Are the roots of religion in goverment?

[QED]

Religious doctrine is based around a set of statements that have logical self-consistency but remain untestable. Reports of eye-witness accounts of events taking place a few thousand years ago are no more easily testable than a personal revelation from god reported by an individual.

Any fictitous story can be produced by such a process. This would account for the diversity found in various secular writings - and there are no shortage of these in the world. A very good motive for such works is easy to see: systems can be constructed to provide structure for peoples conduct. Within these structures key areas of human behaviour can be bought under the control of those seeking the control of populations.

The authority of these systems comes ultimately from the innapropriately irrefutable nature of the statements they make about themselves. After all, they are endorsed by nothing less than god!

[ST88]

QED:

It would be helpful to the rest of us if you could connect the dots between the question in the subject line with the text of your intial post. Are yuo trying to ask if government was created to mandate religion in specific ways? Or are you asking if religion is necessary first in order to create government? Or...?

[QED]

QED:

It would be helpful to the rest of us if you could connect the dots between the question in the subject line with the text of your intial post. Are yuo trying to ask if government was created to mandate religion in specific ways? Or are you asking if religion is necessary first in order to create government? Or...?

You will have to excuse my clumsiness. I'm suggesting that the authority gained by association with god provides a powerful way of controlling populations. I see this as the reason for the development of all organsised religions. When it comes to managing society it provides unparalleled efffectiveness due to it's built-in impermeability towards criticism. It's tenets are formulated in an indestructable fashion - they can neither be proved or dismissed. Only ignored.

To avert such ignorance, the classic carrot and stick approach seems to be favoured - the promise of eternal life in heaven or damnation in hell being the weapon of choice for most. And of course as with all the other pivotal tenets, this too is impossible to verify.

No doubt my suggestion will be considered as mere cynicism, however I don't deny the potential for good that such constructs might be able to deliver. I'm simply drawing attention to motives and methods that could explain the phenomenon of organised religion - given that we are considering here systems developed by mankind.

[BeHereNow]

I’m trying to apply your statements to religions as you suggest, but I don’t see it.
I see the possibility, or reasons for your statements with Christianity of course, and other major religions as well.
I'm not sure of the causal link you are seeing.
I see it more as "this is the evolution of religion".
Any social structure will have characteristics. I believe you are assigning motives to the characteristics. A tree provides shade, but it does not intend to. It only intends to be a tree. Religion allows one man to control another man due to “spiritual superiority” and carrot and stick will motivate as well, but this does not mean religion exists to allow this control. Religion exists to be religion. Just like the tree.
This “heaven or damnation in hell” you speak of is totally alien to many religions, especially the primitive spirituality, but many Eastern belief systems as well.
Are you considering all religions?
I believe your system fails before it can stand if it does not apply to all religions.

[ST88]

I'm suggesting that the authority gained by association with god provides a powerful way of controlling populations. I see this as the reason for the development of all organsised religions...
No doubt my suggestion will be considered as mere cynicism, however I don't deny the potential for good that such constructs might be able to deliver.

In some sense I agree with you, but I don't think it was a direct, purposeful attempt to control the population with religion. In my opinion, religion pre-dated the kinds of complex forms of government that would be required to keep the members of a religion in line. In this sense, various early animist religions probably laid the foundations for governance based on behavior towards others. Government only becomes necessary when the members of a community no longer are tied to one another by some kind of direct common good. That is, when people start realizing that selfishness is a requirement for survival in a hostile world, government keeps that selfishness from becoming an end-all and be-all so that it can operate within and strengthen the community. In an extended family of, let's say, thirty individuals, you might see some disaffected members, but they would still be tied by their familiar relations. But in a family of a hundred or more, you would probably find that certain members have no contact with one another for long periods of time, leading to a loss of the feeling that they are all of the same family. A system of religious edicts governs behavior, but that only goes so far when behavior sometimes has nothing to do with a conflict -- think of something like land rights for farmers vs. goatherders. This would only be an issue if the land were already established and the rain gods were already appeased.

Now, I realize that you said organized religions, but I think my point is still valid. That Christianity amounted to a code of behavior did not constitute a government until the government was squeezed into it.

Additionally, I don't think the tendency for religion to be a part of government is a direct result of having forced it there. I think it's more insidious than that. I think religion is in government because it works. Religion controls the population, but it's not that governments seek to use religion to control the population. On the contrary, the most immediate and intuitive way to control a population is through military force. However, religion has a more long-term effect, because it can be invoked to justify just about anything. As soon as governments see how effective this is, they hold on and don't let go. But the original approach is more like buckshot than bullets. You know something is going to hit the target. It's just that the religious ball of lead is almost always the most likely to be the one.

[QED]

Well as you can probably tell, I am unimpressed with the notion that one man may assert his will over another through the authority of any system that has been so constructed as to be unquestionable. It is the complete antithesis of democracy.

