"Religion was no large part of [Terai's] life, but the Triad seemed to him as sensible a way as any of symbolizing an ultimate mystery; on the whole, its church served the nation well, and the rites ranged from pleasant to awesome." (3, p. 134)
Mysteries should be symbolized and rites should inspire awe. However, I assess a religion by what it does for its individual practitioners, not by how well it serves the nation. National issues are secular and pluralist.
I thought that Roger Scruton was an atheist who approved the socially conservative role of an established church but it is argued that he regained religious belief. See here.
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I also assess a religion by what it believes and teaches. Naturally, I believe Catholic Christianity to be true, and all others (including Protestantism) to be in error, in varying degrees. And Chesterton thought very well of Zoroastrianism!
I think it's more accurate to say national issues are secular (sometimes) and PARTICULAR.
The late Sir Roger Scruton is sometimes mentioned here. I have a vague recollection of him calling himself an Anglican.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
He was, if you look at the link.
By "pluralist," I meant that a national population comprises members of all faiths and none.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I did, and two points about that article interested me: Scruton was disgusted by the pointless riots in Paris in 1968, which led him to becoming a Burkean conservative. The second was mention of how philosophic reasoning led him to belief in God.
Ad astra! Sean (also a Burkean conservative!)
Religion is a social activity; in most times and places, it's intimately connected with other social institutions, and an integral part of group identity.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Of course I agree with that. But I still argue that it matters, as well, WHAT a religion teaches and believes in.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment