ruling families, religion and democracy
The religions of early civilizations provided a total system of government - there was no separation of religious and state affairs - and they were totally monopolized by the ruling classes.
The whole notion of the separation of church from state that swept the world from the 17th century, culminating in the French Revolution, was to take 'God' out of man-made laws and replace the power of the church and the ruling families than monopolized it with the power of the people.
The French revolutionaries actually did intend to make religion as redundant as the aristocracy they beheaded, but their failure to succeed in this regard proved that religion serves people in a way that democratic institutions cannot.
The earliest evidence of religious governance by ruling families dates back to the Sumerian civilization. The Hammurabi Code of 1750 BC contains close to 300 laws covering everything imaginable from military matters to minute personal matters - all of which, of course, were put to the people by the ruling families as being commanded by the 'gods' and as such carry terrible punishments for non-compliance.
When Christianity was adopted by the Romans, it became a means by which the ruling families could keep populations in check and retain absolute power.
Very quickly, the Catholic church usurped the 'emperorship' of the old Roman Empire. The Pope became the Holy Roman Emperor, and assumed a god-like role - being the spokesman of God - even though the lifestyle of many of the early Popes and the ruling families from which they were drawn was anything but god-like.
Until Protestantism took hold - protesting against the corruption and debauchery of the leaders of the Catholic church - some of the churches were indeed more like dives of iniquity than places of God. The ruling families used the churches as sources of income, selling 'indulgences' - forgiveness and guaranteed places in heaven - for huge sums of money to naive believers.
Strangely, some if not all of the modern democratic institutions still insist on using 'God' to validate their wars, congresses and laws and church leaders still play a indirect role in the election of presidents and prime ministers and the introduction of laws.
Democracies are as loathe to cut God out of their systems as the churches are loathe to relinquish all of their power to the state. Democracies - growing more and more to draw their leaders from the moneyed classes - know well the power of pretending that God is on their side. And, sidelined from their traditional role as rulers, church leaders still insist on their right to play an important role in the democratic process by influencing their 'flocks'.
In that democratic institutions have replaced the ruling role that religious leaders and their families once played - and also provide civil ceremonies for services previously provided by religious institutions, such as weddings and funerals - democracy appears to have made religion redundant.
Having lost absolute power - and being thoroughly discredited by the recent revelation of systemic abuses of children - the continued existence of many religions seems threatened; and yet the separation of church and state enshrined in democratic institutions means that the State can never provide the spiritual guidance that so many people need.
Those religions that concentrate on spiritual guidance - eschewing involvement in politics and wealth accumulation - are unlikely to ever become redundant. There will always be a need for their ministries, but they are unlikely to attract as many priests and pastors as the big religions which, for generations, have provided good livings for the sons of the ruling classes.
Democracy, giving political power to the people; secular education, giving enlightenment to the ignorant; and job security, giving opportunity to achieve a financially independent good life on Earth - are all threats to religions and ruling families that rely on absolute power through the poverty, ignorance and low expectations of their 'flocks'.
The irony of democracy - amply demonstrated by Napoleon - is that it merely replaces one ruling class with another.
The whole notion of the separation of church from state that swept the world from the 17th century, culminating in the French Revolution, was to take 'God' out of man-made laws and replace the power of the church and the ruling families than monopolized it with the power of the people.
The French revolutionaries actually did intend to make religion as redundant as the aristocracy they beheaded, but their failure to succeed in this regard proved that religion serves people in a way that democratic institutions cannot.
The earliest evidence of religious governance by ruling families dates back to the Sumerian civilization. The Hammurabi Code of 1750 BC contains close to 300 laws covering everything imaginable from military matters to minute personal matters - all of which, of course, were put to the people by the ruling families as being commanded by the 'gods' and as such carry terrible punishments for non-compliance.
When Christianity was adopted by the Romans, it became a means by which the ruling families could keep populations in check and retain absolute power.
Very quickly, the Catholic church usurped the 'emperorship' of the old Roman Empire. The Pope became the Holy Roman Emperor, and assumed a god-like role - being the spokesman of God - even though the lifestyle of many of the early Popes and the ruling families from which they were drawn was anything but god-like.
Until Protestantism took hold - protesting against the corruption and debauchery of the leaders of the Catholic church - some of the churches were indeed more like dives of iniquity than places of God. The ruling families used the churches as sources of income, selling 'indulgences' - forgiveness and guaranteed places in heaven - for huge sums of money to naive believers.
Strangely, some if not all of the modern democratic institutions still insist on using 'God' to validate their wars, congresses and laws and church leaders still play a indirect role in the election of presidents and prime ministers and the introduction of laws.
Democracies are as loathe to cut God out of their systems as the churches are loathe to relinquish all of their power to the state. Democracies - growing more and more to draw their leaders from the moneyed classes - know well the power of pretending that God is on their side. And, sidelined from their traditional role as rulers, church leaders still insist on their right to play an important role in the democratic process by influencing their 'flocks'.
In that democratic institutions have replaced the ruling role that religious leaders and their families once played - and also provide civil ceremonies for services previously provided by religious institutions, such as weddings and funerals - democracy appears to have made religion redundant.
Having lost absolute power - and being thoroughly discredited by the recent revelation of systemic abuses of children - the continued existence of many religions seems threatened; and yet the separation of church and state enshrined in democratic institutions means that the State can never provide the spiritual guidance that so many people need.
Those religions that concentrate on spiritual guidance - eschewing involvement in politics and wealth accumulation - are unlikely to ever become redundant. There will always be a need for their ministries, but they are unlikely to attract as many priests and pastors as the big religions which, for generations, have provided good livings for the sons of the ruling classes.
Democracy, giving political power to the people; secular education, giving enlightenment to the ignorant; and job security, giving opportunity to achieve a financially independent good life on Earth - are all threats to religions and ruling families that rely on absolute power through the poverty, ignorance and low expectations of their 'flocks'.
The irony of democracy - amply demonstrated by Napoleon - is that it merely replaces one ruling class with another.
<< Home