American civil religion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
As opposed to "political religion" (associated with more "religiously" driven movements and leaders such as the Nazis), another Sociologist developed the term "civil religion" to describe America's cultural ethic and philosophy.
If we were to sum up American culture, and beliefs in liberty, free choice, govt by the people, etc. in terms of a 'civil religion' wouldn't the two major parties be the equivalent of major denominations of this belief system?
So the conservative Constitutionalists believe that rights and naturals laws come from God, not govt.
The role of the Constitution is to LIMIT govt from being abused to oppress the natural rights of the people.
While the liberal Democrats believe in establishing political rights and common good THROUGH Govt
to protect from abuses of freedom by people, corporations, or whatever Govt should be used to police.
Allen West summarized the history of the two branches or schools of political thought
as
* Classic Liberalism following the approach by John Locke (limited govt, maximum liberty of the people)
* Radical Liberalism following Rousseau (using govt to establish the will of the people)
If these two branches, which have become today's conservatives and liberals,
are treated as political beliefs or religions, shouldn't both of them be separated from govt,
and not allowed to abuse govt and the democratic process to impose their philosophies, biases and beliefs
on citizens of dissenting beliefs.
Shouldn't matters of law that involve BELIEFS be decided by individuals or by consensus that protects and includes all interests and views EQUALLY.
If govt institutions, legal or legislative processes, including laws and rulings
are used to establish a bias, either impose deny or favor one view over another,
isn't that in violation of the First Amendment establishment clause and/or Fourteenth Amendment
equal protection of the laws (and/or Civil Rights concept against discrimination by Creed).
How can we justify imposing conflicting BELIEFS, just because these are written in secular terms?
Why can't an agreement or system be set up, by which if policies involve conflicting beliefs,
then the parties agree to either mediate and reach a consensus on how to write the laws or
structure the programs so that all beliefs are accommodated and represented equally without conflict
(or else separate these policies or programs from public institutions if people cannot agree on policy).
Can't we use the parties to organize people, resources, programs and policies by beliefs?
The same way churches fund and decide their own policies using their own democratic or leadership process,
why can't parties do the same with issues they disagree on, and separate the funding and the choices?
Is this where our democratic system is heading?
Can we use our given structures to move toward more direct democratic self-government
by agreeing NOT to impose one policy for all other people or states, but to focus on developing
separate policies where the parties disagree due to political beliefs that are inherent, will not change,
and cannot be forced to change or compromise by abuse of govt authority.
Any ideas in terms of moving toward equal inclusion of political diversity of beliefs, and collaborating instead of bullying to suppress and coerce each other? Why can't the parties defend and practice their own views as a body, without having to dominate and impose on everyone else who has equal right to their own political beliefs and practices. Where is this heading, and how are we going to get there from here?
As opposed to "political religion" (associated with more "religiously" driven movements and leaders such as the Nazis), another Sociologist developed the term "civil religion" to describe America's cultural ethic and philosophy.
wikipedia said:
wikipedia said:
If we were to sum up American culture, and beliefs in liberty, free choice, govt by the people, etc. in terms of a 'civil religion' wouldn't the two major parties be the equivalent of major denominations of this belief system?
So the conservative Constitutionalists believe that rights and naturals laws come from God, not govt.
The role of the Constitution is to LIMIT govt from being abused to oppress the natural rights of the people.
While the liberal Democrats believe in establishing political rights and common good THROUGH Govt
to protect from abuses of freedom by people, corporations, or whatever Govt should be used to police.
Allen West summarized the history of the two branches or schools of political thought
as
* Classic Liberalism following the approach by John Locke (limited govt, maximum liberty of the people)
* Radical Liberalism following Rousseau (using govt to establish the will of the people)
If these two branches, which have become today's conservatives and liberals,
are treated as political beliefs or religions, shouldn't both of them be separated from govt,
and not allowed to abuse govt and the democratic process to impose their philosophies, biases and beliefs
on citizens of dissenting beliefs.
Shouldn't matters of law that involve BELIEFS be decided by individuals or by consensus that protects and includes all interests and views EQUALLY.
If govt institutions, legal or legislative processes, including laws and rulings
are used to establish a bias, either impose deny or favor one view over another,
isn't that in violation of the First Amendment establishment clause and/or Fourteenth Amendment
equal protection of the laws (and/or Civil Rights concept against discrimination by Creed).
How can we justify imposing conflicting BELIEFS, just because these are written in secular terms?
Why can't an agreement or system be set up, by which if policies involve conflicting beliefs,
then the parties agree to either mediate and reach a consensus on how to write the laws or
structure the programs so that all beliefs are accommodated and represented equally without conflict
(or else separate these policies or programs from public institutions if people cannot agree on policy).
Can't we use the parties to organize people, resources, programs and policies by beliefs?
The same way churches fund and decide their own policies using their own democratic or leadership process,
why can't parties do the same with issues they disagree on, and separate the funding and the choices?
Is this where our democratic system is heading?
Can we use our given structures to move toward more direct democratic self-government
by agreeing NOT to impose one policy for all other people or states, but to focus on developing
separate policies where the parties disagree due to political beliefs that are inherent, will not change,
and cannot be forced to change or compromise by abuse of govt authority.
Any ideas in terms of moving toward equal inclusion of political diversity of beliefs, and collaborating instead of bullying to suppress and coerce each other? Why can't the parties defend and practice their own views as a body, without having to dominate and impose on everyone else who has equal right to their own political beliefs and practices. Where is this heading, and how are we going to get there from here?
