Spiritual person is virtuous one and religious person is one who follow/faith in a particular religion. Both are good as long as they are impartial and follow ethics and moral standards. Whosoever, me be a spiritual person, a religious person, a ruler or any combination of such ideologies, must separate his/her ideology from the governance and work for public good selflessly.

The separation of church and state does not create evil in society. It is the lack of fear in the person that condemns us to endure sufferance by their actions. Religion provides fear and promise of reward for conformity. Spirituality gives hope and fuels our endeavors. The two are not the same and one does not depend on the other to exist.  Lacking fear and hope, Man is left to his own device: desire---that degenerates unto selfishness.

The military training creates men and women of spirit, hence esperit de corps. As for religion--each is left to his own choosing because religion comes into many shades, i.e. some have many Gods, some with only One God, yet another may be without God. For this reason, in some civil society secularism is pursued in order to cultivate spirituality (commitment in the pursuit and practice) without the complication of religious tenets.

Spirituality is a character of a person which endures so long as he lives and ceases upon his death. That is----spirituality depends on the mind and influences the conduct of a person. Religion endures beyond the life span of a person as an institution and entity. A religious person could be religious so long as that institution exists. When the religion becomes defunct, the religious man becomes no more than a pagan, but nevertheless a spiritual pagan. While a person could be both spiritual and religious, he too can be spiritual and non-religious (in communist state, for instance). A third type is a person may be religious, but lacks spirituality---these are people using religion for private gains. It is this third type that poses danger to society.

A fourth type is non-spiritual and non-religious person. These nonbelievers think of only the here and now and denies what came before and what will be after this life. These type of people holds the most creative and destructive forces in human society for they are the seed of desire unchecked by fear.

when we talk about religion in true sense we can not talk about any faith, any belief any fear or malpractices or its distorted forms. The prefix stands....AGAIN...

Read again, bind again, find again....be born AGAIN! Religion can not be taken as destructive things.  A spiritual person is consciously aware person who carries his own persona, own charm with a clear vision. religion is a collective term for spirituality and Religion at its best is spirituality in community .

A very enticing question, dear John, and I find myself obliged to answer it!

I cannot add more wise words to what you have already said: "we do need a return to morality and virtue" in human society at large; the two forces combined ethically shape our human community!

And we do need to have a new look at our political relations from scratch. Politics is the issue that needs to be considered at once to solve pending problems that hinder human relations so difficult!

John, you ask an important question. 

"Do we need a return to morality, ethics, and virtue in government and business, the two forces that shape our society?" Of course, WE do. But WE live in quite diverse societies that are influenced by religions (or ideologies, for that matter) in a variety of ways. 

The country I have chosen to work in has a strong religious basis, Buddhism. The governments do not really stand to benefit from this influence. Now we have a soldier acting as the Prime Minister. At least, freedom of faith is guaranteed but not freedom of speech. Death penalty is allowed as in the Bible states of the US. This is not my understanding of the Bible and of one of the commandments (Thou shalt not kill - no exception mentioned).

Islamic countries, as well, do not have a good record fighting corruption and other criminal offences. All of us can have a look at the reports of Transparency International.

I think, religion (and any ideology) would have a negative impact on politics because it would lead the population to the idea of WE and THEM. Notwithstanding, there are valuable insights and ideas that people can draw from the various faiths. I would like to call the combination of these values HUMANITARIANISM. 

This leads to the second part of your question, " If so, how can it be accomplished?"

For me, Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is as much a moral compass as common sense. Humanitarianism includes all people and does not divide them because they follow different faiths. It may be the one common ground on which all believers can practice their religions as they wish.

http://www.transparency.org/gcb2013

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Interesting !

Thank you dear John.

I could not agree more with most of the previous answers. This is absolutely important, and modern, as  I strongly believe that we are near to approaching a new Era of spirituality and maturtity of Faith, throughout the World, as a recycling of the Era of technological supremacy.

Religious faith may indeed play a role, but the fundamental ingredient to this renewal is certainly the growing interest in Spirituality and questions of morals and ethics, to rethink, in a more global approach, closely linked to the facility of global communications. Politicians will grow accordingly. I have confidence in the nearby future.

