|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 19, 2008 5:09:53 GMT -8
Chris and I got into a dialogue about secularization in another thread. Anticipating Josh's remark that "this is interesting but off-topic" I created this new thread to discuss all aspects of secularization if desired. Josh: If this should be the wrong Folder, please move it where it fits. BTW, isn't Germany one of those European countries that taxes you on the religion of your choice and then gives that money to the church? I've heard that is true (I think from a visiting German), but its been so long ago that I couldn't articulate. And yes, you have to pay church-tax. But not the good old “10th” (or however it’s called in English). State and church aren’t fully separated in Germany. Religion is being taught in school and as you’ve said, people have to pay those taxes. I think the connection to the State is one reason why churches are having a hard time here. In the USA, where church and State are separated, there is much more of a free religious market giving religion updrift. I have dealt with this at the university. If you are interested, I’ll tell you more about it. But only if you’re interested. Please don’t say you are just to be polite. It would save me some time… Actually (and quite honestly I assure you), I would be fascinated to hear your take on this. I think it’s a great example of where the Church went wrong in the middle-ages. It amounts to nothing less than tyranny and extortion in my mind. Okay. I'll try to make it as short as possible: Sociologists are diagnosing an increasing secularization in the Western societies. Secularization in this context doesn't mean the separation of State and Church, but an increasing indifference of people towards the church and organized religion*. Trying to find the reasons for this apparent fact, they established the so called secularization paradigm. The paradigm, in a nutshell, links secularization to modernization, increasing individualism, increasing pluralism and an increasing egalitarian ethos.** For Western Europe that seems to work well. The critics of the paradigm mainly disagree because of one apparent example: The USA, where religion is not only steady but in many cases even gaining membership. The champions of the debate are Steve Bruce (pro secularization paradigm) and Rodney Stark (contra). While Stark points out that the entire paradigm is futile because of the USA, Bruce is trying to find reasons of why the USA is different. He states that even though churchmembership is stabile or increasing, there is an observable shift in qualitative religiousness and belief. An example of this would be the shism of Fundamentalist and Modernist Protestants in the 1920's. There are many more examples. But more decisive is what I mentioned in the post above: the USA, with church and State being separated, have established a religious market which stimulated the churches. Just like free enterprise stimulates the economy. For religion to survive or expand, it needs to be "reproduced" on a daily basis. It has to be present. It needs a significant role in the normal course of life. Religious traditions have to be embedded as much as possible in everything. The USA, according to Bruce have a System, that allows this kind of reproduction much more than for instance Germany. In the USA it's possible to grow up and live in a religious community without ever leaving it. Example: you can go to mormon schools, mormon colleges, and work in a mormon environment within a mormon city. The Amish people are another extreme example. Any questions so far? *note that this doesn't imply that people ceased to be spiritual ** this is a simplification. The paradigm also includes factors which give updrift to religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 19, 2008 20:06:02 GMT -8
Just got back from a family vacation. Nice to know you're keeping things organized  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 20, 2008 20:12:10 GMT -8
Mo, there's a lot in Dawkin's chapter 2 (the God Hypothesis) that touches on this topic. I hope to have my review of chapter 2 done by tomorrow or the next day at the latest  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 21, 2008 7:29:18 GMT -8
Mo, there's a lot in Dawkin's chapter 2 (the God Hypothesis) that touches on this topic. I hope to have my review of chapter 2 done by tomorrow or the next day at the latest cool. And I'm still waiting for a reply on the first chapter. Haha, can you keep up with me? Ever wondered why I write so much? |
|
|
|
Post by b on Jul 28, 2008 21:51:13 GMT -8
Ever since studying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in school I have been very interested in America's seperation of church and state. Until well into my adult life, I saw it as a safeguard to give me freedom from religion.
I am curious hear learn about other nations that do not fully seperate church and state and what effect that has on both, and on the culture at large.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 28, 2008 22:58:45 GMT -8
Or at least how you can.
The problem I see with this assessment is that in the last 30 years it's precisely the more revisionist (what I assume he means by modernist) churches that have been dwindling and the more historically orthodox (what I presume he means by fundamentalist) ones that have grown.
