It is obvious that prior to posting something on this board it is required to state what my post is NOT about:
I am not interested in making any religion appear in a negative way. Also, what you don’t read is really not there. Comprehension by personal implication is a slippery slope; so if I left anything unclear, please ask me for clarification first.
What I do want to discuss is:
Has there been, in recorded human history, ever been a country or government or even just a secluded enclave where the people have mixed the function (and leaders) of government with the functions (and leaders) of organized religion in a successful manner?
At this point in my research I would argue no. I should probably start out by defining ‘successful’.
Not killing/punishing/sending away non-believers would be great. Government supported Freedom of Speech would be nice. Food on everyone’s table is not bad. Basically, ‘successful’ as in what we nowadays have come to expect from a modern society (not necessarily the US system but it lends itself as an example of a successful society).
Some more details:
Simply mentioning God or other deities in the preamble of laws and constitutions of the government does not count as "successful’ mixing religion and government. Many European countries fall into this category. Those countries have taken the pledge of allegiance/anthem one step further and included similar language in their law books and legislative functions. In my mind that is not enough of a positive proof. Are there successful examples where the main religious doctrine is the basis of legislative/executive rules?
The closest possibilities I can come up with are the Vatican and Israel. The Vatican really does not work very well because they still function under Italian law. Whether Israel in its current form is actually successful and matches the criteria I have given can be argued ad nauseum but I am willing to listen.
It seems by the exclusionary nature of all world religions a functioning government and ‘happy’ society are mutually exclusive.
Cons (based on christianity): you are only allowed to have one god; any deviation from the doctrine will be punished (freedom of speech/thought not guaranteed); not democratic
Pros (based on christianity): don’t lie (wow, what a concept for politicians!); don’t steal; be nice; not democratic
That all makes a great basis for a successful society.
This may not be what you mean, but England and Greece have had state churches (Church of England and Greek Orthodox), and their governments have run OK.
As I stated in my original post: the Vatican is not a good example.
Despite having the Opus Dei, different forms of classic police, and somewhat of a legislature they would make a terrible stand-alone society and they still fall under the rule of the Italian government.
I think that the narrow definition of successful in the OP is a problem. Most countries in the world, religious or not, fail the OP. And very few countries or empires in the history of the world are not successful. By your definitions, the Chinese empire was not successful, which I would disagree with. Neither was the Roman, Greek, or any European nation for a large chunk of history.
I think the narrow definition of success in the OP might present a problem towards getting an accurate answer.
Incorrect. The Holy See (aka “The Vatican”) is a sovereign nation. That means they rule themselves. Here’s some relevant information from www.countrywatch.com:
[quote]
In 1871, Victor captured Rome itself. The following year, Victor entered the city and declared it the new capital of Italy, ending papal claims to power. Pope Pius and his successors disputed the legitimacy of these acts and proclaimed themselves “prisoners” in the Vatican. Finally, in 1929, the Italian government and the Holy See signed three agreements regarding the dispute:
[ul][li]a treaty recognizing the independence and sovereignty of the Holy See and creating the State of the Vatican City[/li][li]a concordat fixing the relations between the government and the church within Italy[/li][li]a financial convention providing the Holy See with compensation for its losses in 1870[/ul][/li][/quote]
There is also another independent nation completely surrounded by Italy. That nation is San Marino.
The thing is, the OP deliberately restricts the question to modern states. We can pretty much exclude every country in the world except for the neo-Western states of Europe, the Americas, Australia, Japan, etc. All these states have a common heritage of religious toleration. And all the non-neo-Western states have had significant problems during the 20th century.
In other words, the sample size is too small. We’ve only had states that the OP would consider successful for less than the last hundred years or so in most of the world.
But if we go back through history, we find that most states have combined religious and secular functions. In fact, the whole idea that religious and secular functions could be separated is a very modern idea. To the Ancient Egyptians, Incas, Aztecs, Babylonians, etc etc etc religion was an integral part of government and government an integral part of religion. Separating the two would have been seen as nonsensical, absurd. And many of these states lasted for hundreds of years, and people were pretty much as happy as any subsistence farmers can be.
Hinton: I think Lemur brought up a good point. Many ancient people, including many Indian tribes, mixed government & religion very successfully in terms of those societies.
The Romans did a fairly good job: They persecuted the DRuids mainly because those priests were organizing Celtic resistance to the Eternal City. Christians & Jews don’t like to hear this, but they were persecuted mainly for refusing to acknowledge Rome’s gods. Other pagans paid obeisance to Rome’s dieties and were generally treated well.
I would nominate the former colony of Rhode Island after Roger Williams & Anne Hutchinson founded it. Its founders were extremely religious, but Rhode Island was quite tolerant.
Hmmm, I am a little surprised at the replies. I guess, despite having phrased my question objectively, I had a strong opinion already.
By the basic nature of current world religions, co-existance is not possible. The spread of the “good word” thus conversion or non-acceptance of disbelievers is a build-in function. That is why I worded the definition so restricted. I am sure the Taliban would argue that their form of government/religion is quite successful. That might actually be the case if you are a male believer. I would argue the same holds true for the ancient societies or tribal societies.
Yes, it is interesting that a spiritual aspect has been part of almost all societies. This fact seems to always cause problems with outsiders or tribe/country neighbours which might not follow the same believe system.
Let me rephrase my question into a more contentious statement:
The successful combination of a structured world religion and governmental roles is not possible because religions do not adequatly address the demands of a modern society. Furthermore, religions actually inhibit the development of a successful society because of their inhibiting and heirarchical nature.
The questions then is: Why do representatives of most religions push to become more involved in the governmental process and what needs to be done about it?