Adding religion to politics is it a good thing or is it a bad thing? (1 Viewer)

[_dhj_]

Did you ever think economic reasons such as our exploitation of the third world might have something to do with Christian countries happening to be so prosperous. Remember that the economies of the United States and the British Empire at its height were built on slavery and exploitation and we are still exploiting the non christian countires today.

Also look at the emergence of China as an economic and military superpower. This has occured under secularism. It has nothing do with religion, China sucked because it was communist and trade liberalisation has made it far more successful. Once again simple ecconomic reasons are the explaination, not religion.

ALso what about Japan, one of the worlds most successful nations. Christinity has been neither a model or a reformer.

Agreed. 'The West' has not always been dominant. It only seems so because 'The West' is currently dominant and the current versions of historical discourse therefore are mainly written with an emphasis on the events of 'The West'. There have also been phases when Arabic and Eastern civilizations were dominant due to their emphasis on trade and commerce, meritocracy and secular societal values (e.g. confucianism) and greater societal respect for artists and philosophers over religious men, but these phases are not emphasised today because the West is currently dominating.

I think it is no coincidence that the dominant phases of Western civilization correlates with its most secular phases. The rational emphasis pervasive during the Roman Empire (compared with the superstitious Celtic and Barbarian cultures) and the Enlightenment (compared with the mysticism of the Dark Ages), and even Western society today (compared with the theocracies in the middle east) are examples of the superiority of secular civilization over religious civilization.

 

[sthcross.dude]

Agreed. 'The West' has not always been dominant. It only seems so because 'The West' is currently dominant and the current versions of historical discourse therefore are mainly written with an emphasis on the events of 'The West'. There have also been phases when Arabic and Eastern civilizations were dominant due to their emphasis on trade and commerce, meritocracy and secular societal values (e.g. confucianism) and greater societal respect for artists and philosophers over religious men, but these phases are not emphasised today because the West is currently dominating.

I think it is no coincidence that the dominant phases of Western civilization correlates with its most secular phases. The rational emphasis pervasive during the Roman Empire (compared with the superstitious Celtic and Barbarian cultures) and the Enlightenment (compared with the mysticism of the Dark Ages), and even Western society today (compared with the theocracies in the middle east) are examples of the superiority of secular civilization over religious civilization.

amen to that

 

[KFunk]

Morals and ethics on the other hand, in politics is good.

Nobody will ever completely agree with a religion. So it's better to leave it out.

Nor will anyone ever completely agree with a given moral code. I don't think that you can discount a person's moral code because it is derived from religion. However, I would suggest that having moral rules written in stone (e.g. in the form of a religious text) can be a negative because it makes it harder to enter dialogue and come to a compromise.

 

[sthcross.dude]

i already posted my opinion so um yeh...but sum1 argue with me so i can think of more stuff and help this guy with his PIP

 

[jimmayyy]

Separation of Church and State, plzthnx.

^^^

 

[bshoc]

I agree most of the Greens' proposals are bordering on farfetched, but its necessary to have at least one party who pushes agendas like stemming global warming, as opposed to the Coalition or oppoisition who only introduces even more harebrained schemes several months before an election.
Having said that, they should not even try to make any proposals to do with religion....

I agree, I need a party to laugh at.

 

[bshoc]

Agreed. 'The West' has not always been dominant. It only seems so because 'The West' is currently dominant and the current versions of historical discourse therefore are mainly written with an emphasis on the events of 'The West'. There have also been phases when Arabic and Eastern civilizations were dominant due to their emphasis on trade and commerce, meritocracy and secular societal values (e.g. confucianism) and greater societal respect for artists and philosophers over religious men, but these phases are not emphasised today because the West is currently dominating.

I think it is no coincidence that the dominant phases of Western civilization correlates with its most secular phases. The rational emphasis pervasive during the Roman Empire (compared with the superstitious Celtic and Barbarian cultures) and the Enlightenment (compared with the mysticism of the Dark Ages), and even Western society today (compared with the theocracies in the middle east) are examples of the superiority of secular civilization over religious civilization.

Incorrect, Imperial Europe of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century was the apex of western power, it was also a fairly religious establishment.

 

[sthcross.dude]

Incorrect, Imperial Europe of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century was the apex of western power, it was also a fairly religious establishment.

and this was because of christianity? Are u seriously suggesting this?

 

[bshoc]

Did you ever think economic reasons such as our exploitation of the third world might have something to do with Christian countries happening to be so prosperous.

No, firstly because the exploitation is always overstated, secondly because most of the success of the west can be attributed to westerners living in the west ..

Remember that the economies of the United States and the British Empire at its height were built on slavery and exploitation and we are still exploiting the non christian countires today.

The US economy is at its height today ...

How are we exploting non christian countries?

Also look at the emergence of China as an economic and military superpower. This has occured under secularism.

And not too long after China murdered millions upon millions of people in its name.

It has nothing do with religion, China sucked because it was communist and trade liberalisation has made it far more successful. Once again simple ecconomic reasons are the explaination, not religion.

China sucks and will continue to suck because its government must maintain an iron first to maintain social stability, christianity and western morality is the main reason why we do not require this in the west.

ALso what about Japan, one of the worlds most successful nations. Christinity has been neither a model or a reformer.

Japan became what it is today due to the American occupation and reformation, they were christians.

