He goes on to argue that he believes so much in the separation of church and state because “[he] loves them both too much to see them demeaned,” and at the risk of sounding exactly like Madison, that church would get in the way of good politics and on the other hand, politics would make religion “lose its soul.”
My question is: is it always the case that corrupt leaders lead to abandonment of religion, organized or otherwise? It would seem that I history, the exact opposite has happened. The most undemocratic and politically corrupt countries seem to be the ones that are in many cases, the most devoutly religious. Even when religious leaders “lose their way” the people in these countries seems to cling tighter to religion. We even see these leaders use religion as a way to get the people to do what they want; countless times we have seen terrorist commit atrocities in the name of their gods.
So why is the United States different?
No one is arguing that the U.S. has a completely innocent government or that the church has a completely innocent clergy, however the trend seems to be completely opposite than it is in other countries. Although many different factors play a role (values, economics, culture, etc.), lets pretend for a minute that all other factors are the same in all societies. Would the popularity of religion change strictly based on the actions of political and religious leaders? Would people cling to religion more? And should people continue to cling to and trust institutions that have become synonymous with corruption?
No comments:
Post a Comment