Smith's view seems to play out in the comparison of a state such as Iran, which imposes Muslim religious beliefs on its citizens, and that is extremely rigid and zealous in those beliefs, which impose strict religious control over households and especially women. Compare that with a country like the United States, which is more moderate and reasonable, and open to new religious beliefs.
Some experts believe that diversity is another reason religion plays a role in moderate, reasonable societies. Author Barro continues, "A greater diversity of religions available in a country or region is thought to promote greater competition, hence a better quality religion product, and therefore higher religious participation and beliefs" (Barro). In a country with only one supported religion, tolerance and quality are not part of the equation, adherence and rules are the most important, and that does not give any tolerance for any diversity or competition to develop alternative forms of belief.
Finally, philosophers and experts believe that organized religion in its present form perpetuates the strength of men over women in society, and goes against ideas of women's rights and equality. Gila Stopler, an Israeli layer and philosopher writes, "I will show that religious patriarchal ideals serve to perpetuate women's inequality in both the public and the private sphere and that patriarchal religion buttressed by state support adversely affects the lives of all women, both religious and non-religious" (Stopler). She believes that religion has been organized by men, men lead most worldwide religions, and women have played insignificant roles in the development and perpetuation of religion and that continues into the present. Some religions have embraced women as church leaders and as heads of their churches, but some still ban women, and in most religions, women play an insignificant, volunteer-type role if any at all.
In continuance with her beliefs about how religion affects women's rights, Stopler questions the reality of separation of church and state in this country and others around the world. She writes, "Even in the U.S., the bastion of separation between church...
She goes on to cite a study that showed that most social service programs provided by religious groups receive up to 40% of their funding from various government agencies (Stopler).
Modern philosophers are changing the way they look at religion. Two authors note, "For example, 'creation theology,' which holds that God's creation of the universe is an ongoing process and that humans are 'co- creators,' was developed by both scientists and theologians" (Cimino, and Lattin 42). This new way of blending science, philosophy, and religion offers hope that in the future, these different ideals can work together to find common ground, and a common faith, something new in the world of at least some philosophers.
In conclusion, religion and philosophy have not seemed to go together in the past, but many of the world's leading philosophers have embraced areas of organized religion, and some believe that it is vital for economic and social success. While organized religion does not have the power over much of society that it once had, it is an important aspect of life for many, and it gives the opportunity for people to express their beliefs, hold common ground, and expand their social networks, as well. For many, it is the very fabric that holds their lives together, and it is also a source of debate and sometimes accord between philosophers.
References
Barro, Robert J. "Spirit of Capitalism: Religion and Economic Development." Harvard International Review 25.4 (2004): 64+.
Cimino, Richard, and Don Lattin. Shopping for Faith: American Religion in the New Millennium. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
McCleary, Rachel M. "Religion and Economic Development." Policy Review (2008): 45+.
Rossi, Phillip. "Kant's Philosophy of Religion." Stanford University. 2005. 8 May 2009.
.
Stopler, Gila. "The Liberal Bind: The Conflict between Women's Rights and Patriarchal Religion in the Liberal State." Social Theory and Practice 31.2 (2005): 191+.
