How Religion and Democracy Struggle (Also, Philosocom's Directory on Religion)
Updated: Aug 26
(For more on what I wrote on religion, here are some articles: https://www.philosocom.com/post/thoughts-on-prayer
****************************
Most of the world's countries are democracies, which is great, because never before in human history have so many people enjoyed high degrees of civil and political freedom.
Whether your country is more capitalistic or more socialist in its politics, it does not really matter as you get many freedoms, such as the freedom of expression, the freedom to vote, and so on; freedoms that would have been considered privileges in earlier times of human history.
However, when religion is introduced into official rules, there is a competition with democracy. Should the laws of said religion threaten the freedoms introduced by democracy.
That is when people need to decide between preserving religious tradition and liberty in each and every public issue where the two are at odds.
One might philosophize, "Why do we even need a public religion to force us to do or avoid things regardless of our consent?"
Why is it important for a state religion to force me not to use public transportation on Saturday and Friday nights? Why aren't people allowed to use private transportation during Yom Kippur?
Why can't we buy whatever we want, despite pork, during Passover? And finally, why can't we marry legally without having said marriage be religious?
I believe that religion is something that can be practiced even without being the mark of the state. In other words, you don't need the state to have your religion as hers in order for you to perform the rituals, the holidays, the traditions, and the prayers required in your own religion.
I don't see why I, as an irreligious man, can't use public transportation on the weekend, just because you have a religion you can already practice by yourself or among your followers.
However, due to the problems between religion and democracy, there is, possibly, no perfect solution to create full harmony between these two values.
If you cancel your official religion, it will upset the population of that religion, and if you cancel democracy, the state will become a theocratic dictatorship without the ability to vote for a party or regent.
Therefore, in one way or another, they would always have to collide with one another, and be balanced by the ruling party, in order to try and satisfy as many people as possible and allow that party to be voted for possibly once more.
After all, in rulership, you cannot please everyone, and that is the same when it comes to said concepts.
Either way, the state may fail to understand that it alienates some of its population, by forcing on them the same limitations that religious people place on themselves anyway.
So, the question is, if the religious are disciplined enough to follow their own path religiously (no pun intended), then why should that path be imposed on the rest of the population?
They clash for a specific reason: democracy permits, while religion limits. When freedom is allowed while a specific religion prohibits it, the authorities need to decide: which value do we prefer most?
Should we prevent public transportation on certain days, just because many people might be angry with us because of it, even though many people, like me, depend on it?
Thus, when freedom is preferred over religion, they understand the value of a democratic country. Like neighbours who cannot force one another to move, these two values need to just get along with one another.
There is, you see, no hope in sight, no absolute resolution, other than choosing one and cancelling the other.
.jpg)
Comments