful presence here on Earth or anywhere else is Nature.......
Nature gives and takes upon a 'stage' wracked by chaos. We are isolated in space. Our Planet is becoming dirty, old fuel sources are redundant or retired, and we are entering a new time with new demands, risks, insecurities and imbalances. All of our countries need to close ranks against these dreadful risks in the future. But greed, hatred, bigotries and prejudices are not going to let that happen so easily, if at all.

I doubt few would disagree with the ever present and growing ecological crisis that afflicts the planet and human resources. An important source of denial are those who would gain the most financially from the status quo.

And so let everyone find and keep their own beliefs (if any) but let us all hope that big 'R' religion will slowly wain and fade because it's going to be one of several characteristics of humanity which won't help our efforts, imo.

I can't see religion fading away. A growing number in both our countries are rightly disenchanted and many are leaving religion in droves. However according to worldwide statistics the trend is very different. The number of Muslims is set to overtake the number of Christians worldwide in about 50 years. So 65 -70% of the world's population is likely to be Muslim or Christian. Numbers of atheists (presumably including Deists?) are likely to decline. The reason comes down to population growth. Muslims have more children. Christians and especially atheists have less.

Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group

But the biggest and worst risk to our survival is Big 'G' Greed........ and to stamp that out sure is going to be tough, because Nature seems to generate it as a primitive survival condition.

Greed along with materialism/consumerism is threatening our planet and us alongside it. It is religion in the past that has traditionally had the most influence on the roots of human motivation.

We could all become atheists/deists for certain and all the best to those who choose that path. I personally can't see this belief being universally established though agree a sizeable number of citizens in both our countries identify with this worldview. I doubt if those who become atheists will become more motivated to work towards the greater good than the religionists you dislike.