Thank you, John. This is interesting. 

I, for one, humbly think that politics (nothing else) would have a negative impact on both ideology (and religion), not the other way round, because it would mistakenly lead many of us  to a split vision of  "WE" and "THEM," a vision based on political interests  and conflicts and differences alone (not ethics and morality and spirituality). Spirituality brings us together as fellow human beings, regardless of race and ethnic identity. Our differences, to be sure, are political in the first and last place. Politics is to divide and rule. Let's look at human history to figure out!

The dilemma of our nowadays world is the domination of selfish culture, injustice & regression of morals, ethics & even humanity. The world population are either believers (in true God who is creator or in false God which is created) or non-believers (denier of presence of God). I think the world is in need to read holy books of true believers (in God the creator) to know which invites to goodness, peace. morals, cooperation & justice and to know which includes a solution of our world problems of different life fields. I am sure that the true holy book i.e. non-deviated nor changed holy book, will be an excellent guider during solving our world problems in all life fields. 

Yes, we do need a return to morality, ethics, and virtue in government and business, the forces that shape our society. But, do not neglect the force of education that will shape society to achieve the goals we are speaking about. It is a long term objective dear @John!

Dear John,

Dear All,

Each really religious people is spiritual but not each spiritual people is religious.

Dear Maria,

Fundamentalists in the Christian sense do not follow the teaching and will of God.

Dear John,

As to my humble experiences – as you initiated –, government and business leaders do not believe either in God or any noble ideas. They worship money and power. The little bosses imitate big ones and many simple people follow them. Voilá, the circle is closed.

Dear András, Yes. 

And maybe this is why «my» new Catholic Pope is working hard to bring to closer proximity, with open-heart and open-mindness, most of the Christian currents, and also to other monotheist churches, in an effort to globalize and to open-mindness divulgation.

There's nothing to be lost, and a whole lot to be gained !

Dear Friends,

Thank you all for such wonderful, thought-provoking comments.  I look forward to responding directly to many of the comments when I'm able.

For now let me mention that at first I intended to ask simply, "What is the difference between a spiritual person and a religious person?"  This seems to have a simple answer:  "Spiritual means this and religious means that."  But when considering the meanings and implications of the two terms it's more complicated than simply this and that.

While considering the tragic events of the week I decided to add government, business, society, morality, ethics, etc. to the question because it's all interrelated, convoluted, distorted, etc.  In short, the world is a mess and getting worse every day.  Can we fix it before it's too late?

Be back soon.

Best regards, John

In response to your question, I think there is a big difference between the spiritual and the religious. In my opinion, the spiritual has to do with the possibilities, both individual and collective, allowing them to transcend the sense of humanity beyond the material universe, although these also are expressed in it. The spiritual is reflected in various aspects of the culture of a people or a society and has to do with transcendence, contemplation or valuing. There would be several examples of spirituality: art, myths, many popular beliefs, and of course, religion can be one of the forms of expression of the spiritual.

However, regarding your question, in the field of construction of public and state, I believe that also come into play discussions on human spirituality and religions. It is important that states ensure time and space for people who are part of them can live and express both their spirituality and religiosity. Even in secular states, these discussions have led, for example, laws that guarantee freedom of worship.

Now, I think the concept of secular states implies not deny people the opportunity to experience and express their spirituality, whether in the form of religion. State should be create the conditions to people can experience and express their spirituality, without this will constitute an imposition to others as when done some times from school.

What is at issue is that a perspective of spirituality or religiosity of a group does not become on state imposition or insitucional imposition to other groups.

Finally, it is impossible to deny that the moral elements enter into discussions on the public or the state, because the political parties express moral positions on issues such as the type of education, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Best

We'll HAVE to fix it, dear John !

And as much as I notice, from our RG friends around the World, there is great will and concensus from the scientific community to change things, because we are all interested in Progress, independently from our religious beliefs, and our spirituality of pragmagtic scientific minds that provide us the good sense to condemn what is wrong, and to have faith in a better future.

