Depends on the period, however, philosophy is often used as an attempt to justify "wars of faith", so often religious wars will cause justifications to appear in the philosophy behind the faith.
How do you define "too much religious freedom"? Do you mean something like this: People should be free to worship a deity, but they should NOT be free to NOT worship any deity? Or: People are free to choose any religion, but they MUST NOT choose This particular religion, or that particular religion? If there is a strong and just civil law, and if everyone abides by the civil law regardless of religion, then there can't be too much religious freedom. We (in the US) should have religious freedom within the civil law, including the right not to practice any religion at all.
Helga Dickow has written: 'Das Regenbogenvolk' -- subject(s): Christianity and politics, Civil religion, Religious life and customs 'Religion and attitudes towards life in South Africa' -- subject(s): Religious life and customs, Pentecostalism, Religion and sociology
An example of civil religion is the incorporation of religious symbols and language in political speeches and ceremonies to promote a sense of national unity and identity. This can be seen in the United States, where phrases like "In God We Trust" and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance reflect the blending of religious and patriotic sentiments.
In the US, there is little blurring between the authority of religious denominations (the "church") and the government. The US was founded on religious freedom (or, viewed another way - freedom from religion). Religious law and civil law do not overlap.
Two. Civil and religious. A civil marriage, sanctioned by the state can include religious marriages. Religious marriages are sanctioned by a particular religion. Religious marriages may include state sanctioned marriages. Some religious marriages if the couple is comprised of members of two different religions, interfaith marriages, may be sanctioned by one but not the other religion or both religions, or by one or both religions but not the state for various reasons. Including, age, sex, bigamy, polygamy, religious affiliation, race, nationality ... etc.
Very strictly speaking, no religious group was targeted by the Nazis on religious grounds. Perhaps you are thinking of the Jews, but they were targeted as a race; then there were the Jehovah's Witnesses, but they were targeted for 'civil disobedience', not for their religion as such.
any religion you believe it its civil its about what is in your heart.
any religion you believe it its civil its about what is in your heart.
Ronald Beiner has written: 'Civil religion' -- subject(s): Philosophy, Political science, History 'What's the matter with liberalism?' -- subject(s): Citizenship, Civil rights, Philosophy, Social justice, Political ethics, Socialism, Political science, Liberalism 'Philosophy in a time of lost spirit' -- subject(s): Communitarianism, Philosophy, Liberalism, Political science 'Liberalism, Nationalism, Citizenship' -- subject(s): Civil society, Nationalism, Citizenship, Liberalism 'Political Judgement'
Edwin Chadwick was not known to adhere to a specific religion. He was a social reformer and civil servant who focused on public health and sanitation, rather than religious matters.
The Peace of Augsburg was signed in 1555 to resolve religious conflicts in the Holy Roman Empire. It allowed German princes to choose between Catholicism and Lutheranism as the official religion of their territories, leading to a temporary period of religious toleration and ending the civil war between the Catholic and Protestant states.
Because there's nothing worse than extremists codifying their religious regulations into civil law.