Less Religion Means More Government

Discussion
1

With all due respect to our atheist colleagues...some thoughtful commentary on the role of religion in keeping government small.

Mike

http://www.acton.org/commentary/550_less_religion_means_more_government.php

Less Religion Means More Government

by Anthony B. Bradley Ph.D. <http://www.acton.org/about/staff/people109.php>

Soviet communism adopted Karl Marx's teaching that religion was the "opiate of the masses" and launched a campaign of bloody religious persecution. Marx was misguided about the role of religion but years later many communists became aware that turning people away from religious life increases dependence on government to address life's problems. The history of government coercion that comes from turning from religion to government makes a new study suggesting a national decline in religious life particularly alarming to those concerned about individual freedom.

The American Religious Identification Survey, published by Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., reports that we should expect one in five Americans to identify themselves as having no religious commitments by 2030. The study, titled "American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population,"<http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/> reports that Americans professing no religion, or Nones, have become more mainstream and similar to the general public in marital status, education, racial and ethnic makeup and income. The Nones have increased from 8.1 percent of the U.S. adult population in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008.

According to the study, 22 percent of American 18 to 29-year-olds now self-identify as Nones. For those promoting dependency on government to handle the challenges of everyday life, as well as those who wish to take advantage of a growing market for morally bankrupt products and services, the news of declining religious life is welcome.

The increase in non-religious identification among younger generations highlights a continued shift away from active participation in one of the key social institutions that shaped this country. It may , then, that according to the research firm *also come as no surprise Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, voters under 30 are more liberal than all other generations. When asked about their ideology, 27 percent of those under 30 identify themselves as liberal, compared to 19 percent of baby boomers, and 17 percent of seniors. Pragmatic utilitarianism, favorable views toward a larger role for government in helping the disadvantaged, and a lack of ethical norms characterize this young segment America's population.

The most significant difference between the religious and non-religious populations is gender. Whereas 19 percent of American men are Nones only 12 percent of American women are. The gender ratio among Nones is 60 males for every 40 females.

The marketplace and society in general will both reap the consequences of high numbers of male Nones. If more and more men are abandoning the religious communities that have provided solid moral formation for thousands of years, we should not be surprised by an increase in the explosion of demand for morally reprehensible products as well as the family breakdown that follows closely behind. With consciences formed by utility, pragmatism, and sensuality, instead of virtue, we should expect to find a culture with even more women subjected to the dehumanization of strip clubs, more misogynistic rap music, more adultery and divorce, more broken sexuality, more fatherlessness, more corruption in government and business, more individualism, and more loneliness.

Alexis de Tocqueville cautioned in his 1835 reflections on Democracy in America, that the pursuit of liberty without religion hurts society because it "tends to isolate [people] from one another, to concentrate every man's attention upon himself; and it lays open the soul to an inordinate love of material gratification." In fact, Tocqueville says, "the main business of religions is to purify, control, and restrain that excessive and exclusive taste for well-being which men acquire in times of equality." Religion makes us other-regarding.

Historically, religious communities in the United States addressed the needs of local communities in way that were clearly outside the scope of government. For example, as David G. Dalin writes in "The Jewish War on Poverty," between the 1820s and the Civil War, Jews laid the foundation for many charitable institutions outside the synagogue including a network of orphanages, fraternal lodges, hospitals, retirement homes, settlement houses, free-loan associations, and vocational training schools. These were also normative activities for both Protestant and Catholic religious communities on even a larger scale in communities all over America before Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

The reported decline in religious life is an omen that virtue-driven local charity will decline, the passion to pursue the good will wane, and Americans will look to government to guide, protect, and provide. As we turn our lives over to government control, our capacity for independent thought and action are compromised. The real "opiate of the masses," it would seem, is not religion but the lack of it.

2

Presuming to qualify as one of those "colleagues" , I read the article but remained unconvinced.

Bradley does not support his title thesis in any way. He contends that modern liberals are less religious and also expect government to do more "for the disadvantaged." But even if directly connected, those facts don't prove government growth. Since those irreligious, and supposedly self-centered, liberals will not expect government to lock up sinners or "liberate" Communist and Moslem countries, their government, as a whole, should actually shrink. Yet Bradley did not prove any connection between religiousness and government services. In my opinion, the only connection is the common failing of religion. Liberals do not see their churches helping people any more. So liberals give up on religion and expect government to do the job.

