In this discussion the question to be addressed, will not be as much as to present direction in the format of religious participation in social responsibilities. Such a question assumes that religion does indeed have a social responsibility. This discussion here rather wants to question the question: does religion indeed have a social responsibility? There are two possible positions on this: (i) it is obvious that religion has a social responsibility and should act upon it; and (ii) it is not so obvious that religion has a social responsibility and should refrain from social participation in social issues. Both positions are supported by good arguments. The former position is supported by the assumption that human nature is filled with virtue and humans have the moral capacity to influence society in a positive way. The religious idealists are convinced that an utopian society can be created on earth; almost make heaven touch earth. The second position is underlined by the argument that human virtue and moral capacity is over-estimated. Reinhold Niebuhr (1936) elaborated on this matter. Society is however much rather governed by self-interest and ignorance even under the veil of religion There are dangers (i.e. reductionism, selectivism, antagonism and utopianism) involved when religion participates in social activities. The discussion here wants to present a third possible way by suggesting a tempered approach when religion participates in social activities. Rather individuals ought to be educated to act morally and responsibly in society.