I have been reading Democracy in America, Volume 2, by Alexis de Tocqueville as part of a PhD assignment. What struck me was on page 444 where he writes "The greatest advantage of religions is to inspire diametrically contrary urges. Every religion places the object of man's desires outside and beyond worldly goods and naturally lifts the soul into regions far above the realm of the senses. Every religion also imposes on each man some obligations towards mankind, to be performed in common with the rest of mankind, and so draws him away, from time to time from thinking about himself."
Having spent some time pondering over these words by Tocqueville written in the 1830s I came to several conclusions. First, if more of us were religious then we would be better citizens of our nation which means more honest people paying more taxes to support our governments. Secondly, if citizens are more religious then there would be more people opposed to abortions and less abortions would mean more babies are born who then grow into more people paying taxes thus benefitting the government even more.
What do you guys think about this? Agree or disagree?
-
Did Toqueville intend this statement on religion to reference or send the reader to taxes? I might be misinterpreting the statement due to the fact that I haven't read his book, but it made me think of obtaining eternal life and serving my fellowmen in personal acts of service with time and energy. I guess I need to gain a better understanding of taxes.
ReplyDeleteI threw the tax thing in. The federal government seems to be trying to regulate a lot of our lives with religion included. If the powers that be want hard working tax paying citizens then it should stay out of most of our lives. We the people set up the Constitution in order to ensure justice, promote domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and to provide for the general welfare. My point is this, government should leave religion alone because in most cases a religious body of citizens are typically loyal to their government
ReplyDeleteA thought I had while reading the original post was that a more religious populous would also mean less draw on the government in the form of welfare as religious people tend to take care of those in need.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that generally religious citizens are loyal to their government the exception being when they think the government is pulling away from what they feel to be right. I believe that religious people have a deeper loyalty to their God, families and country than to the government in charge and if the government pushes too far they will push back. I see this as the reason governments try to limit religion. When done slowly loyalties can be broken and people are less likely to fight restrictions/legislation they might have before.
Robert Bork in an article on Individual Liberty and the Constitution published in The American Spectator 6/1/08 proposes an interesting theory for the constant and consistent barrage from the court toward religion.
ReplyDelete"Perhaps one reason for the constitutional objections to religion is that serious religions attempt to place restrictions on their members' behavior. Restrictions deriving from religious belief are, if not identical, at least first cousings to moral restraints imposed by law. In the eyes of the moral relativist, they are as objectionable as any moral imperative enforced by the state. For those who believe that individual liberty as the Constitution understands it is tantamount to moral relativism, therefore, religious restrictions must be ruled unconstitutional."
I think there is virtue in this statement. To the dominant intelligencia in current society, the drive is to get us to be collectivist in our social interactions and morally relative in our personal lives. The court is tied to the current "intellectual elite" as DeMille would call them and they are threatened by those that claim allegience to a higher power that is not the government.