<religion provides important social, medical, educational and welfare services to its communities with the benediction and co-operation of the State political authorities. Together with school and family, religion is a vector for the moral values that help structure society.>

Religion is symbiotically affiliated with power and always has been; symbiosis of course describes a mutually beneficial relationship. But rather than religion's providing for salubrious society, as the author suggests, it provides palliative care for a chronically ailing society. Nor are its motives in providing "welfare" etc services essentially altruistic; they are adaptive ministrations evolved to meet the needs of an unwritten pact between religion and power. The ordinary religious footsoldiers are no doubt more often than not genuine in their altruism, but this too is merely ideological subscription. History is replete with evidence of religion's adaptable, parasitical relationship with power; it will provide soup kitchens in the streets or bestow God's blessings on military aggression as circumstances dictate.
<it [religion] avoids social unrest and prevents revolutions more efficiently and in a much more acceptable manner than the brutality of armies>
Revolution is just what carcinogenic capitalist culture needs, but thanks to religion the alienated masses meekly accept <their miserable earthly condition>.
I do not believe that science has the faintest idea of the source of religious experience. Indeed, liberal rationalism is also a parasite.

"History is replete with evidence of religion's adaptable, parasitical relationship with power"
(Squeers)

“The subordination of higher religions to states or other secular institutions is a relapse into the ancient dispensation under which religion was an integral part of the total culture of some pre-civilizational society or early civilization, limited in spiritual and geographical range.

But the higher religions will always be bound to strive to keep themselves disengaged from secular social and cultural trammels, because this is an indispensable condition for the fulfillment of their true mission.

This mission is not concerned directly with human beings’ social or cultural relations with each other: its concern is the relation between each individual human being and the trans-human presence of which the higher religions offer a new vision.”
(Arnold Toynbee, “A Study of History, One-Volume Edition, OUP 1972)

Dear George,
having studied theories of history somewhat, I tend to the Hayden White sceptical school. History is just a genre of fiction. I'm especially unimpressed with Toynbee's religious/historical bias; a bare, unsupported assertion that flies in the face of what we know of the various political-governmental infamies religion has been complicit in. Moreover, what does Toynbee mean by "higher religions"? In any case, the "higher" the religion the fowler the stench of both worldly and ecclesiastical corruption, I'd have thought? At least the Amish can't be accused of giving their blessings to machines of war.
Actually existing religions are indefensible for mine; regardless of high-sounding theology (religious experience is another matter), which doesn't absolve them of their real actions or their unconscionable support of villainy.

.

Religion and the State

.

The Pharaohs of ancient Egypt considered that they were gods and their subjects worshiped them as such. Julius Caesar (100 BC – 44 BC), the consul of the Roman Republic and Empire, claimed that he was a direct descendent of Aeneas, the son of the goddess Venus. In Chinese tradition, the legitimacy of kings and emperors was said to be due to a mandate of heaven. Similarly, in Western culture, royalty was deemed invested in the divine right of kings.

These considerations have not completely disappeared in all of the 193 official sovereign states in the world today. The rulers of many nations continue to assume both an earthly and religious role.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, for example, also has the religious title of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. King Abdullah II of Jordan is considered to be a 43rd-generation direct descendant of Muhammad. Akihito of Japan, whose title in Japanese signifies “The Heavenly Emperor”, is the highest authority in the Shinto religion. Margrethe II of Denmark is head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark. Elisabeth II, Queen of 16 independent sovereign states, members of the Commonwealth, including the UK, Australia and New Zealand, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.


Though he had no official religious function at the time, the previous President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, was quoted as having confided to the Texas evangelist, James Robinson: “I feel like God wants me to run for President … I know it won’t be easy for me or my family, but God wants me to do it”. He subsequently declared to Abu Mazen, the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister: “God told me to strike at Al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East”

.

Dear Squeers,

You gave a sweeping description of the role of religion in history that has become standard (“politically correct”?) today. I just offered an alternative by quoting a specialist. I am not a historian but know that Toynbee was controversial not only for this, but also for his approach to civilisations in his huge ”A Study of History” for reasons I can understand but as a non-historian cannot argue for or against Toynbee.

As for Toynbee’s concept of higher religions used in his book, they “are attempts to put individual human souls into direct communion with absolute spiritual Reality, without the mediation of either non-human nature or the human society…”. Of course, this can make some sense only if you accept the existence of an “absolute spiritual Reality” (please don’t ask me to define it). Explicitly, he means apparently Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and possibly the Chinese religions and others, since he recognises 26 civilisations. I agree that Toynbee is best understood - though not necessarily agreed with in all details - from a Christian point of view (see also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9038#144777 ).

Having said that, I am grateful to you for bringing up Hayden White, of whom I have known nothing except for the name. I tried to find on the internet where he disagrees explicitly with Toynbee, and found only a paper “Collingwood and Toynbee: Transitions in English Historical Thought."  English Miscellany.  7 (1956): 147-178, that I have no access to. I have access to e.g. http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~ewa/Domanska,%20Interview%20with%20Hayden%20White.pdf, and I am going to read it.

After all, for a mathematician with a penchant for abstract constructions, anything Meta- is of interest, though I read now that White apparently abandoned his ideas presented in Metahistory.
Thanks again

Dear Banjo,

My problem with your last example is that George W. Bush was an ignorant, unintelligent man who was engineered into the position of President despite his shortcomings.
The fact that a man of so little substance claimed divine guidance for the atrocities committed under his watch is a perfect demonstration in practice of what Squeers referred to as the symbiotic relationship between power and religion.