Purpose Of Government (and Religion)

[Traveler]

The number one purpose of government in my view is to preserve stable society.

My definition of stable society is a social structure that will last through generations - most specifically beyond the current generation.

I submit to logic and reason that the best method of insuring society beyond the current generation is the unconditional support structure for the enrichment and preparation of children that will grow up to support the next generation of children.

I also submit that any effort of government which does not directly or indirectly allow, encourage and strengthen commitment to children will eventually be harmful for society. For example any efforts of government which can endanger children is not good government. If we were to allow murder the only long term harm would be if children are threatened. If children were better off in a society the permits murder then in the long run societies the permit murder would be stronger and survive where others that do not, would weaken and collapse.

I submit that a primary purpose of religion is the same as for government - that is to influence society to support and enrich the next generations. Religions that do not foster society to persevere and to create strong generations will fail society and government.

Why then separate effective Church that accomplishes it purpose from good stable State that meets the needs of preserving generations? The only logical reason as far as I can tell is to allow or force one or the other (or both) to deviate from their primary purpose of supporting the next generation.

The other reason to separate church and state is because one or the other are already not fulfilling their responsibility to society and we intend to keep it that way.

My point is that there is more harm done in ideal church and ideal state in separating them. If religion and state is flawed - then it does not really matter anyway, society already suffers and separating church and state is a null and worthless gesture.

The Traveler

[Dror]

The number one purpose of government in my view is to preserve stable society.

My definition of stable society is a social structure that will last through generations - most specifically beyond the current generation.

I submit to logic and reason that the best method of insuring society beyond the current generation is the unconditional support structure for the enrichment and preparation of children that will grow up to support the next generation of children.

I also submit that any effort of government which does not directly or indirectly allow, encourage and strengthen commitment to children will eventually be harmful for society. For example any efforts of government which can endanger children is not good government. If we were to allow murder the only long term harm would be if children are threatened. If children were better off in a society the permits murder then in the long run societies the permit murder would be stronger and survive where others that do not, would weaken and collapse.

I submit that a primary purpose of religion is the same as for government - that is to influence society to support and enrich the next generations. Religions that do not foster society to persevere and to create strong generations will fail society and government.

Why then separate effective Church that accomplishes it purpose from good stable State that meets the needs of preserving generations? The only logical reason as far as I can tell is to allow or force one or the other (or both) to deviate from their primary purpose of supporting the next generation.

The other reason to separate church and state is because one or the other are already not fulfilling their responsibility to society and we intend to keep it that way.

My point is that there is more harm done in ideal church and ideal state in separating them. If religion and state is flawed - then it does not really matter anyway, society already suffers and separating church and state is a null and worthless gesture.

The Traveler

Interesting point of view, Traveler. My (admittedly American) notion of the purpose of government is to promote "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Stability is indeed a crucial to meeting those goals. Your states POV makes it sound, however, as if any government that promotes stability is fulfilling its purpose and should be left as is. Very conservative, status quo-oriented, indeed. Communist China provides stability for its people. Fidel Castro for his. Saddam Hussein provided stability where there is now chaos. The American Founders were radically liberal, believing that stability alone was not sufficient--they wanted liberty to govern themselves (hence the term "liberal"), and were willing to fight and die for it. I agree with them that stability is not the sole function of good government.

Religion can also provide stability, but I do not believe that is its purpose, nor is its purpose to support society. I am not arguing for the sake of argument--please understand that. Jesus made it clear that His kingdom is not of this world, and He did not meddle in politics. Of course, I do look forward to the day when He governs on this earth, but suspect that His government will look little or nothing like any theocratic government we've ever seen before. Oops, I was wandering slightly off-topic! Religion's purpose is to draw us closer to God. That entails not stability, but radical change. The way I see it, the greatest miracle there is is the turning of a human heart to God. This comes about through repentance and by the power of God's grace.

The functions of earthly government and religion are different from each other, but need not clash and can support each other. A government can support religion by providing a stable and free society to its people so they will be at liberty to engage in their religious pursuits. Religion can can support the goals of stability and liberty by encouraging its members to obey the laws of the land and respect other citizens' liberties. The separation of church and state involves the state maintaining a hands-off policy with regard to religion, so that people can practice their religion (any religion) according to their conscience, and it involves religions not invoking the power of the state to force themselves on people who would believe differently. The separation of church and state does not pit them against each other, nor does it disallow them operating in a complementary fashion to accomplish common goals, and free of other religions using the government to interfere.

Dror

[sgallan]

Good post Dror, I enjoyed it a lot. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Democracy is so important. A society primarily governed by the will of the majority is one in which tyranny. evem when it takes root, will prove short-lived. On the other hand, minorities have certain inalienable rights, and our laws need to protect them. So, the happy solution to the democracy vs. fairness for all dilemma is liberty. Eleven years ago, when I was but a wee lass, I wrote the following contemplation on this very issue:

http://www.acton.org/publicat/books/duty/hmention2.html

Bottom-line: Community standards are legitimate, but, when in doubt, freedom is the best default.