We are all also very much co-responsible for the education of many students and in this sense, we are indeed co-responsible for the future generations wellfare and we may transmit codes of ethics and moral beliefs to help change the curse of things, as they present . It may depend o us to help this change of things.

Dear John,

For me, "religious" is one who believes in a determined belief.

And "spiritual" is one that believes in a majeure force, regardless of religion.

(maybe this view is too simplistic, but I'm not a studious of the theme and It is my view of life).

Best Regards,

Vanessa

A religious person is more of a devoted person to some beliefs and does some stated actions without thinking. A spiritual person is a thinker and not necessarily a follower of routine ideas or rituals of a religion. However it is generally found that a spiritual person is also religious.

To be spiritual belongs to whole humanity and has importance in all fields be it business and Government. An addition of spiritualism to all activities gives us a thinking direction for humanity.

My dear friends,

I have read all the inspirational comments so far and I'm not avoiding responding.  I have no energy.  Perhaps tomorrow.  Sorry for injecting my personal issues in the conversation.

My dear friend Kamal, fear not the notorious down voter!  We'll "smite" him, whatever that means.  We want to hear from your intellect and wisdom.

Jeanan and others, we look forward to your wise counsel as well.

Good night all, John

Good morning, all!

Dear Jonh, you went to sleep, as I woke up.

Here's a lovely bookmark I got for Christmas, and last night, before falling asleep on my book, I noticed that the sayings would very much apply the answers to this question.

with Love, Maria

This is to try and bring our dear Kamal back to discussions. (hope it works !)

What really matters is upvoting. Downvotings are nonsense from people who don't know what or how to write.

You are very much right, Dear Maria.

Any body can be critical, rather negative, but can't write answer. Perhaps afraid!

Dear John

The spirtualité draws its essence of thought nothing of thought. Socrates was a good thinker attendant spirits. As against religiosity draws its essence from books or other Divine. I think many people who govern have neither the one nor the other. They have the love of power or money. Where is Ghandi?

Sincerely

FADEL

Without moral values world will ends!! without moral and ethics everybody could make or do what he/she wants in conjunctions with his/her self interests. The world will becomes a jungle. Moral and ethics are close to social, professional, commercial etc.. rules and laws, people should respect them. Religions and spirituality are close and inner to the self. One could be a good religious or spiritual practitioner in public, may be for a social image of him/her, but with his/her inner self  may be his/her intentions are not ethical at all. In monotheist religions, the actions of people and their good doing prevalent, only God could accepts or not the right faiths. People are free to practice their faiths and religions but should respect moral and ethics laws. Governments should be good examples for ethics.

In Muslim religion, prophet Mohamed has mentioned two simple events or examples from people's actions to be accepted or not by God (Allah); one story from a religious woman who makes bad to a cat, and another story from an alcoholic man who gives water in the desert to a thirsty dog, Prophet Mohamed says that the lady's religious practices were not accepted by God and the man's action was accepted and who becomes a good man. These simple stories for good doing to animals are right morals from religious practices, so how could be rewarded by God the good actions for the human behavior ??? This lets understanding that humanity is the first value to be learn and to be saved, from any religious or spiritual practice.

Doing commerce or business with religions for politics and power purpose is not ethical and not moral at all.

Dear Fairouz ! 

Yes, Governments should be good examples for ethics., but in general , they're NOT...

Yes, where is Gandhi, dear Fahrel ????

Dear @Maria and @Fadel, it is about Gandhi, not Ghandi, nor Ganhi! Lapsus linguae! 

Yes, his contribution is real example of person for moral and ethical issues!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

Dear Maria,

Dear All,

I do not think dawn-voters are spiritual or religious people. I do not believe they are scientists in the noble sense of the word.

Dear Roland,

I think many governments protect their own interests and privileges. Here you can see the preferred way to operate as a politician:

I would like to add something to what someone wrote about holy books and that we need holy books. As a rabbi once said: "If you read a religious book and you do not really understand what is said in there and you cannot find a real teacher leave it alone because it might do more damage than help and obviously it is not written for you. Interpretation is mostly dependend upon your very own stage of spiritual development. So if you do not understand what is written there just leave it alone and go back to the most simple rule: Love your neighbour as yourself. Everything else is anyway based on that rule and follows.". And I must say there is some truth in what he said. Because obviously misinterpretation and when you do not understand in what high stages such books were written can indeed - as we can clearly see - cause a lot of damage and violence.

