[analog31]

This is indeed the paradox. I call it a paradox because it seems like religions value those things on paper but religious societies counteract them. I'm as puzzled as anybody as to the root cause.

The development of democracy may have been a reaction of religious people towards their own religions.

[graemep]

It depends on what you mean by a religious society. Do you mean theocracies ? Democracies with a religious electorate? Countries with an established religion?

[analog31]

Yes. ;-)

Granted there are only so many countries, so it would be hard to see a clear statistical picture. And it's complicated by the fact that religion may be secondary to democracy as a predictor of well-being. But I don't know of a country right now (or a region in the US) where the influence of religion on governance is a cause for optimism about the future of democracy.

[graemep]

I can think of one quite easily! I am in the UK where the influence of religion on politics is very much positive IMO. For example, we have an established church that often speaks up for the poor, against war, etc. Religion is in the forefront of practical action: it is a disgrace we need good banks, but the religious took the lead in filling that need (I see the same around the world too).

Also, historically we would not have democracy as we know it without the moral framework of religious ideas. I am guessing you are American and the idea of separation of church and state can be traced back to a long line of development that started with "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". Even in the UK, despite the efforts of Henry VIII, state control of the church faded and we are a de facto secular democracy.

Yes, my examples and arguments are all Christian, but different religions have different values and histories so you cannot generalise across all of them and I am sticking to what I know. I also think taking a long term historical view makes it look a lot more positive. Have you read Dominion by Tom Holland?

[analog31]

Indeed, I had forgotten about England. I'll have to think about it, because it was absent from my long list of priors. Here in the US, it's generally assumed that the countries "across the pond" are less religious.

The US is presently ruled by a overtly religious party that rejects church-state separation. Our President sells Bibles and prays in public with his cabinet. His party is supported by a predominantly religious electoral "base." And the influence of this system is not limited to one errant president, but has been systematically pursued for decades.

I hope that their ideas are distortions of true religious doctrine, but I can't prove it, and have no power to challenge them except in the voting booth.

I learned an alternate take on "give unto Caesar" which was that Caesar's money represented the wealth of this world, which is worthless compared to the infinite wealth of the spiritual world. The point was for Christians to remain aloof from earthly problems such as governance, which were expected to be temporary.

I don't doubt that religions promote virtuous ideals. And I don't expect religion to vanish, so if democracy has religious roots, those roots won't suddenly be forgotten.

[graemep]

> Here in the US, it's generally assumed that the countries "across the pond" are less religious.

Historically there were not less religious, and they were mostly very religious during the period when they developed democratic institutions. They are getting less religious and less democratic at the moment.

> The US is presently ruled by a overtly religious party that rejects church-state separation. Our President sells Bibles and prays in public with his cabinet.

His religion is a political posture. What Christian would wish people "Happy Good Friday" as he once tweeted? The strong supporters of the current president are "white evangelical protestant", a very distinctly American group. Others are split.

> I learned an alternate take on "give unto Caesar" which was that Caesar's money represented the wealth of this world, which is worthless compared to the infinite wealth of the spiritual world. The point was for Christians to remain aloof from earthly problems such as governance, which were expected to be temporary.

Interesting. It certainly was making the point that Jesus was not seeking to lead a political revolution or revolt against the Romans. Saying Christians should be entirely aloof from earthly problems entirely seems contradicted by other things though.