Friday, November 30, 2007
Religious legitimacy or legitimately religious?
Alright, so we've just seen how seen how rulers use the popular beliefs of the people to legitimize their rule. China and Japan clearly stand out (you may want to look into this on your own) during the era of the Tang (China) and Yamato (Japan). It's particularly striking to see how those advocating the belief system of Buddhism in China were able to influence the rulers and adapt to the local customs. I think the question that arises from this is who has more power - the rulers or the religious leaders? That Buddhist monk, Deng, sure was able to hold tremendous sway over the Chinese ruler. Think back to the beginning of the year where we saw the natural connection with religion and power. Has this changed at all? I think of our current, and however ridiculously early, presidential race. The struggle among the Republican candidates seems to center on who is more religious. This even goes way back in our nation's history, but has become increasingly more dominant in national politics. Think of the 2000 and 2004 elections - "values" voters (code for relgious) clearly favored one side over the other. Why this connection? Is this still relevant in the age of democracy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
I think you have to believe that the rulers had more power than religious leaders. In some cases, like Ashoka, the religious leader is the ruler, because the ruler has the power to influence society in order for that religion to expand. Rare does the occasion occur where a religion spreads without the aid of the ruler, so i would believe he has more power.
I both agree and diasagree with Alex- at times, religous leaders did have more power than rulers, although that was not always the case. When rulers were extremly religous, or extremly important within their religon, such as the Pharoh, religous leaders were able to gain extreme power. This happened becasue rulers could both use religon to legitimize their rule( such as King Shiluo in China) as well as depend on these religous authrories for guidence. However, if the ruler was not extremly religous, and was, for example, more occupied with military or economic struggles, the power of the religous leaders would be less than that of the ruler. Overall, I think that the religous state of the ruler, does, in reality, determine who has the most power within a civilization.
I agree with Alex: I also believe that rulers would have more power than religious leaders. No matter how spiritual a religious leader is, they do not have the influence that a superior ruler would have. What I read about Buddhism and it's spread during ancient times in our Document Reader supports my belief that a religion had to be accepted by prominent leaders and rulers before it can be fully accepted and practiced throughout a population. However, over thousands of years, the role of religion in politics has developed and changed. I do not believe that following a specific religion would deeply effect the popularity of a candidate.For example, even though Barrack Obama's family is Muslim and he grew up in Africa, he has become a popular Democratic candidate. Perhaps this status even came out of his diversity. Despite all of this, it is correct when Mr. Shrinksky stated that religion has been a significant part of the recent Republican debate. After all, many debated topics, like abortion, come out of religious beliefs and morals. Therefore, I believe that rulers had, and even today still have, more power than religious leaders and that religion is still a key to choosing these rulers.
Ok, first off Chelsea is wrong, and is just showing zest for mine and Alex's first quarter grade. Also, I do agree that the rulers had more power than the religous rulers. The rulers were an essential part of helping to promote and convert his people. Without a ruler's support, I dont believe that a religion would be able to be spread at the same magnitude that it has in the past.
Yes, my vocab is astronomical, just the Bengals chance to beat the Steelers.
Aaron Cohen
Aaron Cohen
But isnt the Pharoah the ruler as well Chelsea? I cannot think of an instance where a religious leader actually held more power over people than the ruler of the people. I believe for the majority of civilizations, rulers held more power than religious leaders. Siddhartha Gautama for example didnt hold any power at all, yet he was a religious leader.
well, a religous leader does not always hold direct power over the people. Think ( lauren says: if you actually can) about King Shilou in China- The monk Deng was a religous leader and held power over the king...therefore doen't he have, in reality, more power than the KIng? He can basically do anything he wants!
and thats just one example...
by the way, lauren says she agrees with me now that she's read my opinion
lauren and I are talking right now about Ghandi...theres another example for you!
America, the free, we have never ever had a religious ruler have more power over a president, who holds so little power anyway. If we look at history in the fullest, there are for more examples of rulers having more power than religious leaders. Those are the facts, face them if you dare.
VICTORY!!!!! -Drama
-Alex
I again disagree with Chelsea. syncretism was an old wooden ship used in the civil war era. - Ron Bergundy, Anchorman
Great example, Alex, just look at our own country, there really has never been a religious leader who has more power over the president. LETS GO STEELERS!!!!!
well, if you think about your statement is ridiculous becasue society in Americas is currently too diverse and advanced for a religous leader too take power...it would never work. But in ancient civilizations religon was one of the main parts of their cultures and everyday lives, so it is possible for a religousa leader to hold alot of power...since the period is over, this continues over the weekend!
ps. you haven't won quite yet...