[Traveler]

The functions of earthly government and religion are different from each other, but need not clash and can support each other. A government can support religion by providing a stable and free society to its people so they will be at liberty to engage in their religious pursuits. Religion can can support the goals of stability and liberty by encouraging its members to obey the laws of the land and respect other citizens' liberties. The separation of church and state involves the state maintaining a hands-off policy with regard to religion, so that people can practice their religion (any religion) according to their conscience, and it involves religions not invoking the power of the state to force themselves on people who would believe differently. The separation of church and state does not pit them against each other, nor does it disallow them operating in a complementary fashion to accomplish common goals, and free of other religions using the government to interfere.

Dror

I think I agree with this. The state and religions MUST support each other for a stable society. Liberty is necessary for a stable society but there is one thing that is of greater necessity as a single focus. And that is the next generation - the next generation can only be strong through the sacrifice of the current generation for the benefit of the next. There is a critical flaw in thinking that the next generation can be sacrificed for the pleasure and desire of the current generation. It can be argued that the next generation is not in proper focus without liberty and if that is the point of liberty (personal sacrifice) then I agree - but if liberty (choice without concern for coming generations) is only focused of by the current generation then I do not believe you have a stable society, government or religion (with liberty and justice for all). As soon as liberty is used as an excuse for personal desire, personal pleasure or in any putting the personal before others - liberty becomes tyranny.

Now, my friend Dror, if a principle is true it is always true. It is not true for everyone else but me or true for you and not others. Nor is it not true now but will be true at some future time. The principles of true government is true for any time and place. Perhaps you do not agree and I wonder if you understand this principle of truth - because when Jesus comes as King there will be no separation of Church and State. Because true government and true religion cannot be separated. When we pray "thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." If there is no separation of Church and State in heaven then why do you champion separation of Church and State on earth and pretend to believe in Jesus Christ? Good government and good religion is not magic but is put together piece by piece by good people.

The Traveler

[sgallan]

Jesus comes as King there will be no separation of Church and State. Because true government and true religion cannot be separated. When we pray "thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." If there is no separation of Church and State in heaven then why do you champion separation of Church and State on earth and pretend to believe in Jesus Christ? Good government and good religion is not magic but is put together piece by piece by good people.

That is an easy one. Okay, conceeding I am a non-believer lets just suppose that what you say about Jesus is true. Well then there is no seperation when Jesus returns because Jesus is here, in the flesh, making the direct calls in such a way that it is pretty obvious. There isn't much of a chance to argue the decisions. However, this Jesus you speak of is not here in anyway that you can prove. Many many people seem to have their views on what this Jesus wants, and they do not all agree. Many of these people for example would attempt to eliminate your faith as being a dangerous cult. And they would suceed because you would not have the protection of the state backed by the constitution. Those same people would incarcerate or kill me for my beliefs (I have the quotes from various evangelical 'leaders' to back that up). So basically without this Jesus being 'directly' in charge, without any dispute as to His nature, and his wants and desires, any possible theocracy would be fairly non-functional for those who are not part of the 'in' crowd. Which would include the LDS.

[Guest Monica]

The ONLY religion and state set up that has worked, will work, and works is God's. When Jesus returns and sets up His kingdom then we will have it. Til then we have errors of humans no matter how hard they try to do good.

[sgallan]

You know what I hate? When someone said what I said, in far fewer words, and said it better! AARRGG!

[prisonchaplain]

You know what I hate? When someone said what I said, in far fewer words, and said it better! AARRGG!

You'd probably make a good Libertarian, except that you'd approve of draconian progressive income taxes in order to support state-sponsored wrestling. :-)

[sgallan]

LOL.... the problem I have had with the Libertarian platform is the practicality of it. How do you implement such a program, in todays 24/7 media coverage world, given much of the social systems set up would also be taken out, and the many millions of people who would fall thru the cracks (and often die). That tranistion has never been addressed by either Libertarians nor those in the so-called Constitution party (the religious version and far less consistant version of libertarianism) They talk a good utopian game but don't seem to have a strategy to implement such things.

I might add (though you probably know this)..... the Libertarians are both very liberal, and very conservative, at the same time. Besides the liberal stuff they advocate, they also advocate isolationism (closing the border by whatever means), no Government owned propert save that which is necessary for our defense. The elimination of all federal Government social and welfare programs. The abolition of any tax outside that to defend our borders. Many of these things are dear to the hearts of conservatives.

[prisonchaplain]

I might add (though you probably know this)..... the Libertarians are both very liberal, and very conservative, at the same time. Besides the liberal stuff they advocate, they also advocate isolationism (closing the border by whatever means), no Government owned propert save that which is necessary for our defense. The elimination of all federal Government social and welfare programs. The abolition of any tax outside that to defend our borders. Many of these things are dear to the hearts of conservatives.