The free market theory has a lot more punch, I think, though I'd venture a few other educated (maybe?) guesses at some of the differences between Europe and the US-- when I get a chance to think through them more.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 29, 2008 3:06:01 GMT -8
hahaha. It's the power of procrastination (not to be confused with pro-castration). I'm chickening out of something while here The problem I see with this assessment is that in the last 30 years it's precisely the more revisionist (what I assume he means by modernist) churches that have been dwindling and the more historically orthodox (what I presume he means by fundamentalist) ones that have grown. But that's exactly what the paradigm predicts: the more orthodox and strict a religion is, the more likely it is going to reproduce it's beliefs on a daily basis. The more it reproduces it's beliefs, the more likely it is going to pass on the belief to the next generation. It's logical. Parents who believe that their religion is the only way are going to make sure that their children "inherit" their (the parents') faith. While more tolerant parents, who think "okay, I believe this, but there are many different ways and I'll let my child find its own way" are most likely not going to pass their faith on. It's logical. Now, in the course of modernism, western societies grew more individualistic and more pluralistic. Note that there are many more factors that favored individualism, pluralism and egalitarism. The more people from different cultures exist in a society (like muslims), the more the society gets used to religious pluralism. The more they get used to it, the more tolerant they grow. And the more tolerant people grow, the less likely they are going to succesfully reproduce their own faith. This is, again a simplification, I hope you get the idea. Strict religions are fitter in the competition on the religious market because they put more emphasis on passing their faith on. And the more they can isolate themselves from the rest of the society, the more they can prevent individualistic, pluralistic and egalitarian values from reaching them and undermining their belief. Somewhere on this board I've read a debate on "happy holidays" increasingly replacing "merry Christmas". Well that's exactly the point. Even though the majority of the population is Christian an increasing number of business companies, municipalities and regular people don't want to piss off non Christians and replace "merry Christmas" by "happy holidays". That's political correct. Yet, the more Christmas, the birth of Christ, is turned into a business event, the more it loses it's role as a Christian tradition which ties believers together. Do you understand what I mean? Bruce emphasizes that traditions from the daily family prayer to religious holidays have a function of reproducing faith. The more religious holidays become secular holidays, the more instances of religious repruduction get lost. Last but not least, the example with the shism in the 1920's wasn't an example Bruce provided but me. It isn't making the point that modern revisionist religions are stronger than fundamentalist ones. It only shows how an increasing individualistic and pluralistic ethos in a time of financial prosperity drove a wedge into the Protestant community. From there on, the Modernist Communities, though being more flexible to adapt their religious views to the Zeitgeist, are more likely to suffer from further shisms because they are more individualistic and less repellent against values that dilute their faith. The free market theory has a lot more punch, I think, though I'd venture a few other educated (maybe?) guesses at some of the differences between Europe and the US-- when I get a chance to think through them more. That would be highly appreciated. I think this is a very interesting topic. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 29, 2008 3:34:39 GMT -8
Ever since studying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in school I have been very interested in America's seperation of church and state. Until well into my adult life, I saw it as a safeguard to give me freedom from religion. I am curious hear learn about other nations that do not fully seperate church and state and what effect that has on both, and on the culture at large. Hey Brian, I think the American Constitution not only grants freedom from religion but also freedom OF religion. In my book, that's the best thing a State can do and one (of many) thing that makes the USA great. I can't speak for Europe, cause Europe is a crazy quilt of the most different cultures and habits. I can only say that in Germany the situation of religion is rather weird. State and Church aren't fully separated yet religious freedom and the egalitarian treatment of different religions is granted by the constitution. I remember two legal cases in the last years: one was the "crucifix-case" and the "head-cloth-case". In Bavaria (one of the 16 federal states within Germany) there was by constitution the duty to have a crucifix or at least a regular cross hanging in every classroom. I don't know if it was a muslim or a non-believer who filed a complaint. However, the German Supreme Court decided that this was against the freedom of belief (Germany also grants the freedom from belief) and banned the crucifixes from the classroom. The second case is more recent. It's about a female muslim teacher who wanted to wear a traditional head-cloth while teaching. The State of Baden-Würtemberg forbade this. The Supreme Court decision is a bit more complicated here. The bottom line was, that there were colliding constitutional rights and hence every federal state had to pass a bill which deals explicitly with this. For Baden-Würtemberg this means, that teachers today may wear NO signs of religious affilation. neither a chain with a little cross, nor head-cloth. Germany is very different from the USA in some social aspects. The word liberal for instance. It seems to be an insult in America, at least for conservatives. In Germany even the conservatives consider themselves to be more or less liberal. Some specific American views are considered to belong to the stoneage in our mind. Religion is another aspect. Eventhough the majority of Germans is Christian, they believe that religion belongs to the privatsphere. The religious affilation of a politician is never part of his campaign. In the USA, there can't ever be a candidate for the presidency who isn't a devoute Christian. Over here, I can't even tell you where our Chancellor stands in terms of religion. I assume she's a Christian but politicians don't use to touch that field over here. There are too many non-believers that could spoil everything for a candidate. |
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Jul 30, 2008 12:38:19 GMT -8
Just a sidenote on definitions. The world Liberal in german in the potlitical sense actually can be translated more closely to libertarian. The word liberal in English refers to left-oriented politics: Die Linke  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 30, 2008 14:10:07 GMT -8
Just a sidenote on definitions. The world Liberal in german in the potlitical sense actually can be translated more closely to libertarian. The word liberal in English refers to left-oriented politics: Die Linke  wow, thank you for clearing that! but wouldn't you agree that Germany is far more left than the USA? Abortion is legal, gay marriage is legal, renewable energies are on the agenda since '98. What do you think? |
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Jul 31, 2008 10:52:59 GMT -8
Without question Germany is more liberal (from the American definition). The fact that it has a much more socialist based government is proof enough for that. The taxes are higher, the social programs are more extensive, the government has more say on the individuals decisions and restrictions on business. However the USA has been moving in that direction ever since the presidency of FDR.
