Does religion discourage social change and maintains things the way they are? Or does it encourage social change and accept new rules, ideas and behaviours? Each theory has their own interpretation to whether religion is a conservative force or a radical force. Marx and most Marxists believe religion is a conservative force, they believe that religion contributes in the power of the ruling class, each person’s role in society is given to them for a specific reason, God has chosen them follow the life they are living and why would they want to change this? Therefore they would not question their role.
However, it is just not too obvious and as progressive as it should be and the preachers/religious leaders need higher standards in method and scrutiny to keep up with civilization. Why is it always religion that is getting picked on? Why is it always religion that gets the blame for all the bad things that happen in this world? There are evil religious people no doubt, but there are equally non-religious evil people in this world, so why blame the evilness of the people on religion. I personally believe politics and the love of money is the main issue of this world, not religion.
In general, there are similar ethical beliefs amongst Christians due to Judaism being the only root of Christian ethics. In general Christian ethics is deontological and authoritarian and what is deemed right or wrong is based on belief in God. The ethics of Christianity is based on the holy bible, which is a library of books that expresses Christian faith. As the bible was written over a long period of time and includes many different teachings and morals, there is no overall biblical morality that can be chosen therefore different denominations choose different parts of the bible to support their beliefs. For instance in Genesis it says that ‘God breathed the breath of man into Adam’s nostrils’ and from this Roman Catholics can argue that as God has given life, only he can take it away so things such as abortion, euthanasia and murder are absolute wrongs.
Another commonly quoted bible verse that claimed support of the divine right of kings was Romans 13: 1 -2, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” (New American Bible, New International Version.) In the Divine Right of Kings, princes are “ministers of God and his lieutenants on Earth”. (Bossuet, 1597, as cited in Church, 1959, p.5 – 7) It is also stated in The Divine Right of Kings that “Kings should not believe that they are its masters and may use it as they wish; they should exercise it with fear and restraint as a thing which has come to them from God.” (Bossuet, 1597, as cited in Church, 1959, p.5 – 7) In Europe, the concept of the Divine Right of Kings originated in the Absolutist monarchies of portions of Europe, specifically Eastern Europe, as opposed to the Constitutional monarchies used in Western Europe.
The individual sees religion performing a significant function allowing them to feel apart of society and seeing that religion strengthens us to face life's trials and motivates us to overcome obstacles that would otherwise overpower us. Durkheim used the religion of Aborigines to develop his argument. He calls their religion 'totemism', as each clan of aborigines had a sacred symbol called a totem which was a symbol of their gods and of their society. Therefore, he argues the people are really worshipping society. However, Durkheim's analysis has been criticised as he only looked at small pre-industrial societies so his views do not apply to complex modern societies.
This is hardly the personal and morally correct spiritual values that the church prides itself on? As lollards we follow the ways of Luther and his lutheranism which should be made into the religion of England, Protestantism. Part of our martyr Wyclif's beliefs were predestination. We still believe in this today, it means that only preselected people can enjoy the luxury and salvation of heaven when they die. Catholicism up to this
Ryan Perry HY 101 Daniel Riches January 8, 2013 Question 2 Martin Luther & Mchiavelli's writings were very different but they shared many traits and were considered ludacris and rebellious for their time. Luther stepped away from the Catholic Church and was very strong about faith and salvation. “ Faith alone is the saving and effacious use of the Word of God, according to Rom. 10: “ If your confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”(Luther 7) Machiavelli wrote about how to be a succesfull leader through many different virtues, including doing anything necessary, cruel or inhumane, to gain or maintain power. “Yet one cannot call it virtue to kill one's citizens, betray one's friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; these modes can enable one to acquire an empire, but not glory.”(Machiavelli 35) “ God our Father hasmade all things depend on faith so that whoever has faith will have everything, and whoever does not have faith will have nothing.” (Luther 13) This quote truly shows how strongly Luther felt about faith and the connection to God with no middle man.
It is also thought that Communism will destroy all intellectual products. The Bourgeois misunderstand that the disappearance of class culture does not mean it is the disappearance of all culture. They move on to the Communist plan to abolish family. The modern bourgeois family is based on capital gain. The Communists don’t deny this; they specifically want to stop the exploitation of children by their parents.
Religion and Violence According to the Harvard Divinity School, “Religion is a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices that serves the purpose of establishing rules and principles in a society”. When studying various religions, it becomes credible that the principles instilled are those that are morally “just”. Every major religion specifically addresses the issue of violence, and the vast majority condemns such actions. Individuals following a particular religion are expected to follow the rules and principles established which should create a world that is morally righteous and free from violence. For this instance, this is not the case, society must constantly correct immoral actions performed by certain individuals.
RESPECT FOR ALL RELIGIONS “We have enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.” -Jonathan Swift Above is a very frank declaration made by the famous writer Jonathan Swift? But the present generation will definitely take up the responsibility of creating such a religion to help people to love one another. That religion will be of love and respect towards all. The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. “Religion” is sometimes used interchangeably with” Faith” or “Belief system,” but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviours, respectively.