In one of the first letters between himself and Thomas Jefferson, John Adams writes of religion as one of the unifying factors during the American Revolution, signing of the Declaration of Independence, and throughout colonial America. While religious affiliations have steadily declined for the past two or three decades (reuters.com), faith has tied whole sections of a country together, raising armies for political figures, and is completely ingrained in the political system. Whether or not “the general principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United” are nearly as prominent as in 18th and 19th century colonial America insights both a gut negative reaction and a much slower, positive one. As mentioned above, faith has become criticized by the free voices the U.S. has within it, with the Enlightenment, and communications to outside philosophers are giving an awakening to imagination of a world outside of religion. God is obviously creeping away as people believe in a very possible, very human society. So no, religion splits far more often than it unites. But the strength of numbers in Christians shows extreme potential for a religious following to mass and shift, change and dictate much of what the U.S. can do, giving evidence to think of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian sects as completely unified entities unto themselves, so yes. Whether the flag or the cross takes precedent is another question.
I believe you make many good points here. I agree and disagree with the statement that religion has divided more than it has united within the United States. The signing of the Declaration of Independence did not include any religion outside of protestantism though it can be argued that some members of the Anglican Church were closely affiliated with the Catholic Church. What needs to be taken into account is when various trends moved from "oppositional" trends to "alternative" trends, and finally to "emergent" ones. This way of viewing social change is borrowed from the English brand of 20th Century Marxism. While there is never one all controlling power, there are never two fundamentally conflicting/oppositional trends included in the power structure. Could militant Islam and democracy exist within the coalition in control? Maybe. Could militant Islam and Judiasm exist in the same coalition of power? Probably not. Though certain "extremist" groups may have token control in the current coalition of mass control, their influence is likely waning and could not be categorized as emergent. In this way the power structure, religiously, as well as socially, is a fluid thing that progresses more or less democratically, both because of, and despite the current system of religious toleration and democracy.
ReplyDelete