Democracy v. Religion
 

I'm just trying to understand how a democracy can be based on christian ideals. Keep in mind that i use the term christianity in a general sense, not a specific all encompassing "i understand everything about all of christianity" sense. Maybe this should be in philosophy. Probably.

In a democracy, the citizens vote for representatives who they feel most closely represent their political goals. Or they vote against the candidate whose view most contradicts their own. This is possible because a fundamental implication of democracy is that there is more than one way to skin an eagle. A diversity of ideas is a good thing and homogeneity results in stagnation.

Christianity is the exact opposite of democracy in many crucial ways. First and foremost is the fact that in all christianity the ruler is not elected. The people's opinion doesn't matter. God is king(or queen). This coupled with the fact that fundamentalist christianity paints god as somewhat of a sadist makes christianity more akin to a despotism than a democracy.

Another difference is in the decision making process. In much of christianity there is no decision making process. There is god's divine will and there is heresy. (sounds parallel to the idea that one is either a patriot or a terrorist) In majority christianity there is one true way, one way to think, one way to look at the world, one way to be righteous, and an infinite number of ways to go to hell. In a democracy, if the people decide that a law is unecessary or detrimental it is within their power to change it. In christianity they are forced to abide or go to hell.

I don't understand where america's rich judeo christian traditions fit in. It seems to me that much of what america is flies in the face of what christianity is.

Another thing that puzzles me is the idea put forth in the pledge of allegiance that america is a nation under god. Does that not make us a theocracy? What is the point of a democracy when everything your country does is implicitly divine in origin? If we were truly a nation under god could we not be as succesful under communism or monarchy? It seems like the form of government is irrelevant if god is pulling all the strings anyway.

HUH?

Re: Democracy v. Religion
 

Doesn't that argument put all religions contra democracy? There is hardly any voting arranged (and not even possible) to elect the next four year omnipotent, supernatural being(s). :).

Or did I understand you somehow wrong?

Nice point.

Catholics have the Pope however, which is about as close as any form of religion can get to a King or Queen.

Or what about the Dali Llama (sorry for the spelling)?

i'm no religious expert but i *think* buddism allows for multiple paths to enlightenment which does give the follower more a a vote in the decision making process :).

What's the point of the question? One nation under God, makes no mention of who's God. It seems to be a referrence to the natural good in all people.

I should not be barred from doing any job or serving any master because of my beliefs. The thought that religion and politics are tied together because of words in the pledge, or for that matter, the words of the founders, assumes one cannot leave his personal opinions at hame and do the job he is sent to do.

We all go to work and few if any impose our personal will on others. We do the best jod we can and then go home.

A representative government works (or should) the same way.

Well, at least buddhism (and most other similar belief systems) doesn't have a despotic deity to boss you around... of course one could always blame the "world spirit" or whatever for being undemocratic...

Actually, so does Catholicism technically. I wish some of the more conservative Catholic Bishops would get this through their thick skulls though and read the documents of the Church from the 60's. All in due time I guess.

These two forms of human organization have co-existed since the first so-called "democracies" of the Greeks. "Pure" democracies are not quite practical. Representative republics are more common examples of democratic-type governments. In any event, one doesn't necessarily preclude the other in human practice. In theory, anything can be posited, I suppose.

The question of how much religion can be mixed in with a "democracy" or how much religious influence a democratic government can manage and still be "acceptable" may be more relevant. The sticky part is that if the overwhelming majority of the constituents of a government are religious - well then it's going to permeate public life.

Humans do seem to be, for the most part, religious beings. I don't see that changing. Personally, I don't need religion.
But religion is a political reality just about everywhere.

um.. first if athenian democracy was "impractical" how did it manage to survive from some 500 years?

second, carl schmitt, the german hack constitutional theorist, argued that all democracy was impractical because it tended toward abstract debate, while conservatism tended to be grounded in the concrete--which is itself hilarious thinking about how the term gets deployed in the states today--but conservatives could not do much either, according to schmitt--what mattered was that in a situation of crisis a state of emergency would emerge and a single Leader would come to power and for schmitt this was a good thing, the dictator, because he was efficient--he could take Decisions without all the messiness of debate. that is why the fascists liked his theory so much.

third, there is a relation between the kind of religion and the form of political order--the romans, for example, understood this full well during the council of nicea, after constantine converted, during which they excised many gnostic gospels, not so much on "authenticity" grounds (otherwise all would have been excised) but on theological grounds--the more neoplatonic gospels stage a vision of the universe as hierarchical, which maps quite well onto the bureaucratic state--the state is legitimate because its form doubles that of the cosmos, for example.

as for christianity, i suppose it depends upon which elements you choose to emphasize: those from the gospels about teh dignity of the poor and value of all human beings are not so bad--others are quite foul---personally, i am sympathetic to the former elements--the idea, however, that what happens in this world is not of as much consequence as what happens in the next is a recipe for passivity--so i dunno. it is certainly not optimal for a political regime that would actually give people power. i dont have an alternative in mind---i am probably closest to the old nominalists--if there is an infinite god, then human understanding has no access to it--so the words (like god) are just words knit into systems of social control. if that is accepted, then it follows that nietzsche was probably right......

