Religion and Governance 宗教与统治

Cross posted at http://blogs.sun.com/syw

A few thousand years ago, rulers pondered on how to govern. Citizens were not quite literate. The society was tiered. A legal system seemed futile: first they need to learn the laws, then must build an enforcement structure. But most importantly, the ruling class did not wish to be subject to the same laws as the commoners. What to do?

The Church was the answer. It has the God-given authority to define morality and the rituals of worshipping. Church became the perfect partner with the government: one controlled behavior and the other military and resources. Governance became easy.

In China, way before Christ, Confucius taught his philosophy on social protocols. Social behaviors — rules of interaction — must accord to the relative labeling: ruler v. ruled, senior v. junior, husband v. wife, etc. Simply put, the moment one acquired a label, the proper behavior rules apply. A person, for example, behaves differently as the son, the boss, the guard, the student, the brother, etc. Titles rule.

Kings in China found this so suitable for governing and put resources behind it. China became a Confucian state. Religions are for faith or philosophy, not ethics or morality.

After the Industrial Revolution, machine replaced human and became the main means of production. New rules challenged Church on its authority on people’s lives: it is not about right and wrong anymore, it is about money. Church felt the pressure to modify rituals to avoid contradiction with the economy: only spiritual rituals are their domain. But which rituals are divine and which are social? Is birth control a matter of faith? Would I go to hell if I eat pork? If I accept Him as my savior, does it matter that I murdered, raped, or betrayed?

The mainstream modern churches, at least in the USA, became social clubs of similarly valued or opined. When one’s value changes, one also change church. Several religions or denominations, however, insist on strict ritual adherence, also known as behavior control, and frequently run into trouble: think Jonestown, Waco, and Texas polygamists.

In 1850s, HONG XiuQuan （洪秀全） started a farmer riot using religion as an organization tool. He assumed divine position and organized his kingdom against the government. The riot went all the way to Beijing and almost tumbled the Qing dynasty. Imagine Jonestown the size of half the country, or the state of Utah passing a constitution contradicting the USA one. Chinese rulers since heeded the lessons and viewed organized religions with suspicion.

Faith is about belief and respect. Religion is about social behavior via organization, morality, and rituals. Government is for the control and distribution of resources. These affect everyone, God believer or not. That’s why confrontations and conflicts will never end. Everyone, just chill.

同步上网于http://blogs.sun.com/syw_zh

早在数千年前，统治者就开始思索如何治理国家。那时的国民尚未开化，社会等级制度森严，因而法律体系看起来并不适用——因为统治者首先要研究法律，然后必须建立执法机构。而最重要的是，统治者并不愿意和平民遵守同样的法律。那该怎么办呢？

教堂给出了答案。是上天决定了神权崇拜的道德性和礼仪性。教堂则成为了政府的完美搭档——前者控制人们的行为，后者控制军事力量和各种资源。这样一来，对国民的统治就变得容易了。

基督教还没有在西方诞生之前，在中国，孔子及其儒家哲学就已成为社会准则。社会行为应当遵循三纲五常，臣事君、幼事长、妻事夫，诸如此类。简而言之，一旦确立了某种伦理关系，相应的行为准则也就确立了。例如，一个人，因其儿子、上司、卫士、学生、兄弟等身份的不同，而需要遵守不同的行为准则。

中国古代帝王发现儒家哲学非常适合统治国民和控制资源，中国由此成为奉行儒学的国度。而宗教则仅限于信仰或哲学，而非关伦理道德。

西方工业革命之后，机器取代人力成为主要的生产工具。新的规则挑战着教堂在人民生活中的权威地位——这无关对错，却关乎金钱。教堂也感受到要避免与经济发展发生冲突，必须改变宗教仪式——只有精神仪式才是他们的领域。然而究竟哪些宗教仪式是神圣的，哪些仪式是世俗的呢？出身是否决定信仰？我吃了猪肉是否会下地狱？如果我将他视为救世主，即使杀人、强暴或是叛国，还能永生？

至少在美国，主流的现代教堂已成为具有相同价值观或想法的人们的社交俱乐部。当一个人的价值观改变了，他也就会转而去另外的教堂。当然，还有一些宗教或教派坚持固守宗教仪式，对行为实行严格控制，并频繁制造惨案——例如琼斯镇事件、韦科惨案、德州多妻制案件。

在19世纪50年代，洪秀全领导的太平天国起义就将宗教作为一种组织工具。他自称天授神权，自立为王，与清政府对立。起义军一路攻到北京，几乎颠覆了满清王朝。那情形就如同琼斯镇覆盖了半个美国，或是尤他州通过了一项与美国宪法相抵触的法律。中国的统治者从中吸取了深刻的教训，并对有组织的宗教活动保持高度警惕。

信仰与信念和尊敬有关，而宗教则是通过组织、道德和礼仪所体现出来的社会行为，政府的作用是控制和配置资源。无论是不是上帝的信徒，每一个人都会受到这三方面的影响。这就是为什么对抗和冲突永远都不会停止。所以，大伙们，退一步吧。