Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church
Their marriage will take place in the presence of family and friends who act When Christians marry they are making a promise in the presence of God to The Church does not allow its clergy to enter into sexually active relationships outside of Physical Education · Physics (Single Science) · Product Design · PSHE and. In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia. Catholic teaching also calls on us to work to avoid war. You are holy, for you are God's temple and God dwells in you. sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say "thou shalt not" to an economy of. The relationship between religion and morality has long been hotly debated. nation tak[ing] their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to Other nontheists have taken a softer line, arguing that moral inclinations are .. “religion” and “morality” would need to attend to four main types of questions.
While protections and advantages given to one faith may be accompanied by promises to refrain from persecuting adherents of rival faiths, the introduction of political power into religion moves the state closer to interferences which are clearly unjust, and it creates perverse incentives for religious groups to seek more political power in order to get the upper hand over their rivals.
From the perspective of many religious people themselves, moreover, there are worries that a political role for their religion may well corrupt their faith community and its mission. Toleration and Accommodation of Religious Belief and Practice As European and American societies faced the growing plurality of religious beliefs, communities, and institutions in the early modern era, one of the paramount social problems was determining whether and to what extent they should be tolerated.
A political exile himself at the time of its composition, Locke argues a that it is futile to attempt to coerce belief because it does not fall to the will to accept or reject propositions, b that it is wrong to restrict religious practice so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others, and c that allowing a wide range of religious groups will likely prevent any one of them from becoming so powerful as to threaten the peace.
Central to his arguments is a Protestant view of a religious body as a voluntary society composed only of those people who choose to join it, a view that is in sharp contrast to the earlier medieval view of the church as having authority over all people within a particular geographic domain.
In contrast to Locke, Thomas Hobbes sees religion and its divisiveness as a source of political instability, and so he argues that the sovereign has the right to determine which opinions may be publicly espoused and disseminated, a power necessary for maintaining civil peace see Leviathan xviii, 9.
Like the issue of establishment, the general issue of whether people should be allowed to decide for themselves which religion to believe in has not received much attention in recent times, again because of the wide consensus on the right of all people to liberty of conscience. However, despite this agreement on liberty of belief, modern states nevertheless face challenging questions of toleration and accommodation pertaining to religious practice, and these questions are made more difficult by the fact that they often involve multiple ideals which pull in different directions.
Some of these questions concern actions which are inspired by religion and are either obviously or typically unjust. For example, violent fundamentalists feel justified in killing and persecuting infidels—how should society respond to them? While no one seriously defends the right to repress other people, it is less clear to what extent, say, religious speech that calls for such actions should be tolerated in the name of a right to free speech. A similar challenge concerns religious objections to certain medical procedures that are necessary to save a life.
While it seems clearly wrong to force someone to undergo even lifesaving treatment if she objects to it at least with sufficient rationality, which of course is a difficult topic in itselfand it seems equally wrong to deny lifesaving treatment to someone who needs it and is not refusing it, the issue becomes less clear when parents have religious objections to lifesaving treatment for their children.
In such a case, there are at least three values that ordinarily demand great respect and latitude: For example, Quakers and other religious groups are committed to pacifism, and yet many of them live in societies that expect all male citizens to serve in the military or register for the draft.
Other groups perform religious rituals that involve the use of illegal substances, such as peyote. Is it fair to exempt such people from the burdens other citizens must bear? Many examples of this second kind of challenge are addressed in the literature on education and schooling.
In developed societies and developing ones, for that mattera substantial education is necessary for citizens to be able to achieve a decent life for themselves. However, the pursuit of this latter goal raises certain issues for religious parents.
In the famous case of Mozert v. Hawkins, some parents objected for religious reasons to their children being taught from a reading curriculum that presented alternative beliefs and ways of life in a favorable way, and consequently the parents asked that their children be excused from class when that curriculum was being taught. Similarly, many proposals for educational curricula are aimed at developing a measure of autonomy in children, which often involves having them achieve a certain critical distance from their family background, with its traditions, beliefs, and ways of life Callan, ; Brighouse, The idea is that only then can children autonomously choose a way of life for themselves, free of undue influence of upbringing and custom.
A related argument holds that this critical distance will allow children to develop a sufficient sense of respect for different social groups, a respect that is necessary for the practice of democratic citizenship. However, this critical distance is antithetical to authentic religious commitment, at least on some accounts see the following section.