Bradley cites statistics showing far more religious belief among women than men. This data, alone, shows a failure of the churches. While men preach to other men in the public temples, the household deities pass from mother to daughter at home.

Religion in the US has become increasingly conservative and cruel. Preachers publicly pray for the death of liberal politicians. Pastor Steven Anderson asked God to make President Obama "melt like a snail." Ministers chanting "family values" support invasions and torture. At best, they preach against birth control, and then pontificate about abortions. Bradley calls the young people "morally bankrupt" but who deserves the label? Liberals did not leave the churches; the churches abandoned the liberals.

Harland Harrison
LP of San Mateo County CA

3

Can’t much argue with you Harland….thanks for your comments. However, for whatever reasons, the decline in true faith (as opposed to Pat Robertson’s brand of political religion) and the growth of the state clearly reflect the sentiment of the article.

Mike

(Attachment image001.jpg is missing)

(Attachment image002.jpg is missing)

4

Mike,

  It may not surprise you that I disagree with Anthony Bradley's conclusions. For Marxists or others not claiming any kind of religious mandate or affiliation, religious attitudes may indeed be detrimental to their ability to compel total obedience, in situations where totalitarian rule along non-religious lines is attempted. But it seems to me that the attitudes of submission encouraged by most conventional religions are more generally useful to those who would exercise power through government ("render unto Caeser what is Caeser's, and unto God what is God's"). Is not the idea of a Lord who has the right to compel us from heaven, another form of authoritarian thinking that undermines self-government?

  So long as people believe in the validity of such a god's commandments to humans, it seems likely that there will be those among humans who feel the need to enforce those commandments on earth through laws. Is it a coincidence that the rise of the scientific-minded Age of Enlightenment, or Age of Reason, is so closely associated with the period of revolutions that led to greater freedom and democracy in the Western world (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Of_Enlightenment)? With the decline of traditional religious authority came a corresponding weakening of earthly authoritarian bonds.

  If the article's thesis about less religion meaning more government were true, and if the study it cites is correct in finding that those in the United States who describe themselves as having no religious commitments include more men than women, then one would expect to find more libertarian attitudes among churchgoers than among non-churchgoers, and more libertarian attitudes among women than men. But other evidence suggests that if anything, precisely the opposite is true in both cases. The Advocates for Self Government found that 18% of non-church goers have libertarian views, while only 15% of those who attend church four or more times per month have libertarian views, and that 18% of women have libertarian views as compared with only 16% of the population as a whole (see http://www.theadvocates.org/library/poll-results.html). And my own observations of the libertarian movement suggest that males and atheists/agnostics are over-represented in our ranks compared with the U.S. public in general.

  The most religiously fundamentalist region of the world -- the Middle East -- is also the least democratic region, while the region that is perhaps the least religious -- Europe -- is perhaps the most strongly democratic, and countries in this region measure relatively high levels of personal and economic freedom, comprising 20 of the 30 freest countries in the world according to the most libertarian-oriented international freedom index I'm aware of (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_World_Liberty_Index, http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html). None of this is surprising to me -- it seems intuitive that those more willing to accept rulers in heaven will be more likely to accept them on earth as well.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

5

The time when the government had the most control over people's lives (and it exercised that control with terrible brutality) and the greatest share of the economic wealth of nations was when the government was one with the church. The history of freedom in the West is synonymous with the separation of church and state.

6

Whoops, meant to write in the third paragraph that "that 18% of women have *authoritarian* [not libertarian] views as compared with only 16%
of the population as a whole."

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

7

Agreed....the mixing of church and state is a disaster.

8

Thanks Starchild...as usual a lot of good comments. Personally, as a Catholic rebel, the real meaning of the church seems to have been perverted by the influence of secular politics....much like Jesus felt about the Roman occupation. So while you might be right about the reality of some aspects of religion, those realities may not necessarily reflect the better aspects of the religion. Religion is, afterall, a man-made thing. And as such is rooted in inperfection. So it is easy to find fault.

But look at the community service of the churches prior to the New Deal. This is a lot like what is happening with the churches in Brazil right now. The Catholic church is losing its credibility as it has become largely political and socialistic...depending on government solutions. The people of Brazil already know this doesn't work. So they are leaving the Catholic church in droves and joining Evangelical churches that have their own hospitals, old age homes, etc.... They work hard at these places because they know they will be there some day. And that's the way it should be.

