Diane Birth Control Boob

Religion and Democracy Do

The debate on the changing balance between politics and religion remains a arguments with which science and political philosophy has tried to compete in all the different historical periods.

From these words of Jesus - "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what belongs to Do" - the political world has been confronted with a reality more complex and less defined by the boundaries of that form of state ideal.

Depending on the number of times the balance of this relationship has moved variously to one of these two poles: it goes from the most radical theories of political philosophy to the medieval Marxist view of religion, through the theory of only two.

In countries that could be called Western a more or less stable equilibrium has been found through application of the concept of secularism for which religion should remain a distinctive feature of the personal sphere of individuals that must still be guaranteed by the state.

But while other cultures have come to the theory and application of this concept, unable to get a clear separation between political and religious power, they are still forced to confrontarvisi.

I think we can find a perfect balance between these two poles and that this depends on the culture and historical epoch. Not for this reason should be limited to a simple admission of this reality. In

This report continues the role of friction is more complex than those believers who wish to participate actively in the political life of their country or their community. Actually I think the speech should be placed differently. Being deeply convinced of the existence of the Almighty is not in itself closely exposed to tensions with the political field. Take the example of the Masonry, except for the French, where the belief in the Supreme Being does not pose any complications or difficulties in participating in political life and to be good citizens. Many Italian politicians are Freemasons and that their membership does not affect in any way their action public.

speech changes slightly when you move the discourse on religion, that you move to a relationship between two different institutions in each obeying different rules and laws. In this case the relationship becomes conflicted.

It 's the case of the three monotheistic religions, even when delivered, except in its ratio between two different poles, may be restricted only to the Christian experience. There are exceptions but if you talk about democracy in the proper sense of this is approximately the number zero. This does not mean, however, you should limit the discussion to only Christianity which is already covered by Weber in "Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism." For

As regards my personal opinion on the relationship between politics and religion, especially if the belief in C is necessary to be good citizens, I believe that confidence in the belief in the Almighty to be a cornerstone to facilitate being good citizens . The fact that this place brings confidence to behave with others as creatures of the same magnitude, so as their peers and the like. It is the application of the concept "do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself." In this case the man is brought to see the other as in a mirror, her reflection, which can lead them to seek status. This is not

to speak of compassion or pity for the other as Nietzsche argued about Christianity, but to build an ideal of equality, which then is not that the cornerstone of democracy itself. Although the Jacobins and the Girondins did it all come from the sheer force of reason, they coined the motto "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" which is inherent in, willingly or unwillingly, a divine force.

Very often our secular beliefs leads us to state that any intrusion of elements of "divine" in the political field is negative and counter-claim of a perfect democracy, but sometimes more like a Marxist-style utopia, where religion only plays the role of "opium of the people."

Where lies the problem if the idea of \u200b\u200bGod is the bearer of elements of unity and universal brotherhood? Indeed such an ideal can not simply boost the friendship between the peoples and from there lead to an improvement of various conditions of national life. Such a world would aim to reduce economic and social differences of not only national but also international. On the other hand

religions, like all institutions, there are instances spokesman for conservative and often cast in stone, characteristic related divine immanence, which prevents the proper progress of legislation and good management of problems in the short term.

also one of the biggest problems in this area is of a linguistic nature in that it often tends to simplify the whole theocracy-democracy opposition. This fact does not take into account another term, so negatively loaded term as a theocracy but in my opinion should have a positive meaning. Like Aristotle divided the government of the people between polity and democracy , respectively, the correct form and the degenerate, also should be done with the "Government of God", dividing it into theocracy and hierocracy.

I hope you will be able to compare the reflection on these issues even within your class, looking for new ways of thinking and new fields of inquiry.

Lorenzo