Religious governments

[Luminous]

Isn't there a theory among scientists that religion and religious thought evolved because it created a bond in communities that made them stronger, more able to stand up to rivals, and therefore more fit for survival? If this is the case then there may well be a scientific/evolutionary argument for why religious governments could be a good thing. Wouldn't a country be stronger if everyone willingly accepted a state religion and wanted to be a part of it? Israel might be the best example of this...I don't know, I am not ready to argue this point, I just thought I might throw it out there for consideration.

In general, i would assume that if we are to evolve for the better as a species we would have to recognize the fact of our agnosticism. this would leave no room for religion. religions are easily used and corrupted and that might not be good for a society. also, further than just making a country stonger i would assume evolution would work to make the species as a whole more fit for survival and replication. which would mean creating a universal religion that is easily agreeable and uniting...but religion is not really as helpful as understanding. i would have to say religious governments are not a good thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm against it then, because there is no such thing as "too visible a religious symbol". Just because something bothers me, doesn't mean i should be able to tell people what to wear.

I must respectfully disagree. Religious symbols can be disruptive and out of place, just like most anything else. Part of living in a community is learning to make concessions to allow for good, constructive convivence.

Even motherly love can be excessive. That is certainly true of religious things as well. Although I must confess that by this point I'm wondering if Muslims won't disagree on the grounds that it comes from God's will.

 

[Badran]

I must respectfully disagree. Religious symbols can be disruptive and out of place, just like most anything else. Part of living in a community is learning to make concessions to allow for good, constructive convivence.

Even motherly love can be excessive. That is certainly true of religious things as well. Although I must confess that by this point I'm wondering if Muslims won't disagree on the grounds that it comes from God's will.

Yes, but the Burka is merely an inconvenience for others, and i think when it comes to telling others what they can and can't wear, you must have a much much better reason. Especially, because it is also a very simple religious right, a woman should be entitled to wear it if she wants. Don't forget that part of your ill ease towards might be because you are not used to such thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is certainly a fair point. I fully agree.

 

[fantome profane]

Isn't there a theory among scientists that religion and religious thought evolved because it created a bond in communities that made them stronger, more able to stand up to rivals, and therefore more fit for survival? If this is the case then there may well be a scientific/evolutionary argument for why religious governments could be a good thing. Wouldn't a country be stronger if everyone willingly accepted a state religion and wanted to be a part of it? Israel might be the best example of this...I don't know, I am not ready to argue this point, I just thought I might throw it out there for consideration.

Yes, one function of religion and possible explanation for its evolutions is that it makes a group more cohesive. But it also makes the group more insular and xenophobic, more aggressive, and more intolerant of other ideas. I agree that all these factors could make that group “stronger, more able to stand up to rivals, and therefore more fit for survival”, but even if that is true it hardly makes it a “good thing”.

And even if this theory is correct I believe it applies more to tribal societies and specific cultures, not to complex modern states. I believe the negative aspects of this kind of forced cohesion are greatly magnified when it comes to modern state governments.

 

[Runlikethewind]

And even if this theory is correct I believe it applies more to tribal societies and specific cultures, not to complex modern states. I believe the negative aspects of this kind of forced cohesion are greatly magnified when it comes to modern state governments.

I think your right there. I began thinking along the same lines after I made the original post. It really only applies to small groups who willingly choose to be a part of the group and accept the collective beliefs of the group.

...i would assume evolution would work to make the species as a whole more fit for survival and replication. which would mean creating a universal religion that is easily agreeable and uniting...but religion is not really as helpful as understanding. i would have to say religious governments are not a good thing.

Perhaps Luminous is on to something. If the idea is to be applied to modern civilization it would have to be a unifying universal religion.

I do think that having a government guided by spiritual principles in some form is a good thing, but recognizing the historical problems of the religious state I am not sure how that would look in practice. But some kind of universal religion might do it...perhaps what might work is a spiritual government rather than a religious one. A government that didn't try to completely separate itself from any form of religion, removing or banning all public displays of religion with a strict separation of church and state. One that openly welcomed spirituality without recognizing any one religion. I think I could get behind something like that. Perhaps that is a bit too Utopian an idea to actually be able to exist in reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

Just a reminder, lay and secular states rarely if ever try to remove public displays of religion.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Just a reminder, lay and secular states rarely if ever try to remove public displays of religion.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. A quick Google search produces a number of cases here in the U.S. where religious monuments have been moved.