Also, religious parents typically wish to pass on their faith to their children, and doing so involves cultivating religious devotion through practices and rituals, rather than presenting their faith as just one among many equally good or true ones. For such parents, passing on their religious faith is central to good parenting, and in this respect it does not differ from passing on good moral values, for instance.
Thus, politically mandated education that is aimed at developing autonomy runs up against the right of some parents to practice their religion and the right to raise their children as they choose. Many, though not all, liberals argue that autonomy is such an important good that its promotion justifies using techniques that make it harder for such parents to pass on their faith—such a result is an unfortunate side-effect of a desirable or necessary policy.
Yet a different source of political conflict for religious students in recent years concerns the teaching of evolution in science classes. Some religious parents of children in public schools see the teaching of evolution as a direct threat to their faith, insofar as it implies the falsity of their biblical-literalist understanding of the origins of life. They argue that it is unfair to expect them to expose their children to teaching that directly challenges their religion and to fund it with their taxes.
Among these parents, some want schools to include discussions of intelligent design and creationism some who write on this issue see intelligent design and creationism as conceptually distinct positions; others see no significant difference between themwhile others would be content if schools skirted the issue altogether, refusing to teach anything at all about the origin of life or the evolution of species.
Their opponents see the former proposal as an attempt to introduce an explicitly religious worldview into the classroom, hence one that runs afoul of the separation of church and state. Nor would they be satisfied with ignoring the issue altogether, for evolution is an integral part of the framework of modern biology and a well-established scientific theory.
Conflicts concerning religion and politics arise outside of curricular contexts, as well. For example, in France, a law was recently passed that made it illegal for students to wear clothing and adornments that are explicitly associated with a religion. This law was especially opposed by students whose religion explicitly requires them to wear particular clothing, such as a hijab or a turban.
The justification given by the French government was that such a measure was necessary to honor the separation of church and state, and useful for ensuring that the French citizenry is united into a whole, rather than divided by religion.
However, it is also possible to see this law as an unwarranted interference of the state in religious practice. If liberty of conscience includes not simply a right to believe what one chooses, but also to give public expression to that belief, then it seems that people should be free to wear clothing consistent with their religious beliefs.
Crucial to this discussion of the effect of public policy on religious groups is an important distinction regarding neutrality. The liberal state is supposed to remain neutral with regard to religion as well as race, sexual orientation, physical status, age, etc. In one sense, neutrality can be understood in terms of a procedure that is justified without appeal to any conception of the human good. In this sense, it is wrong for the state to intend to disadvantage one group of citizens, at least for its own sake and with respect to practices that are not otherwise unjust or politically undesirable.
Thus it would be a violation of neutrality in this sense and therefore wrong for the state simply to outlaw the worship of Allah. Alternatively, neutrality can be understood in terms of effect. The state abides by this sense of neutrality by not taking actions whose consequences are such that some individuals or groups in society are disadvantaged in their pursuit of the good. For a state committed to neutrality thus understood, even if it were not explicitly intending to disadvantage a particular group, any such disadvantage that may result is a prima facie reason to revoke the policy that causes it.
The attendance requirement may nevertheless be unavoidable, but as it stands, it is less than optimal.
Religion and Morality
Obviously, this is a more demanding standard, for it requires the state to consider possible consequences—both short term and long term—on a wide range of social groups and then choose from those policies that do not have bad consequences or the one that has the fewest and least bad. For most, and arguably all, societies, it is a standard that cannot feasibly be met. Consequently, most liberals argue that the state should be neutral in the first sense, but it need not be neutral in the second sense.
Thus, if the institutions and practices of a basically just society make it more challenging for some religious people to preserve their ways of life, it is perhaps regrettable, but not unjust, so long as these institutions and practices are justified impartially. Liberalism and Its Demands on Private Self-Understanding In addition to examining issues of toleration and accommodation on the level of praxis, there has also been much recent work about the extent to which particular political theories themselves are acceptable or unacceptable from religious perspectives.
Rather than requiring citizens to accept any particular comprehensive doctrine of liberalism, a theory of justice should aim at deriving principles that each citizen may reasonably accept from his or her own comprehensive doctrine.
LOVE, MARRIAGE, AND FAMILY
The aim, then, for a political conception of justice is for all reasonable citizens to be able to affirm principles of justice without having to weaken their hold on their own private comprehensive views.
