MyDoorsAreOpen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 8,549
I was in Japan last autumn, taken around by my friend's father, who is a highly learned man in many fields, among them history, economics, and Buddhist philosophy. As we were wandering the beautiful grounds of one of Kyoto's most magnificent temples, on a hillside looking down over the city, he began speaking about the role this temple (and many others) had in medieval Japan. The paths leading up to the temple provided places for merchants to set up stalls, providing pilgrims and worshipers the goods and services they needed after lengthy journeys by foot. The temple took a small cut (call it "rent" or "tax" if you like) of each merchant's earnings as payment for such prime access to customers. This temple, like most others, contained secret passages and rooms that were hard to access, should the local feudal lord or any of his brass need a place to hide. Plus, as a place of scholarship, it was where the lord could safely store important records and documents. This led to temples becoming proto-banks as well, storing coinage, recording debits and credits, and determining rates of exchange between different goods and services of the merchants below. For this, the government provided both the temple and the merchants with hired muscle (soldiers).
In this way, the temple served as a full-fledged hub of society. Citizens could go there to pray, shop, and learn. The downside was that, well, none of the three groups could really go about their business without taking the other two into consideration. The temple's abbot would think twice about preaching or writing anything that would threaten the temple's political and business alliances. Nor would the merchants engage readily in business practices that drove pilgrims away. And the political leaders certainly had an interest in seeing both the temple and its marketplace thriving, if they didn't want a restive populace.
When I remarked that medieval Europe, with its strategic alliances between church, nobility, and craft guilds, was very similar, he exclaimed, "EXACTLY!", and went on to describe how he thinks this was a natural stage of societal evolution for people everywhere.
I think this sheds a lot of light on the complicated relationship between business, politics, and religion in modern societies today. Most people reading this post have probably been raised to take it for granted that, as Enlightenment thinkers taught, these three domains ought to have as little to do with each other as possible, if the good of the whole is to be served. But the fact remains, each of these three does find ways to get into the business of the other two, even in the most liberal of democracies. And the reason is that it's just too easy! Why wouldn't a successful businessman want to donate money to political and religious groups that supported his interests? Why wouldn't a political group want to encourage people to spend and worship in ways that supported their interests? And why wouldn't a religious group preach values and conduct that kept expense-paying funds and political favor flowing their way?
As rational (noble, even, IMHO) as the separation of church, state, and commerce is, I can't help but see something a bit contrived and idealistic about it. It's definitely an experiment, not at all historically precedented before the Enlightenment. Part of the issue is enforceability -- people cross different domains in society while remaining the same people with the same vested interests. In a free society, you can't stop two men quietly brokering a business deal in a back pew, or a businessman treating his favorite politician to a good deal and maybe even a gift.
I've noticed that bans only tend to work when few people want what's being banned. Otherwise, the ban just makes the problem worse, by driving the banned activity underground, where it's regulated by the Law of the Jungle. The rave scene is a salient example a lot of people here can relate to, I'm sure. It's hard to find a non-private party with not a trace of any thuggish element these days, and that's because it's been forsaken by legitimate government and polite society, and at the mercy of the criminal fringe.
Bottom line: Does a forced complete separation of church, state, and commerce make problems of bribery and corruption between these three worse??
In this way, the temple served as a full-fledged hub of society. Citizens could go there to pray, shop, and learn. The downside was that, well, none of the three groups could really go about their business without taking the other two into consideration. The temple's abbot would think twice about preaching or writing anything that would threaten the temple's political and business alliances. Nor would the merchants engage readily in business practices that drove pilgrims away. And the political leaders certainly had an interest in seeing both the temple and its marketplace thriving, if they didn't want a restive populace.
When I remarked that medieval Europe, with its strategic alliances between church, nobility, and craft guilds, was very similar, he exclaimed, "EXACTLY!", and went on to describe how he thinks this was a natural stage of societal evolution for people everywhere.
I think this sheds a lot of light on the complicated relationship between business, politics, and religion in modern societies today. Most people reading this post have probably been raised to take it for granted that, as Enlightenment thinkers taught, these three domains ought to have as little to do with each other as possible, if the good of the whole is to be served. But the fact remains, each of these three does find ways to get into the business of the other two, even in the most liberal of democracies. And the reason is that it's just too easy! Why wouldn't a successful businessman want to donate money to political and religious groups that supported his interests? Why wouldn't a political group want to encourage people to spend and worship in ways that supported their interests? And why wouldn't a religious group preach values and conduct that kept expense-paying funds and political favor flowing their way?
As rational (noble, even, IMHO) as the separation of church, state, and commerce is, I can't help but see something a bit contrived and idealistic about it. It's definitely an experiment, not at all historically precedented before the Enlightenment. Part of the issue is enforceability -- people cross different domains in society while remaining the same people with the same vested interests. In a free society, you can't stop two men quietly brokering a business deal in a back pew, or a businessman treating his favorite politician to a good deal and maybe even a gift.
I've noticed that bans only tend to work when few people want what's being banned. Otherwise, the ban just makes the problem worse, by driving the banned activity underground, where it's regulated by the Law of the Jungle. The rave scene is a salient example a lot of people here can relate to, I'm sure. It's hard to find a non-private party with not a trace of any thuggish element these days, and that's because it's been forsaken by legitimate government and polite society, and at the mercy of the criminal fringe.
Bottom line: Does a forced complete separation of church, state, and commerce make problems of bribery and corruption between these three worse??