Erm...well it's rather impractical if you think about the current population - I think that the point was that it is impractical nowadays. Probably wasn't so in the ancient Greece. Or maybe if you shattered all nations into anarchist collectives...:)

Although it is somewhat debatable if it even was a "true" democracy as only free adult males were eligible to vote.

oktjabr--i know about this line of thinking---its not wrong--however check out some of the writing by cornelius castoriadis on the question--interesting stuff--i could post citations if you like.

Hmm. He sounds interesting and I must confess that I haven't heard about him before. I have no objections if you do post some citations.

I maybe should mention the repeated association that is made between the history of america and judeo christian values.

Buddhism, while possibly allowing multiple approaches, isn't really theistic. It's been a while since i was into it, but i remember having the impression that it lacked a central diety who controlled all.

Since it appears i was too convoluted in my original post let me rephrase: How can america, a democracy, be founded on christian values(as some have proclaimed) when christianity is structured in such a way(absolute truth, one righteous way, one right perspective) as to be everything that democracy is not. Christianity is fundamentally anti-democratic.

I'm focusing only on christianity because that is the amercian majority. Certainly, that same could be said for any number of other religions.

Because America's fore fathers came from a place founded on religion, saw how unfair it was, and decided they shouldn't follow in those footsteps?

I think that the secular and supernatural order should be seen very separate - the bible tells to respect god, but doesn't dictate how to govern on earth, in secular matters. And of judeochristian values, the message of christianity is to respect each other and be friends with your enemies (to simplify a bit) and I don't think that that is so much against the principles of democracy. While relation between god - man could be master - subject, nothing in christianity says that a relation between mortal men should be similar.

And considering the fact that the christian belief in USA has splintered into thousands of different sects (as protestantism lacked the main authority, like the Pope was for catholicism), I wouldn't even call christianity so homogenous that one can talk about "one way, one truth etc." unless you simplify it to few dogmas. I think that a difference between christian fundamentalist zealots and liberal almost-secularized christians is very large and important.

Yeah, i see what you're saying oktjabr and i agree with you. I think the problem mainly is that i didn't think about it enough before i started this thread. Cookies and apologies for all!!!

Filth, I think the idea behind the whole "America was founded on Judeo-Christian values" is more philosophical then anything else. I know you know a lot about the history of our law, I would say that said Judeo-Christian influence is more fundamental and underlying then direct. As I have pointed out in past threads, documents such as the DOI is the perfect embodiment of that. Hope that is something useful.

I always suspect sarcasm when someone agrees with me. :D

Jokes aside, I think that the point you raised isn't all that bad. But I'd point my guns toward organized forms of christianity.

Just a sidenote (so that noone makes wrong conclusions) I'm in no way a christian.

On a second sidenote, somehow this reminds me of one thread I saw on some forum - "Was Jesus a socialist?" :)

You are interpreting religion as dogma instead of values. Christian values such as the Golden Rule are perfectly compatible with Democracy. Each recognizes the individual as having rights.

It's also important to acknowledge that Judeo-Christian values made an important contribution to the development of Western Democracies. If one traces the reformation of Christianity, which separated Church and State more firmly than in the past, one can see how the Enlightenment was able to take root. The Englightment was the philosophical impetus for our system of government.

IMO, we would be better off as a society getting back to our founding values instead of trying to eliminate them from history books.

The worrisome thing for me is that many Christians assume that Christianity holds an exclusive patent on what they call "Christian values" and then follow from that faulty assumption to a baseless presumption of moral superiority over non-Christians. Truth be told, all of the great truths that culminate in Man's current sense of morality stem from the insights of a very few thoughtful individuals from diverse cultures throughout history. Indeed, the Golden Rule itself has its parallel in most other belief systems. I'd even hazard to say that "do unto others" is a no-brainer to most people of a philosophical bent, whether religious or not. Thus, to say that one doesn't hold "correct" values because one's religious background (or lack thereof) differs from our own is untenable.

It follows then that no religious group can rightly claim that their religion is solely responsible for the moral climate of a secular society.

Nice to see you here, SM!

I agree that Christianity should not be the state religion - the separation of church and state is critical to prevent an authoritarian theocracy. I do think it is possible to focus on the enduring values separate from dogma. When we do that, it is far easier to see the parallel universal truths in other religions.

You too, Wenchie!

I'd go a step further and say that capitalism shouldn't be our de facto state religion either, but I fear I'd be here for years explaining that one. :lol:

Christians are like everyone else in that the "squeeky wheel gets the grease".

We need a different thread to debate that one. All I'll say on the topic is that Capitalism is the only economic system consistent with Individual Liberty and Responsibility.

I don't see that having just enough, as opposed to the capitalist's drive to acquire more than enough, would undermine either individual liberty or personal responsibility. It certainly didn't thwart the citizen's pursuit of either of those things back when the US was an agrarian society and people lived more or less hand-to-mouth. But you're right, that topic is best left for another thread.