Religion in politics

[Ratmagiclady]

Actually, Monochrome, just on this:

"Pre-social humanoids were fearful, suspicious of each other and as likely to attack each other as to interact peacefully. They grouped together, finding safety in numbers. Everything is society is about group identity - a social "safety in numbers" expression."

Actually, this leads to ideas that humans are individuals first, to say that we're social animals cause someone made an emotional decision out of fear to 'group together.'

We *evolved* as a social species *before* we had speech or abstract thought. Otherwise we wouldn't have had the 'equipment' to become so...sophisticated about it.

It's one place where religious mass-manipulations become problematic in politics: they often stress the conformity of individuals to the idea there is or should be a unitary model for all individuals... Blinds us to our "pack" instincts, and then manipulates them. There are parts of our brains that simply can't tell the *difference* between self and other, and when ideology goes to conformity, those parts will get behind some seriously-blind and destructive mob mentalities.

Our secular system is intended to allow such creatures as ourselves to live together in an organized fashion. Our diversity is a strength, not a weakness or a thing to fear. An advantage of being social creatures is in fact that we *can* diversify and specialize. When we too much enshrine the idea of the individual (then subordinate that individual to a singular authority figure) we end up throwing poop around and missing out on what we can really do to make life better. What, to our instincts *is* the definition of living better.

And this is often where 'religion' and politics end up having problems.

There's the old adage: When you mix religion and politics, you get politics.

The separation of church and state protects *religions,* too, most particularly religions which are arranged like rival governments, themselves.

[smc]

Originally Posted by lithos

I meant where a certain belief is enforceable by law, and lack of adherence punishable.

But I thought Canada was the land of dope-smoking, bible-burning, Marx-reading pinkoes, anyway ?

Sometimes I wonder too.....especially here on the west coast

Originally Posted by monochrome

Perhaps I wasn't clear - I'm trying to assert that Religion, Mores and Politics (Law) must ALWAYS remain separate - like the three legs of the stool - to keep society balanced.

Sorry, I had misunderstood...... I like the analogy.

There is nothing better than politics or religion to bring out people's opinions....especially when mixing the two....

BC is very multicultural but it does tend to be segmented. Cities like Richmond have an Asian flavour, and Cantonese is written and spoken everywhere. Drive half an hour and you start to come across huge elaborate Sikh temples...a little further and there are Muslim Mosques. There are lots of different cultures and viewpoints here which I think adds to the vibrancy and warmth of where we live.

It also makes it possible to have people with very different viewpoints live together, and some of the viewpoints are not necessarily compatible. From mobs of people fighting over whether chairs should be banned (I'm not kidding) to children bringing ceremonial daggers to school, there is a constant struggle protecting individual religious freedom vs common law. It's quite possible, at least at the municipal level, to have someone voted into power based on religious ideology. I think this is why at the provincial/federal level, religion in politics is taboo.

[Ratmagiclady]

BC has always seemed like my kind of place on a lot of levels, SMC.

I think there's much talk *that comes from* religion and politics, here in America and elsewhere, and not really enough actually *about* religion and politics, (Also, be careful, Monochrome, of accepting *certain religions' definitions* of what "Religion" is: ...even a lot of Atheists fall into this trap: ironically enough, the case has often been made that my faith-group doesn't constitute a 'real religion' precisely *because* we tend to eschew government-like structures.)

It makes me think of a discussion I once had with a 'God 'back' in Government' type many years ago, ....he was trying to make the general case we should all convert, of course, but in the course of it, he brought up an unusual question: he asked, "What if the majority of society were Pagan. What would criminal justice look like? (I think it was actually phrased as 'How would criminals be punished, on his own assumption that 'punishment' per se teaches anything but "You may want to avoid punishment. Sometimes this will mean doing the right thing, sometimes it'll mean doing the wrong thing more carefully." )

It was a good thought, though. I ended up saying, "Well, since people went out of their way to destroy what of our heritage that they didn't adopt, themselves, ....it's actually a pretty good thing about my religious viewpoint, one I like very much: Someone stole the most of our baggage. As it is, we're well adapted to a modern, pluralistic, secularly-based free and by intention and structure, equal society We like it. "

And I went on to speculate that likely criminal justice *would* be more based on recompense than punishment: lacking existential beliefs that 'punishment' is the *point,* (Incarceration may be a more humane way to go about acting on that belief, but it's clearly not astoundingly-efficient or necessarily productive, the way the prison population keeps growing,) ...we might take a cue from our more tribal ancestors and make the perpetrator work to balance the scales, rather than necessarily just say, 'Take comfort in the one who did this hurting for it.' Our ancestors didn't have the luxury to waste people so.

The 'punitive' model of how to go about maintaining society, (Don't go thinking anyone's so naive as to think locking people up is never called for: this isn't about 'all or nothing' or absolutisms,) ...has its drawbacks and downfalls. The very mode of thinking doesn't stop, either, at the relatively-clear cut case of crimes. It affects too many people's ideas of 'What I should permit, what I should approve of... If I admit you, sinner, are an equal citizen, you're oppressing my religious belief in what a 'higher authority' wants, even if you're doing no demonstrable harm, I'll claim to be 'under attack,'

...And then the fear comes in. Then the mob mentality comes in. Then... We aren't thinking. Aren't being wise. Aren't paying the price of freedom, but in fact just struggling over taking a vote on what *brand of *giving it up** can call itself legitimized.