Supreme Court lets stand order to remove Ten Commandments monument - CSMonitor.com
Religious Monument Removed From Public Space in Courthouse - Los Angeles Times
FOXNews.com - Michigan Man Sues for Right to Put Back Family's Nativity Scene on Public Median

So I'm not sure I agree with your assertion, unless I am misunderstanding what you mean. I mean it is true that in many cases non-governmental groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation are the one's instigating these things and so it is not necessarily the secular state that is removing them, they are only responding to the complaints of these and similar groups. It's just that in light of all these cases we here about I was surprised by your assertion. Not a Christmas goes by without hearing some story about nativities being moved or banned, school kids not allowed to sing any carols remotely connected with a religious theme, etc. It seems like many government bodies here in the U.S. are hypersensitive to this issue and are taking a more cautious stance on separation of church and state.

 

[LuisDantas]

I didn't think you were refering to monuments and statues. I support their removal in the general case.

As for the third case, it seems less defensable. Still, it took 63 years for it to happen...

I had never heard of children being forbidden to sing religious songs, myself. It seems excessive indeed. It is should be enough not to promote such events with government efforts.

 

[Cosmos]

So Bahais want to eventually achieve a Bahai State as well?

Yes, brother Luis, the Baha'i Faith shall become a Baha'i State sooner or later.

An interesting thing in connecting this future world government is even within Buddhist prophecy, as the Buddha spoke of a Buddhist kingdom or monarchy to be ruled by a Chakravartin (World Ruler or Buddhist king), and we believe that the Davidic Kingship is the actual fulfillment of this as Maitreya (or the Return of Jesus) for us has appeared for us to establish this great thing!

 

[coolkeg]

in my opinion, which doesnt seem to count for much, the government in some sense is a religion, the government seems the only large scale organisation that manipulates reality(mathematics and science) to adhere to our consciousnesses needs (spirituality) such as creating a comfortable living for your mind and body which are linked, for example if you are cold and hungry you will feel bad bad, if your warm and full up you have a better chance of being happy, the only reason actual established religions would invest in such matters would be to benefit there specific religion I.E. specific research that proves gods existence rather than helping its believers needs of research not only in biology but on a larger scale such as physics that will inevitable benefit future generation of believers... just my opinion

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I do not see anyway they could mix, but it would really depend on the religion. A government that had Left Handed Path values would probably workout quite well, as would any religion that puts an emphasis on the improvement of the self and community with each individual guiding their own path. Religions with rules for society will never work out.

 

[LuisDantas]

What, you mean the governments aren't LHP already?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Exactly what I'm thinking Luis. The governments are already pretty LHP. It takes someone with values like LHP to be a politician.

 

[Smoke]

Taoist regime would be kinda cool.

Maybe.

Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Smoke]

I'm not altogether opposed to a state church if it could be done as it is in some European countries. Acknowledging a Christian cultural heritage lends cohesion and unity to society, while the fact that hardly anybody is a dogmatic believer or goes to church on any kind of a regular basis means the Church can't do much harm.

It's good to have a nice big, beautiful building to celebrate life's milestones in -- baptisms, confirmations, weddings and funerals -- and it's especially nice if nobody takes it all too literally.

However, I doubt we could accomplish that in the U.S., even if the Constitution didn't prohibit it. We have way too much crazy religion here.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

No politician can be truly enlightened, it doesn't matter what religion they profess. The way one shows they are truly enlightened is by renouncing power.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No politician can be truly enlightened, it doesn't matter what religion they profess. The way one shows they are truly enlightened is by renouncing power.

In a way what you say is in harmony with Scripture.
The political 'kings', or world rulers, will Not give way to God's sovereignty.
Since they can not get at the heavenly Christ Jesus they will end up turning on God's people on earth. First, the political world will turn on the world's religious sector that views itself as a religious 'queen' that will never see mourning, but has now run afoul playing false to God.
-Rev 17v2; 18v7

 

[Rainbow Mage]

URAVIP- The reason I say that no good person would seek after authority, and if they had power they would renounce it, is because only the one who wants to rule others seeks power. Power is something hard to let go of once obtained, making it an attachment. Only those who are oppressive seek to rule over others.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

URAVIP- The reason I say that no good person would seek after authority, and if they had power they would renounce it, is because only the one who wants to rule others seeks power. Power is something hard to let go of once obtained, making it an attachment. Only those who are oppressive seek to rule over others.

Solomon observed that man has dominated man to his injury.- Ecc 8v9.

At John [6v15] Jesus would Not seek after authority, but that does not mean that order [Golden Rule] should not apply for all.

Jesus was not oppressive but Jesus recognized that God put his kingdom or royal government, not in the hands of men, but in the hands of Christ Jesus.
It is during Jesus millennial reign over earth that there will be Peace on Earth toward men of goodwill.