I believe you are assigning motives to the characteristics. A tree provides shade, but it does not intend to. It only intends to be a tree.

When I said that "I don't deny the good that such constructs might be able to deliver" I was indeed considering what I would call 'nuetral religion'. But I'm sorry to say that even the tree in your delightful analogy deprives competing plants of essential light through its shade. Trees evolved their characterstics to take advantage of this consequence.

I'm thinking about the way communism colapsed in the former USSR. The doctrine appealed to the population to start with - the carrots and sticks were well devised. However the system was unstusainable because it was ultimately testable. The population could look over the wall and see that they weren't getting their carrots.

All political systems based on testable results are subject to flux - and a good thing too for those so governed. What has always worried me is the appropraition of religion into politics - it bestows the poetential to take its authority to a point beyond question.

[QED]

I ought to add that I suspect the utility of this particular characteristic of all faith-based religions (the resting on untestable propositions) wouldn't go unnoticed amongst the founders - such that an entaglement with government becomes inevitable almost from the inception.

[BeHereNow]

It might be me, but I don’t think you are formulating your concerns clearly.
I’m not sure why this is. I’m sure it is not intentional. I get the feeling you are speaking in generalities, but thinking in specifics. You will have to bare with me as I bare with you.
I believe you are seeing the link between religion and government differently than I do. Religion only governs over me if I choose. There have of course been times and places when the church was the government, but is an anomaly.
I change my religion with only a thought, no action required. To change the government I live under, I must fight my way to another, more agreeable country.
In the case of religion, I can start my own quite easily. Not so with government.

Well as you can probably tell, I am unimpressed with the notion that one man may assert his will over another through the authority of any system that has been so constructed as to be unquestionable. It is the complete antithesis of democracy.

Religion vs government, normally apples and oranges.
The chains of democracy weigh heavy on my shoulders. Our local county commissioners pass laws I do not approve of. My choices in recreational activities are severely restricted but local, state, and national laws. My fellow citizens do many things that displease me. There is much to be said for (and against) a benevolent dictator.
The system is only unquestionable if you choose to accept it. I, personally, question every belief system, especially my own. I may choose to be a “right down the line” Catholic, hanging on every word of the Pope, but I choose not to.
I wish I could walk away from George W. Bush and say he has no effect on me and mine. Unfortunately I do not have that choice. Comparing the Catholic church to USA democracy, it is democracy which chains and abuses me.
Within a land there is only one government, but there are many religions to choose from (exceptions excluded).
As the Gatekeeper and I envision the role of religion, True Religion should allow the free practice of all belief systems (which do no harm, human sacrifices etc).

[QED]

It might be me, but I don’t think you are formulating your concerns clearly.

I never said I was eloquent - just concerned. The lack of clarity probably arises from the fact that I have tried to restrict the length of my posts to avoid putting people off reading them. I'm also put off balance somewhat by the sheer magnitude of the problem I face - to me the emperor is clearly naked, but I appear to be surrounded by multitudes applauding his new outfit. I'll use this reply as an opportunity to add more information.

I suspect that like you, I am not in the least bit bothered by people who put their faith in some arbitrary or fanciful system of belief - until that is, the result of their participation impinges upon me in some direct and undesired way. Take for example your president. He is building a strong following amongst the people that share his faith. Witness his "calling from beyond the stars" nonsense. The potential for harm arising from this mans thinking should not be underestimated. The crusades may turn out to have been just a picnic by comparison.

Granted this is an extreme case, but it is at one end of a complete spectrum of instances where arbitrary religion is bought to bear on real-world issues and does so with no more authority than what amounts to one man having to take anothers word for something. This is the essence of my concern, for it appears to me that the apparently harmless trick of constucting a certain form of story consisting of statements that cannot be falsified, has frequently been used to further mans ambitions for the worse.

I have to confess I often worry that I might be seen to be behaing like a lout if my observations undermine peoples faith. I know and otherwise respect many good people that attend church and so on, but I also see the historical evidence for the massive harm done in the name of entities that are just as likely to be the product of human invention.

[BeHereNow]

I would like to know what your alternative is before I go further.
I sense an urgency in your concerns. I share your concerns but do not see the urgency.
What social structure is it that you envision that does not have the pitfalls of “one man’s opinion”?
Where ever there is a group of people there is leader (one person).
It has always been so, it will always be so.
You seem to see a continuum from the beginning of social structure to the present. If so, this particular leader is no particular leader. Just one, in a long line. Thus, this particular concern is no particular concern.

Leaders will use the beliefs of their followers to their own ends. If the society is decidedly Atheistic, I believe a leader would develop who used the belief system of Atheists to get to the top. That is what leaders do.
There have been really bad leaders who had the full support of the people. What can be done about this?
I can’t tell if the roots of religion are in government, or if the roots of government are in religion. I think the latter.


Is your urgency because you see no solution, or because you see a solution but feel it will be ignored?