Religion And It's Place In Society

    Remembering  a few years ago reading Mircea Eliade I was introduced to the concept of profane and sacred space. And just recently a few months ago I read Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the social contract and these are two examples arcane and religious sociology. Let's compare the two.

While there is no central theme in Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the social contract where there's a presence of religion there is basic constructs where there is a unified agreement between peoples their leaders and their community Mircea Eliade takes this a step further by placing the importance of God in the middle of the community that unites people their leadersa creates an obligation between the sacred and the profane spaces that occupy their society. I did not know according to a friend of mine up until recently that Mircea Eliade could be considered a valid sociologist. but his emphasis on the community the people and a contract that exists between God the people and their leaders seemed that it could fit that mold. Where is Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his social contract is purely profane space Mircea Eliade takes it a step further and add the presence of God within Society this would later be expanded upon by people who by All Rights were atheists like Emile Durkheim, who while being against religion personally saw it as a general pillar of a functioning Society. This did not cross a mind of Jean-Jacques Rousseau who after the anti-catholic sentiment of the French revolution, religion would not have a proper place in his Society as everything will be a profane contract between citizen leader and his community as a whole. That's one of the many faults of the French revolution, of excising religion out of the daily lives of ordinary citizens. but much after the French revolution and the reaction against the Enlightenment principles, people began to reconsider the importance of religion as opposed during the Enlightenment period the unimportance of religion as a central pillar to forming a functioning community it started with Emile Durkheim and his principal of solidarism that preferred mechanical organism of society to the modern day Society where people were specialized in different fields as opposed to mechanical Society war everyone walked relatively the same job and secured the community as a whole. A lot of these older mechanical societies revolves around the revelation of a spirit or God, whereas modern society had specialized needs and with the advancement of Positivist methods such as math science and technology there was no need to have a central pillar that would guide Society and the proper direction it needed to go. All citizens basically had their needs met by profane science. Enter Mircea Eliade with his concept of sacred and profane spaces where he designated the outer world as profane space and even saw the central pillar of the community as a designated sacred space which society would revolve around mimicking the universe and all of God's creations. Many modern sociologists do not consider him a sociologist proper because of his insistence on religion and his anti-positivist ants on human organic Society and how society would function. I doubt that Mircea Eliade would want to envision a society that puts religion on the back burner an emphasized is the scientific method as a measure of human happiness but here we are now in the modern world and he would find it very cursed. It's sad that we've been without him for quite some time but at the same time I think it's better that he doesn't see Society for how it's functioning currently maybe one day we can return to an existence where we can balance the positivist methods of Science and technology without trying to disprove God as both our pillars of a progressive and conservative Society.

- J./Adolf Stalin