One such argument comes from Eomann Callan, in his book Creating Citizens. Marriage When Christians marry they are making a promise in the presence of God to love each other for the rest of their lives. This love is reflected by their wedding rings which symbolise everlasting love. The bride may also wear a white wedding dress. This is a symbol of her purity and respect for God. Some Christians may choose not to get married in a church and will have a civil marriage ceremony. Although the marriage is legal, some Christians believe that only a church ceremony is binding in the sight of God.
Cohabitation Some Christians will choose to cohabit as they believe their love for each other is enough to demonstrate their commitment. Many members of the Church of England believe they may only cohabit if it will lead to marriage. If they are right for each other then living together will give them an insight into married life.
Many Roman Catholic Christians will not cohabit as they believe it is sinful. This means that a couple will only live together when they are married. Civil partnerships and same-sex marriage The Church of England does not regard homosexuality as a sin.
Later, in the 18th and 19th centuries, both secular and religious education came to be seen by Hindus as a universal right, and it gradually began to be extended to all members of the faith. Judaism High levels of Jewish educational attainment may be rooted in ancient religious norms, according to some recent scholarship.
The Torah encourages parents to educate their children. This prescription was not mandatory, however, until the first century. Sometime around 65 C. A few years later, in the year 70, the Roman army destroyed the Second Temple following a Jewish revolt.
Temple rituals had been a pillar of Jewish religious life. To replace them, Jewish religious leaders emphasized the need for studying the Torah in synagogues. They also gave increased importance to the earlier religious decree on educating sons, making it a compulsory religious duty for all Jewish fathers.
Over the next few centuries, a formal school system attached to synagogues was established. Jewish scholarship was enhanced in the early Middle Ages, beginning in the late sixth century, by the emergence of Talmudic academies of Sura and Pumbedita in what is now Iraq.
In the late Middle Ages, centers of Jewish learning, including the study of science and medicine, emerged in what is today northern Spain and southern France. Until the early 19th century, however, most education of Jewish boys was primarily religious.
This intellectual movement sought to blend secular humanism with the Jewish faith and to encourage openness to secular scholarship among Jews.
At the same time, they were strong proponents of reforming Jewish education by including secular subjects, such as European literature and the natural sciences.
This educational project often brought the reformists into conflict with more orthodox Jewish religious leaders. Some scholars have noted that from the Reformation onward, Protestant groups encouraged educating women, with effects that still resonate today. Lake Forest College political scientist Fatima Z. This is not the case when family laws are based on more general Islamic precepts.
In this regard, sociologists Darren E.
Some scholars, however, hypothesize that higher levels of religious observance and engagement produce greater educational attainment. Ellison, in a study of U. Lehrer observes that those who frequently attended religious services during adolescence completed one more year of schooling than their less observant peers.
Religion and Morality
If this is true, one might expect higher percentages of religiously unaffiliated people in parts of the world with high educational attainment. A sidebar in Chapter 3 explores data relating to this question, finding mixed results. Missionary-built educational facilities were often located in what became heavily Christian areas rather than predominantly Muslim locales.
Historic differences between colonial policy and missionary activity in northern and southern Nigeria are likely an important factor in the present-day Christian-Muslim education gap in Nigeria. He finds no definitive explanation for the gap, but posits that one factor may be that religious schools set up by local Islamic leaders are viewed as an alternative to government schools. Some of the Islamic schools follow the curricula of state schools, while others teach only religious subjects.
- Marriage and divorce
- Human sexuality and relationships
- Life and Dignity of the Human Person
Surveys she conducted in Malawi found that Muslims and Christians express similar demands for formal education and do not perceive a trade-off between religious and formal schooling that would affect educational attainment. Platas suggests that a second possible explanation, particularly for Muslim-majority areas, is that some Muslims may believe that secular government schools are Christian-oriented.Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus -- Spoken Word
As during the colonial period, therefore, they may fear that attending these schools poses a threat to their religious identity and to the practice of their faith.
Muslim participation is even lower in countries that have mandatory teaching of religion in government primary schools, Manglos-Weber adds.
Religion and Politics
In Ivory Coast, for example, anthropologist Robert Launay contends that an economic boom following independence favored those who had been educated in the colonial era and convinced many Muslim parents of the economic benefits of state schooling.
Under such constraints, expanding the education system was out of the question. The gaps appear to be partly a result of historical developments, especially Christian missionary activity and colonial policy. A host of contemporary economic, social, cultural and religious factors may also play a role.
The Making and Unmaking of Islamic Culture. Also see Ahmad, Imad-ad-Dean. Attitudes Toward Science and Technology. Also see Sardar, Ziauddin.