This spirit of long-tem cooperation has disappeared from our culture. It would be good to see organizations bring it back. And if they aren't religious institutions, at least they have the history of these religious institutions to learn from.

Mike

9

My best friend, Mike G, married an evangelica Indonesian, and regularly went to Church for the last few years, even though he is an ardent Atheist. He even named his kid Charlie Darwin.

He suspects that people go to his Church primarily for the social support and interaction.

His Church is basically a free market mutual insurance company, or a voluntary socialist society, depending on what you want to call it.

10

Thanks to Mike Denny for starting this wonderful discussion of religion and government.

To understand the issue, it helps to consider a few facts about religion on which scholars, but perhaps not preachers, generally agree.

First, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam represent different branches of the same religion. As monotheists, they believe in one god and most certainly have a common origin. All three have a long history of destroying other beliefs and believers, even each other, and have often used the power of government to do so.

Polytheism, (belief in many gods), occurs naturally all over the world. People naturally share spiritual beliefs and combine different ideas in syncretism. According to Mircea Eliade, agriculture always brings a host of different fertility gods to a primitive society which usually has some concept of a supreme creator god, too. However, that "supreme" god gets little attention during good times. But during war or flood or famine, the people turn to monotheism in desperation, pleading with their ancient creator god to help them.

God is often a woman, such as Mother Earth, Artemis, and Isis, especially in peaceful, farming, societies. Warrior societies develop male heroes and male gods. A society at war has less use for woman, and war-intensive cultures may even kill females at birth. Like all warriors, these male gods try to take over. Ancient myths tell of the conquest of the mother god or her temple by a male deity. Yet, syncretism leads modern religions, in general, to combine a mixture of gods and goddesses, whether the priests admit this or not.

Considering these facts explains the dreadful history of the Western state in religion. The state takes on the terrible task of persecuting the minorities. It stamps out polytheism and "female" religions. At the same time, it promotes wars and enmity against foreign beliefs. The resulting fear and catastrophes, in turn, promote more monotheism and ever more militarism.

George W. Bush spoke the truth, however accidentally, saying "This [war on terror] will be a long Crusade." A religious war against Islam is exactly what his faction intended. And that war has always depended on the untrue belief that the Moslems do not worship the same god of Abraham as Jews and Christians.

The current divisions in US churches follow the same lines. Some Christians seek purity and point out their enemies, while others offer forgiveness and charity, and expand their acceptance of friends. Their expectations of government follow their philosophies. Government can help purify the people, punishing gays and fornicators, idolaters and foreigners. Or government can help in the charitable endeavor, and outlaw divisive words, and even bad thoughts, about minorities. Neither course has helped our society, of course. In fact, the willingness of government to cooperate actually promotes the division.

To locate the "Acton Institute" on the political spectrum, read their religious principles shown on their web site. For example:

"Sin: Although human beings in their created nature are good, in their current state, they are fallen and corrupted by sin. The reality of sin makes the state necessary to restrain evil. The ubiquity of sin, however, requires that the state be limited in its power and jurisdiction. The persistent reality of sin requires that we be skeptical of all utopian "solutions" to social ills such as poverty and injustice."

http://www.acton.org/about/principles.php

The "Acton Institute" may support a free market in most goods, but they will probably seek to suppress everything "sinful" or associated with civll liberties. Their philosophy is conservative, and anti-liberal, but that does not make them libertarian.

Harland Harrison
LP of San Mateo County CA

11

Dear Harland….thank you for your thoughtful reply. And I agree, the Acton Institute is not libertarian although I do my best to “represent” when in dialogue with them.

Mike

12

Thank you Mike, for your gracious response. On the practical matter of church-based community service and "long-term cooperation" that has been largely supplanted by government in this country, we're certainly in agreement. Whether civil society groups have a religious character or not, I'm sure they can learn from past experiences of church-based efforts in this area.

  I have to wonder how much people in Brazil really realize that the government approach doesn't work however, considering that since 2002 voters there have elected and reelected a president who openly identifies as socialist (though apparently in practice his economic moves haven't been as bad as that identification might lead one to assume -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brazil_since_1985).

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

13

Starchild....you are correctly identifying the political masses...but not the whole mass. It doesn't take a big percent to win a majority rule election. The rest are on their own with those who don't feel they are...but are.