|
|
|
|
|
|
by analog31
27 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.