Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
And why would people who aren't unitarian want a unitarian government? Will this government be enacting "unitarian" policies? That's not right to do to people who aren't of said religion. What would be the point of a religious government or "state religion" it if had no power to force itself on people who were not of the same cloth.
I said something akin to uniterian universalism. It was just the most obvious example I had at my disposal. Of course any state endorsed religion would have to be molded to fit the political agenda, but I still feel the best way to make the religion appealing to everyone is to offer total inclusion. And it would be the function of the state to make the preferred religion more desirable by offering small perks. For example, charitable offerings to the state endorsed religion would be tax deductible, while offerings to all other cloths would be a matter of personal charity and not privy to the same benefits. Another side benefit is the tie the clergy would have to the lower administrations of the government, offering members more direct channels of access to voice their opinions. If you make the religion a desirable tool to the lower class also, then the general nature of humanity will lead the irrational masses to flock to the banner of whatever Divine vehicle the state deems appropriate and useful to its objectives.
Not everyone believes or even accepts unitarian universalism. Why should someone have to worship that? In the Roman system, you had to worship the state religion, even if they allowed you to worship your own as well (at least for a period of time).
I am not sure if you are familiar with the principles of uniterianism, but it was coined church for atheists who had not gotten out of the habit of going to church. Today's uniterian congregations tend to be a mixture of the displaced believer who has an irreconcilable difference with his traditional religion and the displaced fringe religion which needs the support of a stable congregation to provide resources like meeting places and the like. In the same congregation you find the agnostic who seeks communion with like minded seekers of truth. Here, if staffed with a clever, academic, and loyal clergy, the state can influence, by virtue of commonality of congregation or belief or community, an entire spectrum of social classes. The intrinsic levity of a religious ceremony accompanied by sermon makes the congregation a willing participant in the propagandizing of the agenda of the state through divine, pseudo philosophical, and socially governing body of the state church. Uniterian universalism seems to fit the profile based mostly on the fact that it tries beyond normal effort to be inclusive and accommodating. This is where I cause a riot and say that within this hypothetical system, the church's prime function is not to spiritually advance the society...spiritual advancement is too vague and amorphous an idea to be a true utility. However, under the GUISE of spiritual responsibility, the church acts as an extension of the political body, swaying the congregational morality through the tweaking and revision of doctrine and making the legislation of the actual government more palatable and less worthy of rebellion or dissention. In effect, the priesthood, unwitting or through active participation, becomes the PR branch of the state.
But how do you get them not to pander to those who elect them? If they don't, there goes their seat. Unless you make their position "unelectable." Then, however, you have to deal with the high probability of corruption and malleability.
You addressed this point a little sooner than I had hoped, if you are in fact speaking about the electorate of the priesthood. It is utterly necessary to save the priesthood and elevate it above public opinion. In light of this, I am working through a way of appointing the priesthood to the political body without tainting the process by direct vote of the irrational mass of the society. I am almost of a mind to say that appointment of representation of the state church would probably be a function of the church and the political body would be subject to the decision of the church in terms of its representative. The authority of the priesthood must remain a static eventuality only affected by the educations and the malleability of the generation of priests. This is why I advocated a forced debtorship of each priest to the state...to insure the priesthood's loyalty to the state...or if not a loyalty, at least a deep appreciation of the state's hand in each priest's elevation. In effect, there must be the appearance of the autonomy of the state religion, to appease the emotions of the lower classes, but behind the scenes, there must be a subtley forced subservience of the priesthood to the secular political body in order to maintain its insured utility.
The one major problem I cannot conceive to be eliminatable in a government tied to religion is that it can so easily be corrupted on both sides. That's the reason why we have the separation. You cannot truth the State, and you cannot trust all the people either.
Very true. And I have pondered over this dilemma for some time. The only thing I have surmised is that it is better to balance the potential for corruption on the side of the secular government and hope that the secular educations of the priest's appeal to their reason before their faith. I admit this freely: the system I am hypothesizing is a very delicate balance and relies on a presupposition that education will deter institution of myth over logic within the priesthood. Control of the priesthood is the problem of the secular government while willful intellectual dominance of the masses is the dominion of the clergy.
Plus, even if this hypoethetical did work, the damage has already been done in our reality. We don't live in a world of perfectly moderated religion. If that were so, it would be fine.
Oh you will hear no argument here. Remember in my earlier post I postulated that the biggest problem we face is that we turned religion loose in our society with no tether to the government...We never moderated religion and now the religious have gained enough influence to threaten the integrity of our legal system.