|
|
|
|
Post by b on Jul 31, 2008 19:22:07 GMT -8
By the American definition of liberal, where does German stand in relation to other European nations?
|
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Aug 1, 2008 12:40:52 GMT -8
It's on the more liberal end of the spectrum. I can't think of a another EU country offhand which more embraces secular humanism, and socialism. The Germans are a large part of the driving force behind unifying the EU countries. They see themselves less as German and more as European. Other countries like France and England are quite bit more tribal and resistant to unification. They hold a little more staunchly to their heritage and traditions and aren't as willing to meld into the great European pot.
|
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Aug 2, 2008 8:10:08 GMT -8
Chris and I got into a dialogue about secularization in another thread. Anticipating Josh's remark that "this is interesting but off-topic" I created this new thread to discuss all aspects of secularization if desired. Josh: If this should be the wrong Folder, please move it where it fits. Mo, I almost lost it when I read this. That is so hilarious! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Aug 2, 2008 8:43:41 GMT -8
The religious affilation of a politician is never part of his campaign. In the USA, there can't ever be a candidate for the presidency who isn't a devoute Christian. Sorry, Mo, this is slightly off topic, but since you touched on it so will I. This point you make as never been so highlighted as it has been in this election. Currently about 10% of Americans believe that Barack Obama is Muslim. I've read newspaper interviews where people are quoted as saying that he is Arab and they don't want an Arab in the White House. Here we are with the possibility of having our first African American president (the fact that we could also have had our first female president is incredibly exciting to me), but we are still so far from being truly tolerant. Maybe it would be best if we didn't know? |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 3, 2008 14:29:20 GMT -8
The religious affilation of a politician is never part of his campaign. In the USA, there can't ever be a candidate for the presidency who isn't a devoute Christian. Sorry, Mo, this is slightly off topic, but since you touched on it so will I. This point you make as never been so highlighted as it has been in this election. Currently about 10% of Americans believe that Barack Obama is Muslim. I've read newspaper interviews where people are quoted as saying that he is Arab and they don't want an Arab in the White House. Here we are with the possibility of having our first African American president (the fact that we could also have had our first female president is incredibly exciting to me), but we are still so far from being truly tolerant. Maybe it would be best if we didn't know? This isn't off topic. During my research for a term paper about secularitation in the 1920's in America, I came across a bill that was past in Indiana at that time which forbade to ask candidates for their religious views. The candidates were also forbidden to answer such questions if asked. I don't know what happened to that bill... However, I can understand that people want their presidents to believe what they (the people) believe. On Obama: I hardly know anything about his political agenda. He was in Germany lately and seemed to be quite charismatic. He seemed to dismiss the unilateralism of the current administration which would definitely mean a reconciliation of the transatlantic ties. That of course won't be the most important issue for Americans. Whoever will be the next president, I hope he'll undo the damage the Bush administration caused to the image of America in Europe. That an Afroamerican and a woman nowadays have realistic chances to get into the White House is a good sign for America. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 3, 2008 14:39:03 GMT -8
It's on the more liberal end of the spectrum. I can't think of a another EU country offhand which more embraces secular humanism, and socialism. The Germans are a large part of the driving force behind unifying the EU countries. They see themselves less as German and more as European. Other countries like France and England are quite bit more tribal and resistant to unification. They hold a little more staunchly to their heritage and traditions and aren't as willing to meld into the great European pot. That's funny, cause I would have answered that Germany is rather conservative as compared to scandinavian countries or the netherlands. I guess it depends on where you look at it. Germany certainly is progressive concerning the European Union but rather conservative in other aspects, like for instance compulsive military service and foreign polecies concerning wars. By the way, I find the term socialist confusing too, cause to me socialist means what went on in East Germany until the fall of the Berlin wall. Germany hasn't got anything to do with this kind of socialism. The leftist party has around 8% nationwide. That's quite a lot but hardly enough to make Germany a socialist country. |
|
