Religion and the state, morality and ethics
The seperation of church and state is, I believe, one of the central reasons that western europe does not resemble the middle east at present. The debate regarding a christian Afghani raging at present serves to highlight the differences in mindset involved. Particularly the comment by a prominant Afghani about moving from one extreme to another. The religious toleration required for greater levels of civilisation is far higher than that in this case. Our laws require us to tolerate the verbal and written expression of belief systems which are diametrically opposed to our own, not just those that are slightly divergent. Which is the case in Afghanistan at present. While I'm no expert, I do know that Islam is a variation on Christianity, which is in turn derived directly from Judaism. And the original Muhummad had quite about to say about his followers respecting the other 'People of the Book'. Which suggests to me that a law demanding the death of a Christian is as much a perversion of Islam as the Inquisition was/is a perversion of Christianity.
The way I see it, religions are perfectly legitimate when teaching on morality, which I see as relating to our motivation. Governments, on the other hand, have a legitimate role in defining acceptable actions, that is to say, ethical standards. These realms of activity must remain seperate. This is a lesson learned in Europe after many other options were tried.
When religious violence really got bad in Europe, in the 1500's, one of the first responses was dictatorship. The various peoples gave vast power to the prices of the time, the classic example being France's Louis the Fourteenth. I think the royal complex at Versailles is an even more profound statement of political control than the great wall of China.
But the princes were, by and large, more than willing to use religion or politics as pretexts for more widespread war. Not to mention the domestic perils of being of a different faith than one's current prince.
So we seem to have settled, for now, on various forms of representative systems, with a number of laws in place to limit the power of the state over the individual. We've got problems, sure, but most people have enough freedom from interference by zealots of any variety to get on with their lives.
The way I see it, religions are perfectly legitimate when teaching on morality, which I see as relating to our motivation. Governments, on the other hand, have a legitimate role in defining acceptable actions, that is to say, ethical standards. These realms of activity must remain seperate. This is a lesson learned in Europe after many other options were tried.
When religious violence really got bad in Europe, in the 1500's, one of the first responses was dictatorship. The various peoples gave vast power to the prices of the time, the classic example being France's Louis the Fourteenth. I think the royal complex at Versailles is an even more profound statement of political control than the great wall of China.
But the princes were, by and large, more than willing to use religion or politics as pretexts for more widespread war. Not to mention the domestic perils of being of a different faith than one's current prince.
So we seem to have settled, for now, on various forms of representative systems, with a number of laws in place to limit the power of the state over the individual. We've got problems, sure, but most people have enough freedom from interference by zealots of any variety to get on with their lives.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home