That's a fairly new function for government and in reality, a small one. I think the OP was referring to the functions in a de facto sense.
Most "civilized" governments have their roots being very close to religion. Religion was the only force smaller pre-civilized societies with charismatic authority had that could be used in the state for unification.
Afterward it did become obvious that government's purpose was to watch out for the well-being of its people and maintain social solidarity amongst what, left to their own accord, would devolve into conflicting tribes. Religion's purpose was to give legitimacy to government in the eyes of the people... and the preservation of itself.
The concept of the "individual" is relatively new and the basis for rational, modern democratic forms of government... So now religion is losing its place in legitimacy to the "will of the people". As a result, government now has a symbiotic relationship with that will rather than religion... which means the necessity of not placing religion over individual rights and needs.
Religion's purpose is now defined in it's necessity to individuals and it's own self-sustenance. The government alone, by will of the people, acts as the needed component for collective interests of the population.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

How can the "individual" by the basis for a system that considers people as aggregates?

Aggregates are made up of individuals and ultimately the legitimacy of the leadership is based on the will of the people with each person counting equally (ideally anyway). As opposed to a system where the legitimacy is determined by a small elite or by a single leader, where all others are considered as nothing in the process.
Without valuing the individual, there can be no sense to democracy... It is the argument for democracy.
Modern democracy and its emphasis on aggregates is the result of an evergrowing and ever more complex society. The strategy of "pluralism" was developed as a way for weaker individuals to band together against the strongest special interests. Numbers can beat money and entrenchment... and this can only happen because each one in those numbers counts as an individual and their count as an individual trumps money and entrenchment (ideally anyway).

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Religion, by it's very nature is enslaving of it's followers. All religions seek to diminish the liberty and freedom of the individual by imposing dogmatism over individual freedom of thought and action. Religion, even at it's best is oppressive.

You are correct in your statement that I speak of government in it's most flattering light. I speak of it based upon the ideals upon with America was founded and we have travelled a long ways from those ideals. That does not diminish the fact that if government was solely dedicated to the protection of the rights and liberties of the People, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, that it would be far superior to any religious teachings.

In a comparison of the ideals of government to the ideals of religion then government wins hands down.

__________________
Soldiers swear to protect and defend the Constitution with their lives.

Politicians swear to protect and defend the Constitution with someone else's life.

How silly.

This makes no sense whatsoever, democracy walks all over the right of the individual in favour of the "rights" of the majority.

Now now, let's not forget the alternatives.

What? The pipe-dreams of anarchy?
It would require a centralized state to keep each community from doing wrong to the other.

In small collectives (the only units in which non-state societies could function), morality tends to be held to a different standard between in-group and out-group (as it does in larger systems, but bureaucracy minimizes that by using laws and coercion where socilalization fails). Given one conflict over resources, peace would vanish without an arbitrating authority.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Name a single religion that doesn't dictate it's own rules for behavior of the individual.

True in oppressive democracies. Not true in a government dedicated to protecting the freedoms and liberties of the individual.

I will give you an example. In the United States religious institutions have established "marriage" as being limited to two people, generally a man and a woman. This is the government imposing a religious limitiation upon the personal relationships of consenting adults and you could have a marriage of three, four, or more consenting adults. The fact that these relationships are banned is due to the bigoted beliefs of religion imposing itself upon the political process.

__________________
Soldiers swear to protect and defend the Constitution with their lives.

Politicians swear to protect and defend the Constitution with someone else's life.

Not sure what your definition of true communism would be. Regardless, there are ways to handle the "undesirable" jobs. Even with universal, quality education not everyone has the skills to do whatever job they would like most. With jobs that no one wants to do, some propose that groups rotate in and out of those jobs so that no one gets stuck with the least desirable jobs all the time.

How come?

Good question. To be honest, I put a lot of serious thought into my political beliefs, but that process started nearly 20 years ago! Danged if I can remember my take on that, or even if that had been a question I had confronted. You have given me something to ponder. Thank you, BTeamBomber!

__________________
Marthascrewit

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." Matthew 19:21

Why would it?

Governments by their very nature violate individual liberties.

Actually, religion began first as humans' attempts to understand the world around them, and it precipitated government as a means to make civilization a reality.

I would agree, however, that government has replaced religion in this arena; nevertheless, that is its origin.

In any case, I don't believe that religion is, by its nature, enslaving of its followers. I would say, though, that most people are perfectly happy to let themselves be enslaved.

I don't think the flawless government you discuss exists. Neither does a flawless religion. However, do you think there might be a difference between abstract religion (as in a belief structure) and concrete religion (as in a church)?

You speak as one who has never found faith to be freeing. Is this the case, or am I wrong? If it is the case, then how can you tell, from your own experience, if religion is always limiting?

I would propose many of the limits imposed by religion (generally) are the same ones that are imposed by government (generally)--no murder, perjury, stealing--you get the idea. But is every limit truly a limit, or do we give up some things, whether through religion or law, in order to maintain a civilized society?

Btw, let me be clear about one thing: I am NOT advocating theocracy.

P.S. I would like to do a thorough study of the Declaration of Independence and follow up more with you on that in detail; however, I haven't slept in more than 24 hours. Perhaps I will be able to return to this later.

Thank you, Shiva, for the excellent discussion.

__________________
Marthascrewit

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." Matthew 19:21