I actually dabbled in Libertarianism for a season in my youth, but ultimately rejected it after reading Atlas Shrugged. Like communism, it fails because it does not take into account the fallen nature of humanity (yes, I know, religious talk). We all like to believe that people are basically good. Perhaps they are. However, there is that lingering corruption that beckons us and ruins utopian dreams.

Democracy, Democratic Republicanism, and all such governments that try to balance the peoples' will with the rights of all, tend to be insconsistent, inefficient, and frustrating. It's the best thing going, though.

BTW, Libertarians argue that they are neither liberal or conservative. Rather they are for Liberty. Personally, I found Adam Smith a lot more pragmatic than Ayn Rand.

[Dror]

I think I agree with this. The state and religions MUST support each other for a stable society. Liberty is necessary for a stable society but there is one thing that is of greater necessity as a single focus. And that is the next generation - the next generation can only be strong through the sacrifice of the current generation for the benefit of the next. There is a critical flaw in thinking that the next generation can be sacrificed for the pleasure and desire of the current generation. It can be argued that the next generation is not in proper focus without liberty and if that is the point of liberty (personal sacrifice) then I agree - but if liberty (choice without concern for coming generations) is only focused of by the current generation then I do not believe you have a stable society, government or religion (with liberty and justice for all). As soon as liberty is used as an excuse for personal desire, personal pleasure or in any putting the personal before others - liberty becomes tyranny.

Now, my friend Dror, if a principle is true it is always true. It is not true for everyone else but me or true for you and not others. Nor is it not true now but will be true at some future time. The principles of true government is true for any time and place. Perhaps you do not agree and I wonder if you understand this principle of truth - because when Jesus comes as King there will be no separation of Church and State. Because true government and true religion cannot be separated. When we pray "thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." If there is no separation of Church and State in heaven then why do you champion separation of Church and State on earth and pretend to believe in Jesus Christ? Good government and good religion is not magic but is put together piece by piece by good people.

The Traveler

Thank you for your thoughtful post, Traveler.

I fail to understand why you insist that separation of church and state entails sacrificing the next generation. You are right that when Jesus comes again, He will be both our King and our God. If that means there should be no separation of church and state, does it also mean we should seek to make America a monarchy? Flawed logic. The difference when Christ comes is that when he does, it will be Him establishing the government, not merely a group of imperfect humans who claim to follow Him and understand His ways. He has perfect understanding--we do not. This is crucial to understanding the whole matter. Since He has perfect understanding, not only of government, but of the human heart and mind, and of all events and happenings--indeed, of all things--He can govern with complete justice, fairness, and mercy. We, being human, ought not to dare take such authority--that is, the authority of both state and church--unto ourselves, or we will, frankly, have too much power. People tend to misuse power (even majorities, though majority rule is better than minority rule (but without ignoring minority rights!)).

It is true that people frequently use liberty as an excuse to do selfish things that hurt others. However, that is the whole point of our mortal probation--to be given the chance to use our free agency. If we don't have the opportunity to do the wrong thing, we don't have liberty. That same liberty enables us, on the other hand, to do the right thing. It's not up to the government to make our moral choices for us--that is Satan's plan. This is not say there should be no rules at all--as the Book of Mormon and the D&C point out, laws exist, essentially, to keep us from infringing too much upon the rights of others--such as stealing, murder, rape, etc. But it is not meet that we be commanded in all things, either.

Without our liberty, we don't get the chance to grow. Good parents give their children rules, apply discipline, and teach them correct principles. As they get older, little by little, they give their children more freedom. By making their own choices, after having been properly instructed, they get the chance to learn from their own actions. Sometimes they will make good choices, others bad. They will reap the rewards of their good choices, and suffer the consequences of the bad. In this way they learn and become stronger. Always dictating to one's children doesn't allow them to grow and become strong, and therefore to be able to function as independent and responsible adults. The family can be seen as a microcosm of society at large, as well as its most basic unit. Those who function independently in society are adults who have already been through childhood and, hopefully, learned enough to participate responsibly in society. Therefore, they have more freedom than children do. It is only when they commit more serious crimes against others that government has a legitimate right to step in and correct them.

Establishing a state religion and/or legislating all kinds of moral conduct has nothing to do with worldly government's legitimate role. When Christ comes again, He can do what He wants. I trust Him to do what's best for me and what's best for everybody else. I don't trust other mortals to anywhere near the same extent I trust Jesus. That's how I can eagerly look forward to the Millennium and desire to keep a secular government until then.

Dror

[BenRaines]

As I understand extreme liberal and extreme conservative they are the the same. To far left and to far right come together.

Ben Raines

[Dror]

As I understand extreme liberal and extreme conservative they are the the same. To far left and to far right come together.

Ben Raines

Hi, Ben! I've heard that, too. :) I does depend on how you define the terms, though. But all too frequently, in worldly governments, no matter where on the political spectrum, extremism tends to turn into dictatorship by a single person or a small group of persons (even if they say it's in the name of the majority).

Talk to you later.

Dror