Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of Christianity on society
List and explain the demerits of liberal democracy
List and explain the demerits of liberal democracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of Christianity on society
In Dr. Robert Kraynak’s article, he questions whether or not the Christian faith is compatible with modern liberal democracy. He begins by explaining that the assumption that these principles are in harmony with each other is an idea that goes back to the founding fathers of America. Yet, it seems that this harmony is turning into hostility at a very alarming rate. Now Christians are faced with the dilemma of conforming to a culture and supporting a government that legalizes abortion and gay marriage, emphasizes materialism while leaving behind the lower class, and regulates the freedom of religion in public despite promoting self-expression. Other modern democracies in Canada and Europe have altogether put aside their Christian roots and became …show more content…
solely secular. Can Christianity really be in harmony with modern democracy if it appears to be actively forcing Christians to hide their faith? That seems to be contradictory to the Biblical creed found in Matthew 28:19. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” In order for Christians to be in harmony with liberal democracy, democracy has to be based on respect for other human’s that are made in God’s image not based on natural rights used for personal gain. The idea of “rights” is a concept that is not entirely in line with Christian doctrine. Rights are fundamental claims against higher powers for personal gain or protection for freedom.
These rights are said to be deserved by all and no one can take them away. Christianity instead claims that one’s primary duty is not to protect oneself or advance one’s welfare , but instead a person’s highest duty is to the advancement of God’s will and to the welfare of one’s neighbor. The concept of rights put one’s happiness above their duties to God and mankind. Mark 12:30-31 says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.” The Bible claims that one’s own comfort is not to be put above God or mankind. In the Christian belief system divine revelation, usually through God’s Word, is considered to be absolute truth and the highest authority. Thus if a manmade “right” contradicts the Bible then Christians are to refer to God’s Worth first. This makes divine revelation the primary foundation in the Christian belief system as opposed to modern liberal democracy’s foundation of human rights. Christian’s believe that sin is inherent in every human being. With this sin comes the abuse of rights and the corruption that is characteristic of man’s
desire for selfish gain. Man will not chose to use these rights to benefit mankind and their faith, but instead will inevitably use it to defend their immorality and cruelty. Where would the line be drawn between man’s right for freedom and man’s right to protection? It is too great a burden to give the government the responsibility to eradicate man’s sin from the rights that man believes he has inherited. Christianity values the greater good above man’s right or even a group’s right. This greater good is usually viewed as harmony among people and the upholding of moral virtues. The greater good is not intended for the advancement of individuals, as are rights, but for universal peace and harmony. In fact, rights seem to be more focused on a selfish principle than the traditional sacrificial principle that the Bible teaches. For man to have fundamental rights without even earning them implies that mankind is owed something for simply existing. Granting natural rights to people that continue to indulge in their selfish habits seems entirely too self-centered, a virtue that Christianity does not support. Human rights could be beneficial when used against oppression to promote harmony and peace, but instead in modern times they are used in a selfish manner to destroy authority to promote self-gain.
In the first chapter of Nathan Hatch’s book, The Democratization of American Christianity, he immediately states his central theme: democratization is central to understanding the development of American Christianity. In proving the significance of his thesis, he examines five distinct traditions of Christianity that developed in the nineteenth century: the Christian movement, Methodists, Baptists, Mormons and black churches. Despite these groups having diverse structural organization and theological demeanor, they all shared the commonality of the primacy of the individual conscience.