Regardless of the United States example, in the past, yeah, religion has played a huge part in civilizations but those civilizations ahre thefact that the rulers, since none were democratic, all held more power than anyone else. Its ridiculous to say anything other than that in history, rulers have had more power than religious leaders in nearly all cases
Also the Cardinals beat the steelers and the bengals. Well that doesnt mean much but it could be a close one. All comes down to how well Roethlisberger can take advantage of the bengals horrendous defense
lauren and i agree that since this is the last day to drop a full year course you should go home, get a note from your parents, and come in and drop ap world...cause Lauren and I are totally going to win!
haha!
i will post agin after school cause this period is once again, over!
and instead of a drama ( like you said) this is a murder mystery movie!
and, like i said before, the fact that a religous leader had the most power wasn't always that obvious...
there is more to come!
okay alex, here we go...
i will agree with you that, throughout hostory, religous leaders have never sat on a throne, been called king, issued orders, or be known as the highest power in th land. They never led armies, organized battles, ordered executions, or had royal heirs. These jobs all belong to the king. And, may I ask, who has power over the king? Hmm...
Their religous leader!!!!
Kings who were religous would, of coarse, listen to any religous advisors they had...
They would be amazed by any magical powers the religous leaders had...
They would listen to leaders to ensure that their country ran smoothly...
Overall, one of the only people they would listen to was their religous advisors(who would be the most powerful religous leaders in the civilization)
These religous leaders would then have power over the kings(look in the Document reader, pg's 152-163)and , by havng power and influnce over the RULER OF THE PEOPLE, they would have power over the PEOPLE!!! In many cases, the religous leaders would be "controlling" the king from behind the throne, and, even though they weren't recognized as king, there are many tims when they would be king in all but name...look at the monk deng and king shilou!
the perosn who ahd control over the king, was, ultimatly, the one in charge of the civlization! (if you need more assurance of this fact, think about all the things people would do in england during, for example, the Elizabethen times, to be close to, and control the king. Thats the reasen people kept putting their daughters up to King Henry the sixth-they wanted them to be his wife so that they would have power...)
i need to go to dance, so i will write again later...
and by the way, alex, i just won!
Bah, chelsea, u said it yourself, the rulers had control of the people. regardless of whether or not they were being controlled. If the religuious leader came out and said were going to war, no one would listen to him. if the ruler did, he would be respected, thats just how it was.
it is really is a colaboration and is different for each society. Leaders can be religous, can use religion to gain power, or can use religion to create a nationalist settign in theior country. Politics, in both the ancient, nad modern world, are really formulated around religion, or the lack thereof.
I believe that is important for a leader to have both Religious and politcal qualities in order for the leader to be liked, and elected by the people. I think it is easy enough to see that many people would not vote for a canidate, just because the canidate is, or is not, part of a certain religious group.
It is really half and half, leaders can use religion, or religion can use leaders. relgion can used for unity, or even nationalism, and this was evident in Egypt, and India. Leaders can be forced to use relgion like in that of Japan, but this Buddhist force, really benefitted the party and the people.
You're both probably going to yell at me for this, but I disagree with Alex and Chelsea. The power that each role (king and religioius leader) held could be used to control the other position. The king had the power to issue orders and create laws, which, being a member of the society, the religious leader had to follow. However, if the king was religious (which he most likely was) he would have to follow his religious beliefs that the religious leader would have taught him.
Rachel, i pointed this out to you before, but take King Henry VIII for example, he broke away from the Catholic church which is why in some cases the monarchy totally dominates religion!
gee thanks lauren. i love you too. bye bye vegas trip...
NO, NOT VEGAS!!!!!!!!
but seriously, in the case of King Henry VIII the monarchy didn't need religion to clarify his legitimacy, but it was more where the religion needed him to clarify it's legitimacy.
well, in my fist post i did state that there are times when a religous leader has the most power, and times when the ruler does-and i still beleive that. I am just trying to point out that there have been times throughout history when religous leaders have had conrol over the ruler, therefore enabling them to have the most power...even if the king had the actual power, the religous leader could control and influence this power, causing them to be the ones who were actually in control of the people, though not directly, like the king was.
i also agree with tyler (like i said in the very beginning) that this is different for every society, and depends really on the personality and character of the ruler...
Very good discussion question, Mr. Shrinsky!
I still believe that rulers have more power than religious leaders! I think that tyler & lauren brought up some good points to support that. Even though it depends on the society & it's culture, religious leaders can influence kings. But I think that rulers have always had the most control over people- after all, that's the role of a ruler! They're supposed to have control & influence over everything in their country, whether that be Religion, economics, ect.
Post a Comment