And that helps neither religions nor our nation.

[Wheatfield]

Originally Posted by Ratmagiclady

"What if the majority of society were Pagan. What would criminal justice look like
?

It would probably look a lot like the Native American (Indian) justice system, which is based on healing and understanding.
The punishment based system that we use draws it's roots from old Christianity and the eye for an eye theory.
We aren't all that far from burning people at the stake, and in the case of the USA, state sanctioned murder is still fairly normal.

[graphicgr8s]

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

It would probably look a lot like the Native American (Indian) justice system, which is based on healing and understanding.
The punishment based system that we use draws it's roots from old Christianity and the eye for an eye theory.
We aren't all that far from burning people at the stake, and in the case of the USA, state sanctioned murder is still fairly normal.

Yeah the Indians never killed. Actually they had a good justice system. You take my stuff. I take your life. No trial, no reports to file.

[smc]

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

Yeah the Indians never killed. Actually they had a good justice system. You took my stuff. I take your life. No trial, no reports to file.

I can't speak for other areas of North America, but there is a fairly effective Native justice system here. Serious crime is elevated to the Crown (Canadian legal system) but many offenses are the responsibility of the native band. There is a fairly strict procedure of addressing infractions through the band and the system focuses on redress. I don't know that much about it but it is based on having the perpetrator address the issue and follow up on assisting victims etc. From what I understand it is extremely effective.

[Wheatfield]

Originally Posted by smc

I can't speak for other areas of North America, but there is a fairly effective Native justice system here. Serious crime is elevated to the Crown (Canadian legal system) but many offenses are the responsibility of the native band. There is a fairly strict procedure of addressing infractions through the band and the system focuses on redress. I don't know that much about it but it is based on having the perpetrator address the issue and follow up on assisting victims etc. From what I understand it is extremely effective.

Yes, I was thinking of the Canadian native justice system, not the cowboys and Indians system that Graphicgr8s mentioned.
Perhaps the natives have evolved faster than the Europeans in this regard.

[graphicgr8s]

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

Yes, I was thinking of the Canadian native justice system, not the cowboys and Indians system that Graphicgr8s mentioned.
Perhaps the natives have evolved faster than the Europeans in this regard.

But how was the Canadian native system before the arrival of the paleface? Probably not much different than what the "American Indian" had. After all they really didn't know they were in Canada after all. They didn't know they were in the US either.

[Das Boot]

So I guess under the native system, a chronic child molester would be forgiven and then asked to babysit for free as a way to work them back into society.

[smc]

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

But how was the Canadian native system before the arrival of the paleface? Probably not much different than what the "American Indian" had. After all they really didn't know they were in Canada after all. They didn't know they were in the US either.

It is the system used today is from before there was a European on North American soil. It is basically based on family accountability.

Originally Posted by Das Boot

So I guess under the native system, a chronic child molester would be forgiven and then asked to babysit for free as a way to work them back into society.

I don't know how that would have been treated as today an offense like that is elevated to the Crown.

[smc]

Boy...did this ever get off topic.....

[Wheatfield]

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

But how was the Canadian native system before the arrival of the paleface? Probably not much different than what the "American Indian" had. After all they really didn't know they were in Canada after all. They didn't know they were in the US either.

Doesn't matter does it? The fact is, their justice system is no longer a purely punishment based system. The "white man's" system still is, and has been since they stoned people 2 millennia ago.
That's what evolution is, BTW, exept that the mainstream justice system is still based on a rather mean spirited Christian model (to try to bring this back into the same stadium as the topic) that was set up by primarily Christian lawmakers.

There, made it, religion and politics.

[monochrome]

Originally Posted by Ratmagiclady

Actually, Monochrome, just on this:

"Pre-social humanoids were fearful, suspicious of each other and as likely to attack each other as to interact peacefully. They grouped together, finding safety in numbers. Everything is society is about group identity - a social "safety in numbers" expression."

Actually, this leads to ideas that humans are individuals first, to say that we're social animals cause someone made an emotional decision out of fear to 'group together.'

We *evolved* as a social species *before* we had speech or abstract thought. Otherwise we wouldn't have had the 'equipment' to become so...sophisticated about it. . . .

Unclear on my anthropology - never actually read much of that - I concede the point.

Where I was going is the same place you are going. Religion has its place, but ought not to be conjoinied with the Leagl/Political systems of government; and while a dominant religious tradition might inform social mores, there should also be a tolerant acceptance of (within respectable boundaries) different behavior and beliefs held by individuals, so long as those individuals do not impinge on the comfortable rights of the majority.


Finding that careful balance is the proper matter of a lifetime of mature thought and interaction.

If life is a form of game, perhaps religion is the spirit of play, mores the rules of play and law/politics the referee.

[Blue]

There are more than one Native American system in place in the U.S. There are even 2 official Seminole groups. There is even 2 languages, Creek and Miccosukee. Cherokee, Seminole, Potawatamie, Black Foot and Apache culture are quite different as an example.

The term, pagan is a catch all group for hundreds (probably thousands) of religions including every thing from Wicca to Zeus.

[graphicgr8s]

You can try to separate religion and politics all you want but our system was put in place by Christians and the original laws were biblicaly based. And it's worked for over 200 years. And since they've tried to remove it look at the mess it's gotten us into.