Without a common loyalty to either a state or a church they have nevertheless a vast deal in common.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Churches, by the very reason of their structures, are monolithic and do not adapt easily. But in many cases, they, too, have allowed themselves to become allied or even part of an unjust establishment or system.
Strong religious identities survive and thrive. But more than ever before, even in their most conservative iterations, they are chosen.
As of essential importance in town churches which are not at all equally necessary in the country.
Quite often you hear people say, 'What about separation of church and state?' There is no such thing.
While few religious leaders and scholars would doubt the commonalities that exist among the various religious groups, the followers of these religions unfortunately struggle in their effort to peacefully coexist.
A society whose members are united by the fact that they think in the same way in regard to the sacred world and its relations with the profane world, and by the fact that they translate these common ideas into common practices, is what is called a Church. In all history, we do not find a single religion without a Church.
What's true for churches is true for other institutions: the older and more organized they get, the less adaptable they become. That's why the most resilient things in our world - biological life, stock markets, the Internet - are loosely organized.
No religion can long continue to maintain its purity when the church becomes the subservient vassal of the state.
And, for instance, Baptists, Adventists, Lutherans, Pentecostals - let them exist on line with others.
Wherever you've got a state church, you have empty churches.