Religious Society? (Redux)

Redux: I am recreating an effort I began some time ago. That effort is diaried here, the original Religious Society? That diary suffered a stunning defeat on DailyKos.com. I did not explain my issue there very well.

Since that diary, a number of things have happened that have really altered the direction of my argument. Also, the previous diary seemed to make no point. That was kind of the point, to begin a debate to help gather my thoughts. I think I can now fairly relate my views on what constitutes our society.

First, I want to review an issue that was not resolved from the first diary.

[S]eparation of church and state, not separation of Chritianity and society. This is not a Christian State... but most of society is Christian.
Perhaps you should have chosen another way to word this idea?

by TeresaInPa

Indeed, I should have, TeresaInPa! I should have mentioned that 'separation of church and state' is not a phrase used in the constitution. "State", with a capital 'S', refers to the abstract that is the basis of a 'nation' or 'country'. It is in that sense that KathleenM1 answers the question:

Dark-Haired Nation?

America is no more a Christian Nation than it is a Dark-haired Nation based on the numbers of residents who have brown/black hair.

Lowest common denominator never gets you very far.

by KathleenM1

What is Society (capital 'S')? I do not like to be pedantic, but it works here:

From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:
3 a : an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b : a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests

I chose 3 because the others define much smaller units of 'social' groupings than what we mean to talk about. 'Patterns of relationship' in an 'enduring and cooperating social group' can be called law or ritual. However, in 3b we have 'common traditions, institutions, and collective activities'. In that sense, I would be forced to agree that the traditional 'society' is Christian. Yet, I don't think our 'society' is defined by Christian 'institutions'.

So in that I think that the discussion (my fault) lacked any distinction between 'society' and 'Society' (capital 'S'). I meant Society, and most responded to society. I accept that. I have always spoken in a more technical sense that lends to actual conversation (as opposed to debate). While I may continue to claim this is a secular Society, I accept the consensus that this is a Christian society.

Therefore, I need a slight change of course to continue. In a diary from Thursday Next on DailyKos.com, the point is made that the religious right wing should be fought by a better spiritual movement.

If an articulated spiritual message is what is needed to turn back the tide of the Religious Right, then I could certainly live by the ideals of Jimmy Carter and Rabbi Michael Lerner.

This is a fine message. As an atheist, I had to comment, however. And just to be honest, I commented because there was no response to the diary and it was moving down the list. I hate to see that for a fine diary.

I don't believe morality has a basis in religion; religion tends to obfuscate debate. More than anything, we as a people need to learn to talk to each other better.

This stimulated an argument from VirginiaBelle that I quite enjoyed.

VirginiaBelle: You see, my faith and religion has helped form my morality, and my morality determines the principles for which I stand, from which come my politics.

smokeymonkey: However, I will put this spin on your anecdote: your religious and political values are commensurate. Great! The problem with the religious right is just this conflation. They have certain religious values that they wish to foist on the rest of us. If your faith and religious morality are compatible with the first amendment, then you have adapted well to your culture.

VirginiaBelle: But I think that's part of the problem, how to express support for church and state without ignoring the fact that morality and politics are rarely fully separate, and morality is a large part of religion. In other words, religion shouldn't be involved in politics, but religious beliefs clearly affect most politician's decision making processes, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Perfect and absolutely correct. So my problem becomes, how can we keep religion out of our Society, while not insulting those that are freely exercising their religion in a Christian society. (Again, please note capitalization.) How do we define morality such that a politician's religion is not an actual factor. Or should it be a factor?

Posed to someone whose opinion I respect, it should be. I, of course, strongly disagree.

So ultimately, society needs a better mode of separation between religion and morality and between morality and politics. It is hard to discuss 'morality' without assuming both roles, religious and political.

I'm going to leave it at that for now. Be assured I will revisit this often on SmokeyMonkey.org.