 

[bshoc]

and this was because of christianity? Are u seriously suggesting this?

It was certainly a great factor.

 

[sthcross.dude]

It was certainly a great factor.

How so?

"Do you have any evidence at all?"

 

[_dhj_]

No, firstly because the exploitation is always overstated, secondly because most of the success of the west can be attributed to westerners living in the west ..
The US economy is at its height today ...
How are we exploting non christian countries?
And not too long after China murdered millions upon millions of people in its name.
China sucks and will continue to suck because its government must maintain an iron first to maintain social stability, christianity and western morality is the main reason why we do not require this in the west.
Japan became what it is today due to the American occupation and reformation, they were christians.

Hey dude, hope your enjoying the holidays

Regarding China: It's not ruled by an iron fist to 'maintain social stability', but rather to maintain political stability. The economy is basically decentralised, social and family values in China are more conservative than they are in the West - yet China is and has always been (even before communist rule) secular. If we assume that the emergence of democratic government or the collapse of communist rule would negatively impact on China, that would expose flaws in democracy and affirm the notion that it only works for certain countries (a notion that the hawks in the US would surely reject). The reality is that so long as the transition to democracy is gradual (thus minimising the inherent turbulence of political change), it will be a success in the long run. In fact it is something that the US and the Western world do not want, because what the Chinese people truly want - what the democratic forces would legitimise - encompass greater military intervention by China than what the current rulers would be willing to risk.

Regarding Japan: Yes it is true that Commodore Perry's arrival was a great catalyst for Meiji reformations. Japan is an interesting case because its 'culture' is about borrowing other cultures. Thus, before the American and German (the main political influences post Perry were German - the Constitution was largely modeled on the bismarckian model) influences, Japan largely borrowed from China. Even today, most of Japanese culture - including writing, arts and values is Chinese in origin. Thus, the strength of Japan today is not derived from 'Christianity', but from its inherent ability to 'borrow' and to learn from different cultures. Also, the general proposition that the religion of nation A, a nation from which nation B adopted some of its S&T and cultural elements is superior if the adoptions prove useful, is totally incorrect. Unless the Japanese adopted 'Christianity' per se - which it did not, there is no proven causal connection. Indeed, many prominent features of western civilization - such as emphasis on trade and commerce, meritocracy (examinations for educational institutions) and civil service, were Eastern features, as are many prominent S&T items such as Arabic numbers and gunpowder.

 

[Snaykew]

What.. the hell. Why did I feel dejavu reading the last couple of posts? :| Also on writing this post too..

Also, economics has nothing to do with religion.

 

[banco55]

Also, economics has nothing to do with religion.

Ever hear of Max Weber?

 

[banco55]

Incorrect, Imperial Europe of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century was the apex of western power, it was also a fairly religious establishment.

Well you had the fement that led to the enlightenment and the decline of religion in the late 19th century.

 

[Snaykew]

Ever hear of Max Weber?

Nope. Basic stuff I know about economics are things like the supply and demand curve, multiplier, etc. I'm yet to come across a "[insert religion here] makes your economy grow".

 

[Silver Persian]

Nope. Basic stuff I know about economics are things like the supply and demand curve, multiplier, etc. I'm yet to come across a "[insert religion here] makes your economy grow".

Weber is more associated with sociology than economics at the moment - he argues that Protestantism encouraged a materialistic "real world" ethic that encouraged consumerism and the accumulation of capital - which was necessary for the growth of capitalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

 

[Snaykew]

I don't believe devout Christianity would accept capitalism as it involves greed, etc. :/ But perhaps the decline if religion brought about the acceptance of capitalism?

 

[KFunk]

I wrote this in the other religion/politics thread but it got shafted to non-school, so I'll post it here:

The problem I have with questions like "Does christianity affect society in a positive way?" is that they invite people to beg the question in their answers. Basically you either agree with some/all of the collection of christian values or you don't. If you agree with christian values in the first place then all you do is voice your agreement... any argument in favour of religion takes the form of "Religion is important, from a perspective which accepts the values of that given religion". In other words, debates of this kind can't establish the superiority of a given value system because it requires you to beg the question since you argue from the perspective of a moral framework in the first place.

I should also point out that I'm arguing from a position of moral skepticism, whereby I believe that nothing is of objective value. For this reason I think religion is roughly as arbitrary as any other set of values. It is likely that religion, like many other value systems, embodies certain social rules (e.g. reciprocity) which are beneficial for survival (evolution applies to culture/morality as well --> the most successful system comes out on top).

The main worry I have regarding religion is this: Our systems of morality evolved, largely, in smaller societies and it is very possible that our inhereted values do not meet the challenges of improved technology and international society. The danger with religious value systems is that they often claim to possess objective truth, thus making it hard to change them in the instance that certain values cease to be useful.

To reiterate something I wrote in a previous thread: "How does religion deal with the plurality of moral views within a population? Does it simply deny their validity? Also, consider the case that a mutable moral structure may be a beneficial thing in that it could allow us to modify our moral code in cases where certain moral rules lead to unfavourable outcomes - in particular, cases in which we find a clash between two rules."

 

[bassguy]

Separation of church and state is essential to running a country for the actual benefit of humanity. Basing the running of a country on a set of outdated principles that go against the very nature of humanity is hardly a sound method.