Any system where it is necessary for people to co-operate requires that those people have some aims and ideals in common. In a healthy society, a shared approach to ethics can help people to interact with one another in a way which is satisfying to all of them, and can help that society to function smoothly. Religion may be the opium of the people, but opium oil is an excellent lubricant. What those Soviet states which banned religion tended to forget was the need for something else to take its place; in the absence of that, the addict will always long for old comforts in hard times, the wheels of industry will drag, and common aims will seem like work rather than pleasure.
There are certainly aspects of traditional organised religions which can hamper a society. Addicts are malleable people; dubious religious arguments are often used by the media or by rich individuals to encourage them to adopt extremist stances. Fundamentalist religions, where all questioning is discouraged, leave their devotees particularly vulnerable to this. It is a threat to the proper functioning of democracies if small groups of people have the power to control the majority vote through such tactics, preying on the emotive response of a less educated or less confident populace. Religion, then, is only useful to a society if it is responsibly administered, and if all members of that society can look to strong established figures or bodies to obtain coherent and consistent moral guidance. The more inclusive such a religion can be, the better it is (in the long term) for the state and its members. Multi-cultural states can thus benefit from an establishment which includes aspects of many religions - an ethical framework rather than one dependent on an isolated set of traditions. Though this must be carefully negotiated, it can provide extra flexibility for governments forced to deal with complex ethical issues in a changing world.
The principal problem with applying traditional religions to modern society is that many of them are in serious need of updating, and their archaisms provide easy ammunition for those who would use them irresponsibly. Most countries would presently benefit from putting a lot of work into rethinking the religious principles on which their social systems are based. The problem with this, of course, is that teaching people to be principled in a manner which enables them to interact well with each other may inadvertently encourage them to be principled in ways contrary to the interests of the state's administrators. A state which is founded on hierarchy, for instance, may suffer if it encourages the notion that all people are equal. Consequent change may result in a more successful state in the long term, but may have unfortunate consequences for those who are at the top of the hierarchy at the outset.
I have never been comfortable with the existence of formal state religions, as I do not feel that religion is something which can be imposed on people. We might require that citizens adhere to a certain ethical framework (eg: not killing other people) but we cannot require that they share an innate belief in the principles upon which it is founded; furthermore, such a framework must strive to be minimal. It astounds me that many people who rush to condemn the 'nanny state' in the context of social provision fail to show any such concern regarding state interference with moral decisions. Every now and again I receive correspondence from Middle Eastern contacts requesting my support for the imposition of Sharia law in their countries (the argument is usually that I should sympathise with their peaceful attempts to defend their culture against western imperialism). Sadly, I cannot support these people, any more than I can support the Christians who urge me to help them bring back Christian principles in US or (more rarely) UK schools and government bodies, even though both may well have only the best intentions. My reason is this: state religion, or religious bias inherent in the education system, does not leave room for an opt-out clause. It governs not only true believers, but also those who would happily give up the benefits of that religion in order to live according to different (but not necessarily hostile) principles. Furthermore, where it deprives people of access to information about other religions and ethical systems, it reduces even their intellectual freedom to an intolerable degree. I am happy to support the rights of those who choose to live according to a strict religious code (had I been a student in France at the time of the headscarf ban, I would have worn a scarf myself, and encouraged everyone in my school to do so, including the boys), but I cannot support the imposition of religion on others. This is why, in my own country, I have campaigned in support of laws to protect women from being forced against their will into traditional arranged marriages, and I continue to campaign for non-religious options in drug addiction treatment centres where petty criminals can presently face a choice between appearing to convert to Christianity or going to prison.
The intrusion of religion into state affairs is now increasingly prevalent in western society, and is beginning to become worrying, not least because it is so excitably worried about in certain circles, giving it the appearance of carrying more weight than is really the case. Organisations like Christian Voice and Comment on Reproductive Ethics frequently make news headlines despite each having only a handful of members and no evidence of significant support within the population at large. It is, of course, important that minority voices be heard, and occasionally such people will have important points to make, but they must not be permitted to abuse the media in such a way as to convince people they represent a 'moral majority'. The notion of the 'moral majority', which very rarely seems to have anything to do with morality, is one of the most sorely abused in modern politics, being dragged in to give apparent weight to opinions which, looked at rationally, represent the extremes of debate. Media organisations frantic to protect themselves from accusations of bias frequently attempt to give these views equal weight (rather than proportionate weight), thereby lending them a sort of legitimacy. This may seem all very well when it's just some guy suggesting that schoolchildren would benefit from considering the spiritual aspects of life, but it takes on a rather more sinister aspect when it's the BNP saying that non-white people should go 'home', and there are plenty of similarly problematic organisations using a religious veneer to try and exempt themselves from political scrutiny.
Go back to Jennie's page about politics.
This way to go back to Jennie's personal pages.
Last updated 7th December, 2005