I like that Moore is not hesitant to express thoughtful criticisms about the pretensions of the church and the undemocratic ways that Protestants have sometimes attempted to dominate American society. His commentary stimulates constructive discussions about what should and should not be the proper role of Christianity, especially Protestantism, in a religiously pluralistic culture that has constitutional guarantees for religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
The message of political alignment is a vast and varying concept, one that will be debated for as a long as party divisions exist. This divide however exists in not just the Christian community. We begin with the metaphor of a shepherds flock, blindly following what an individual says over ones own thinking. Boyd furthers this concept of alignment and how “many who left sincerely believe there is little ambiguity in how true Christian faith translates into politics. Since God is against abortion, Christians should vote for the pro-life candidate, they believe- and the preacher should say so” (Boyd 2). This blind adherence to one topic, one issue is unfortunately a failure on an intellectual level of all people, whether Christian or not. The
The Democratization of American Christianity, by Nathan Hatch, is written about “the cultural and religious history of the early American republic and the enduring structures of American Christianity” (3). Hatch writes to make two arguments: 1) the theme of democratization is central to understanding the development of American Christianity, and 2) the years of the early republic are the most crucial in revealing to process that took and is still taking place. The story of the democratization of American Christianity begins with the population boom in America from the Revolution up to 1845. Hatch writes that during this boom, “American Christianity became a mass enterprise” (4).
In Nathan O. Hatch’s “The Democratization of American Christianity” he quickly forms his thesis and expands on the argument “both that the theme of
Christianity’s role in America has rapidly changed over the last decades. Although it is still the most popular religion in the country its power over the people has decreased significantly. However, there are still many misconceptions towards American Christianity and in order to understand the unique nature of this religiously diverse country; one must understand its history and its citizens own views on the matter.
Wood, James E, Jr. "Religious Human Rights and a Democratic State." Journal of Church and State 4(2004):739. eLibrary. Web. 31 Aug. 2011.
... For example, one right a may be able to override another right b at the individual level of rights; your right to enjoy doing z or your right not to be interfered with your enjoyment of z is “trumped” by my personal property rights to z. But one might ask: can’t rights be suspended or restricted? For instance, is it not permissible to use the death penalty or to restrict a person’s liberty when they have committed a crime? There may be other, perhaps utilitarian reasons to allow these things, but it doesn’t follow that these acts are morally justified at the same time.
The United States’ strive for a democratic society dates back to the 17th Century when englishmen led a Protestant movement called Puritanism. The development of Puritanism was in response to King Henry VIII’s separation from the Roman Catholic Church , leading to the creation of the Anglican Church. When the “Church of England” was formed , many of the Puritans made great efforts in “purifying” the church because they felt felt the Church violated biblical principles of true Christians. In turn, Monarchs persecuted Puritans for not adhering to the practices Anglican Church. This partisanship in religion ultimately led numerous amounts of Puritans fleeing England, giving up on the Anglican Church all together. In 1620, these
Eck, Diana L. A New Religious America: How a "Christian Country" Has Now Become the World's Most Religiously Diverse Nation. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001. Print
In this paper, I articulate and evaluate an important argument in support of the claim that citizens of a liberal democracy should not support coercive policies on the basis of a rationale they know other citizens reasonably reject. I conclude that that argument is unsuccessful. In particular, I argue that religious believers who support coercive public policies on the basis of religious convictions do not disrespect citizens who reasonably regard such religious convictions as false.
The article, the idea of public reason revisited, by Thomas Rawls focuses on how a liberal democratic society deals with conflicting views. Thomas Rawls was a professor at Harvard University where he researched the ideal way in which a liberal democracy should operate. In this particular lecture, Rawls looks at how religion makes up citizens of societies comprehensive doctrines. Which really means their core values. My objective here is to suggest that even though Thomas Rawls claims that in a liberal democratic society religious parties do not accept legitimacy due to a mere modus vivendi but that in actuality that is the only reason why they accept its legitimacy. I divide my argument into several parts, first is that Thomas Rawls claims
The United States is a spiritually and culturally different nation, may be the most religiously different state in the world. It seems hard for any of the people in the United States to see that persecuting church-driven state could ever increase its horrible head again. Earlier to the ratification of the bill of rights, various states, like Massachusetts were still pursuing those who had other faiths. Therefore, leading those who faced discrimination escape to Rhode Island. In 1791, the first ten amendments were ratified, which were named the Bill of Rights (Karen O’Connor & Larry J. Sabato 2006).
19 April 2014. Heltzel, Peter. The Goodwin. " Radical (Evangelical) Democracy: The Dreams And Nightmares Of Martin Luther King, Jr. And Antonio Negri.
“The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights is not defended with maximum determination.” -- Pope John Paul II