In anthropological terms, there are several traits associated with every known culture, called cultural universals. These include: economics, religion, political organization (or government), social organization, language (or a communication system), technology/material culture, and art. The debate over the separation of church and state, or the separation of religion and politics, brings up the question of how these cultural universals interact with one another. Is any one of these dependent on the others to exist?
There is a certain interdependency of these 7 universals. Consider, for example, art. The principle functions of art include business or economic uses, religious worship, political propaganda, social commentary, and communication. The methods of producing art are supplied by the technology/material culture. Art functions on many levels, with the inclusion of each of the other cultural universals. However, art is not absolutely dependent on the other universals to exist. Art serves many purposes and not all are directly related to another universal. Just as art relates to all the other cultural traits but does maintain a certain right of existence regardless of the others, so do the other traits of a culture.
Religion and politics are cultural aspects that each serve a particular function. There is a certain amount of convergence among the two due to similarity in ideas or confusion of roles. There tends to be a lack of clarity in the dominance of the roles granted to the political realm of life and those of a relilgious basis. When laws are made that establish religious dominance or when religions declare the righteousness of one particular political idealogy, there is an intermingling of the two facets of life that demonstrates the way in which our culture's traits are interdependent. In many cultures, there is no separation of the two, religion dominates politics or, less often, politics dominate religion (example: French secularism). In our culture, there is an emphasis placed on the necessity of separating the two. Religion must not determine the course of politics and the government cannot enact any particular religious system's dominance over others.
In any society, the needs for some sort of economic system- a means of exchanging goods and services- must exist. Economics directly relates to politics; the question of how goods and services should be regulated (if at all) falls under the domain of the government. Politics leads the social organization of the society; social organization is often relevant to religious affiliation and spiritual pursuits bonding society. Technology, language, and art all affect each of the other cultural universals, and are equally affected by the others, as well. They influence the course of politics, the role and intensity of religious belief, and the quality and productivity of the economic realm. The cultural universals, these traits apparent in every culture, act in accordance with each other and, in many ways, influence the others. However, particularly in the case of religion and politics, there must remain clear boundaries between each in order for them to remain prominent societal and cultural indicators. The role of religion in the public sphere must be clarified, and so too should the role of the government in both our public and private lives. When the two converge with neither maintaining a clear mandate over a particular issue, we find ourselves in a social dilemma. The roles must be clearly defined so that we maintain some sort of national cohesion. This role confusion has sparked numerous debates and is a major cause of the current divisiveness of our country. I suggest we allow both politics and religion to coexist, but disallow the interference of one with the other.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 01.24.04 (6:05 pm)
Dragon, I don't always agree wtih you ... but I respect your thinking and your attempt to clarify issues.
I couldn't agree more with your recommendation that we conduct debates and discourses to clarify the roles of different functions in our society and the consequences of how we define and manage different organizations with divergent functions than ensure a system of checks-and-balances!
This entry was well written. It seems simple. The government shall pass no laws concerning religion, or something like that. It still leaves people room to believe in what they want. It seems to me that as we move on in time, we discover more and more how our public entities endorsed religion in subtle ways. I also think some people don't like that there is now a movement to remove those endorsements. Or should they be removed? God, the word itself, undefined on a dollar or coin, shows no denomination, and only leaves out atheism and those with specific names for their god. So how far does it need to go?
"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins
