Nationalism and religion

[Epic Beard Man]

Apparently not!?

Top 10 misattributed quotations

Interesting..

 

[Aupmanyav]

Gaṇa sangha - Wikipedia, History of democracy - Wikipedia

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.

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.

Adrian, a leader of a confederacy, elected in whatever way, would be termed as Raj, Ragnya, Roi, Rao, etc. So don't balk at the word 'Raja'. At the moment Narendra Modi is the Rajah of India. Rajya is nation, and the person who leads it is Raja.

I have not counted as to how many of these Ganarajyas were democratic and how many were not. Perhaps I would do it one of these days. By the time of Palas, many changes had taken place. Palas are very late in Indian history. Democracy did not last long even in Greece or Rome.

The duties of a king (Raj Dharma) are clearly enunciated in Hindu law books (Dharma Shastras) and form an important part of such books. Even my grandfathers 8,000 verse tome on Hindu Law published in 1950 - Vishweshwara Smriti - contained that part; though he clarified that India now had a democratic polity and 'Raja' should be taken to mean as the person who has been chosen by the people to rule for that period.

 

[ChristineM]

No. Religion and nationalism should not mix.

This is true, unfortunately it is not the case.

There are many political systems that use religion to boost national pride

And certainly some religions* that use nationalism to boost religious pride

* The uk for example does this with the church of england, the chapels of wales and various Scottish churches

 

[Vouthon]

I think religion should ideally provide people with a feeling of solidarity beyond artificial social barriers, through a common, symbolic system of sacred stories, ethics, architecture and so on. But that's just my bias as a Catholic Christian coming out. We are an avowedly supranational faith tradition, the very word 'Catholic' having been derived from a Greek word meaning 'universal'.

Christianity essentially broke from its Jewish parent religion when it declared the cherished laws, customs and traditions of the Hebrew people to be no longer mandatory. In other words, the Christian religious ideology burst onto the scene with a renunciation of Judaic 'nationalism' (of an ancient, proto-variety) in favour of a thorough cosmopolitan vision that appealed highly to the multi-ethnic Roman world (indeed, it was the perfect religion for the ancient Romans, hence its runaway success as a movement).

There are many ethnic religions, however,. One can think, for instance, of Judaism, Mandaeism, Yazidism and Parsi Zoroastrianism - among others - which tend to be heavily concerned with a rather narrow social group. Even though one can become a Jew by conversion, you are assimilating into a very specific cultural-national identity, the people of Israel: their heritage and sense of 'chosenness'.

Historically, religions have served - like the gods of the Greek city-states - to cement loyalty to a bounded social group or ethnicity. Every city, state and 'people' once had its own unique gods in antiquity, often at war with the gods of other neighbouring peoples (in other words, reflecting the social reality).

But something new happened with religion when faiths like Buddhism, Christianity and Islam were founded and in more recent times Unitarian Universalism and the Baha'i Faith. These religions claimed to teach eternal truths not circumscribed by the borders of any given race or tribe, but which had universal application (even though, Islam is held back somewhat in this respect by the Pan-Arab tendency).

 

[oldbadger]

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.

Thanks for your reply. Appreciated.
And the above para seems about right.

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.

I don't think that religions will increase, even with rising populations from religious households, because moderation and individual motivations will reduce them, imo. For instance, all the young Western Muslims that I have known well have been more interested in fashions, decent motors, street cred and a bit of status...... if that kind of motivation gets a grip then then maybe there could be a more secular World? Human motivations can change so fast, in any direction.

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.

Yes..... Greed in all it's forms....... and hard to defeat.

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.

Individuals personal beliefs should be part of Human Rights, and I have no dislike for religionists, and I see that the only condition which has any chance of gaining enough attention Worldwide is Big 'F' Fear.... and if the sea levels start to rise more quickly than previously expected, then even extreme denialists may take a step back ..... who knows?

I appreciate your reply to me....

 

[74x12]

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?

Any moral and honest person should be concerned with sovereignty. But not ignorantly. They should know what's really going on so they don't fall for all the tricks and schemes. As the old saying goes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

*reg- | Origin and meaning of *reg- by Online Etymology Dictionary

Proto-Indo-European root meaning "move in a straight line," with derivatives meaning "to direct in a straight line," thus "to lead, rule."

It forms all or part of: abrogate; address; adroit; Alaric; alert; anorectic; anorexia; arrogant; arrogate; bishopric; correct; corvee; derecho; derogate; derogatory; Dietrich; direct; dress; eldritch; erect; ergo; Eric; Frederick; Henry; incorrigible; interregnum; interrogate; maharajah; Maratha; prerogative; prorogue; rack (n.1) "frame with bars;" rail (n.1) "horizontal bar passing from one post or support to another;" Raj; rajah; rake (n.1) "toothed tool for drawing or scraping things together;" rake (n.2) "debauchee; idle, dissolute person;" rakish; rank (adj.) "corrupt, loathsome, foul;" real (n.) "small Spanish silver coin;" realm; reck; reckless; reckon; rectangle; rectify; rectilinear; rectitude; recto; recto-; rector; rectum; regal; regent; regicide; regime; regimen; regiment; region; regular; regulate; Regulus; Reich; reign; resurgent; rex; rich; right; Risorgimento; rogation; royal; rule; sord; source; subrogate; subrogation; surge; surrogate; viceroy.

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by:

Sanskrit raj- "a king, a leader," rjyati "he stretches himself," riag "torture" (by racking); Avestan razeyeiti "directs," raštva- "directed, arranged, straight;" Persian rahst "right, correct;" Latin regere "to rule, direct, lead, govern," rex (genitive regis) "king," rectus "right, correct;" Greek oregein "to reach, extend;" Old Irish ri, Gaelic righ "a king," Gaulish -rix "a king" (in personal names, such as Vircingetorix), Old Irish rigim "to stretch out;" Gothic reiks "a leader," raihts "straight, right;" Lithuanian raižytis "to stretch oneself;" Old English rice "kingdom," -ric "king," rice "rich, powerful," riht "correct;" Gothic raihts, Old High German recht, Old Swedish reht, Old Norse rettr "correct."

 

[blü 2]

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

History certainly thinks so ─ from the idea that kings are anointed by (the local version of) God (Japan, Thailand, England &c) to the Established Churches of many countries, not least England and till recently Ireland, the use of Shariah law and blasphemy trials across the Muslim world, the racial division of Pakistan / India and within India, the adoption of patron saints of countries ─ and so on.

However nationalism can become destructive and lead to wars and hatred.

Yes it can, and does. Tribalism and religion have gone hand in hand forever, and as football matches show, we're tribal beings down to the tip of our socks (not to overlook Haight's dictum, 'Sport is to war as porn is to sex'). Since the Enlightenment we've had civilized alternatives, filtered slowly into our cultures particularly by education. But as Trump knows and shows, there are a lot of people out there who are basically and mindlessly tribal.

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

While the answer is that political questions should be dealt impartially and by reason, which may not rule out particular believers but rules out religious and many other institutions, that ideal seems out of reach in practical terms ─ so far it's simply not how tribes work. Not only that, but should religion stop praying for one's nation's soldiers in time of war? Should holders of state office wed and be buried only in civil ceremonies? Should religions confine their charities only to their adherents?

(2) If so, to what extent?

Since it's unavoidable ─ even China has begun to relent ─ the answer is, as little as possible.