Do we need a return to morality, and ethics  in government and business, the two forces that shape our society? Yes indeed, we do need !!!

Religion may convey a morality which is intrumentalized to fulfill the goals of the specific religion. Spirituality may fulfill the direct link with God/Universe/Nature as an individuum. If the world would be populated only with spiritual people it would be a world of tolerance and respect. On the other hands, religions in the history of mankind did not deal only with defining the relationship between man and God but also build around social frames, defined behavioral patters- moral /ethics. I agree with Carmen - if we would embrace the  recommendation to love your neighbour as yourself we could translate it into behavioral pattern of respect and tolerance- and from the individual level to the society, government, etc.

This is a nice dream. I do not believe in implementation of any behaviour, moral, ethics from the upper level (government) toward individuum- dictatorial directives will never be embraced. I suppose each individual could awake to awareness if there is an individual interest. One day, may be, quantitative addings will lead to a quantum leap for the society.

Well, spiritual is the one who is not necessarily following any kinds of institutional religions. On the other hand religious is the one who is strictly following the teachings and applications of the religions. Spiritual one is limited with feelings and thoughts, but religious one is also practical.

Dear Carmen,

Dear All,

If one cannot understand an artwork, s/he must do everything possible to find the way of understanding. This is the way with holy books, one should try permanently to understand their message. The love towards your neighbours is the simplest rule though, an evil man will misunderstand this too. I think spirituality is an ability which can be developed but only with benevolence, concentration and hard work. The question is how simple people can recognise and approach at least the minimum of morality necessary to live peaceful together?

Dear Michaela,

I believe we are here to dream together. To dream something really nice.

When we are good (whatever religious, spiritual, or agnostic?) … we project (or we try to see) in the others what we are? If all people were always good, there were no wars. Wars are the fruit of the stupidity of the man and not of his intelligence. Nevertheless, we can always dream, because all human beings have the capacity to overcome their weakness and be really good (and not only in the case of necessity). The humankind trend looks obvious to me: the idea of good; given that the (real) human being seeks always the best for everyone. The societies are the reflex of the state of the human development in their time.

Thank you very much RG for losing what I just wrote!!!!!!

I wrote for over an hour which is about all I can handle with the extreme trembling in my hands.  For almost every word I have to back space to remove the extra 3 or 4 letters I've inadvertently typed.  Parkinson's disease is the wrong infirmity to have when your life revolves around typing!!  Why couldn't the tremors be in my toes or my ears!!  :D

I was about to finish one of my lengthy responses when the page jumped from the first to the last.  When I went back my "pearls of wisdom" were gone.

Hmmm, maybe I haven't been spiritual enough and the gremlins are punishing me! ;)

I'll try again in the morning! 

Regards, John

Dear John!

I know that I may be "over-spiritual", but I want to let you know that I pray for your wellness and happiness, and that I am very thankful for your efforts to write because I enjoy reading every line you type. 

And to know that you invest physical strain into this, makes each and every comment from you even more valuable than they already were.

T H A N K   Y O U ! ! ! 

You are a marvellous person to know, and I admire you.

OK, I'm going to try this again.  Come on RG, don't fail me now!

Aw, shucks, Maria.  You're making me blush!  And I do appreciate your expressions of concern and caring.  You are truly a lady with a huge heart, kind, wise, and spiritual. 

The comments so far on this topic have been very extraordinary because they demonstrate a high level of understanding beyond "book knowledge" and a reflective expression of thoughts and even feelings.  The comments seem to have stopped or slowed; I hope there will be more because this conversation is just getting hot!

On a number of threads some of us have commented that this platform is useful because we share knowledge of academic topics and at the same time we learn about each other.  It's pleasant and rewarding to communicate with such a wide variety of people--different languages, countries, cultures, customs, religions, etc.  But this conversation takes us a step beyond that, at least in my humble observation.  Language, country, customs, etc. are tangible and physical aspects of culture.  The comments here delve into the intangible and personal elements of  cultures.  They open a door into the hearts and minds of the writers giving us a greater understanding of our similarities and universality.  Physical culture reflects our differences; vital culture reveals our common human bonds.

If that seems corny I won't apologize because I'm writing what I think.

I'm going to write a few responses to comments but I'll do so individually in case I have to stop.

Best regards,

John

Dear friend Roland,

You answer the question being both religious and spiritual very well--"when you are operating in your religion from your heart rather than from the learned dogma of your mind."  Good concept--religion can be spiritual if it's in the heart. 

This is another thought-provoking comment you wrote:  "true spirituality can ennoble politics and politics can ground spirituality. Spirituality can help people* leave ego and power trips at the door and truly serve the good of others." 

*I would say people like politicians, government officials, big power-broker business leaders.  But how can we have government/business leaders with spirituality serving the good of others, the common welfare, when there is no opportunity for them to develop spirituality.  The foundations of spirituality have to be taught even though an individual may develop a personal spirituality through the course of life, much like one develops wisdom through the course of life adding onto the foundations of knowledge and experience laid earlier. 

I'm not referring to government/business leaders espousing a religion with its dogma and rituals; I mean spirituality that is in the heart, as you mentioned above.  Houses of worship could teach these leaders spirituality but they focus on dogma and ritual.  And few attend services anyway, unless there's a photographer around.  Parents of future leaders could guide their kids toward spirituality for virtuous and humanitarian leadership, but they either teach ritual and dogma or nothing at all.  Finally, there are schools which should be the logical venue (because everyone must go to school).  But spirituality is not permitted in school; anything smacking of "religion" is strictly prohibited. 

How foolish, how misguided, how stupid is the latter!  One can teach the basics of spirituality without ever mentioning a specific religion, holy book, dogma, or ritual.  One can go from the most universal to the personal without referring to an organized religion or even to spirituality (it would be an outcome, but it doesn't have to be mentioned):  laws of nature --> natural law --> moral principles --> ethical standards (of behavior) --> virtues --> civil/civil duties --> personal responsibilities.  None of that "establishes religion" so why do people object to those things being taught in schools?    

Roland, look at what you've done!  You've created a monster that spews out a lot of words!  But I couldn't help it; I love what you wrote.

Warm regards, John

PS.  This would be so much easier if we could join any of our colleagues in a warm climate gathered at an open-air café talking about this rather than having to type it. 

Dear @John, here is something more on Spirituality and Religion! The chart below is  attempt to convey that any of the rectangular boxes is a valid form of spirituality.

http://spirituality.wsu.edu/welcome/what-is-the-relationship-between-spirituality-and-religion/

I agree!

Religion comes in the Direction of spirituality, as food for thought. But both are independent.

I might dare add some confusing thoughts. A spiritual person might easily get to admire several religious tendencies, or even be agnostic, if not just to say that a spiritual person may very well be religious, yet condemn fundamentalist pratice of her religious belief.

It seems to me that one might be spiritual but not necessarily religious. I regard the spiritual as opposite to material, so one might concern oneself with immaterial matters that are not necessarily religious. I would not be so presumptuous as to make a claim as to anyone's intentions or mindset, but I don't believe that either spirituality or religiosity is ideally situated to guide civic life on the whole, at least not in the society I find myself living in. It would be most helpful, I believe, if people derived their own operating principles for participating in civic life and then put them into action in such a way as to promote the well-being of others. 

In my opinion, what seems to have changed the most in civic life is that the focus has shifted from cultivating collective well-being to pursuing individual and factional advantage. There is more concern with attaining and retaining power and control to benefit our "band of brothers" whether that is defined as our political party, our shareholders, our profession, etc. This is notnecessarily a moral failing per se, but it can be corrosive.

There is more to be said about the assumptions inherent in your last two questions, John, but perhaps those are better saved for a later day and a fresh pint. :)