The issue of the influence of the politics on the church is one that has plagued the nation for many years. But often one is left with the question: Can the society truly separate the church and politics in the society? For centuries the political structure of countries like the United Kingdom, the monarchy had a tremendous impact the overall governance of the country. Kings had control over the religious structure of the country and this led to a number of religious factors being affected by the political restrictions. The fact is that the relationship between the State and the Church is that that guards and define the skepticism of the nation. In the United States, former President, Thomas Jefferson penned a letter in 1802 to explain the need to build a barrier that separates the State from the Church. In recent times, there has been a plethora of court cases that refers to the First Amendment’s justification of the payers against the Ten Commandments. Many critics display cautions as the society attempts to merge the Church and the State into a single entity. But, how strict can this merger be when one looks at the different policies that impact each entity in the society. Nonetheless, one cannot interfere with the religious policies of the nation because it suits the political needs of the people.
For a number of individuals religion shapes the opinions and beliefs of the political setting in the country. In the case of the social implications of same – sex marriage and abortion, the political debate often stands with the religious beliefs of the two factors. In this case one merges the political and religious arguments on these two social issues. Yet, the morality of the issues comes with the religious arguments against these ideas. Stirret points to the 2010 survey carried out by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, to substantiate his views. The study revealed that thirty – seven percent of all registered voters allude to religion being the most significant reason for their opinion on the topic of same-sex marriage, while the twenty – eight percent indicate that their beliefs on abortion ties in with their religious beliefs, (Stirret, par. 2). In fact, “Congressional and local elections are sometimes decided by hundreds of votes, percentages this high can have a major impact,” (Stirret, par. 2). Arguably, the religious sector of the society influences the moral beliefs and practices of a country, and as a result, this factor influences the overall political structure of the society.
A priest in Florida burnt the Koran on 2011 and sparked one of the most controversial international protests that brought the deaths of seven workers connected to the United Nations and another five individuals from Afghanistan. Critics who defend the actions of the priest suggest that his actions can be justified by his rights to freedom of speech based on the United States constitutional rights. Nonetheless, the State has the responsibility to take the well-being and the interest of the society into consideration when these issues arise. Still, how does the State decide on the religious decisions of the clergy when the safety of others becomes threatened? Still, one should acknowledge that the church is fundamental to the various changes on the society. The fact is that it is a mistake to combine the religious and political sectors in the society as the religion centers on moral and ethical standards and politics shy away from such teachings. Nonetheless, not all political leaders operate from a religious standpoint as greed often clouds the sound judgment of an individual. The fact is that not every political leader act on their religious beliefs as the political issues of the country varies according the religious beliefs and practices of the society. Although the political decisions often stem from the religious beliefs of individuals, this causes dangerous practices on the part of many in the society. Muslims and Islamic cultures often base their suicidal political actions on the premise that their actions stem from Allah’s desires to rid the world of political biases. But, one could argue that Allah does not support the act of murder. Still, these political fanatics in the Western world continue to mix political and religious practices, and mayhem around the world.
The question of how religion influences politics is relevant in the society today as a number of social political researchers discovered that there is an intense connection between the religious characteristics and the political structures of different groups in different sections of the world. Inevitably, the changes in the cultural, political and social environments stem from the religious and political aspects of the society. Arguably, the present violence in the Islamic societies should not influence the scientific beliefs that there is a connection between the political and religious structure of a country. This ideology narrows the problems in the country and makes it complex as individuals often witness the manner in which the media simplify or trivialize the retroactive impact of the religious traditions which impact the formative development of politically democratic traditions of the European-Atlantic civilization. Therefore, the connection between the political and religious nature of the country must remain under close scrutiny of the country.
Critic, Eric Brahm postulates that “at the dawn of the twenty-first century, a casual glance at world affairs would suggest that religion is at the core of much of the strife around the globe,” (Brahm, par. 1). Additionally, one realizes that the issue of religion is generally a contentious issue that places eternal salvation at the center of a number of debates. Often, there is difficulty when one attempts to reach a balance between both factors as the decision between religion and politics is sinful and difficult. Conversely, “religion is also important,” (Brahm, par. 2) as religion is a fundamental aspect of one’s identity. Brahm reinforces the view that politics often threaten the very existence of one’s religious being, (Brahm, par. 2) and provides “primary motivation for ethno-religious nationalists,” (Brahm, par. 2). Nevertheless, the relationship that exists between one’s religious belief and politics adds to the complex nature if maintaining peace among the religiously-motivated individuals in the society.
Religious fanatics around the world contribute to the controversy of the political arena as they take their beliefs to the extreme. These individuals see the deep-seated measures as factors that are important to carrying out the wishes of God. The fact is that “fundamentalists of any religion tend to take a Manichean view of the world,” (Brah, par. 3). The struggle between what is good and what is evil continues in various groups such as the Jama'at-i-Islami of Pakistan and the America's New Christian Right; operate under the premise of a constitutional foundation as a means that pursues intolerant ends. Many religious groups spread God’s word and enhance the number of religious followers. During the colonization era, Europeans enforced Christianity on the Africans and the natives of the Western world even as they attempt to justify their political strength across the New World. These links between the religious and political spheres cause the death of many Africans and Amerindians and showed that many political organizations believe that religion can justify political actions.
Osbourne reflects on the practices of the Kenyans as “Anglican leaders such as Gitari challenged the Moi regime 'using the pulpit' during the 1980s and early 1990s,” (Osbourne, par. 1). These religious sermons criticize the political structure of the country and were instrumental in the return of the system of many political parties having a say in the governance of the country in 1992. Still, Paul Gifford reiterates the belief that “churches of all denominations have been 'co-opted' by the political elite,” (as cited by Osbourne, par. 2). The list of corruptions in the political arena leads to much controversy around the world as leaders are often implicated in corrupting religion with their political views. Gifford continues to argue that Christianity is forms another of the neo-patrimonial structures' of the political system in many countries, (as cited by Osbourne, par. 2).
Rhia Sharma’s belief on the connection between religion and politics develops from the Fox’s arguments that “while religion has often been ignored as an important political factor, it is becoming increasingly clear that it plays a substantive role in world politics, both internationally and locally’ (Fox, 2001:53-57 as cited by Sharma, par.1). In fact, many critics believe that politics and religion must remain as a single entity to provide balance in the decisions about the way that the government controls the society. The philosopher Machiavelli theorized that “religion was the foundation of state and society,” (as cited by Sharma, par. 2) because a number of political leaders “use religion accordingly since religion is under his control,” (Barbier, 1999:112-113 as cited by Sharma, par. 2). Arguably, religion provides harmony, stability, and unity in the society as the actions of many individuals stem from a positive belief in the written words of the Bible. Additionally, many critics believe that “religion drives people to obedience, makes them familiar with laws and how to live in a peaceful society,” (Sharma, par. 3).
One could say that politics and religion occurs as a driving force in the lives of many citizens as it offers one the ability to tolerate human beings and their political beliefs. Nonetheless, individuals share different religious and political beliefs because of the diverse nature of the society. Therefore, it is impossible to merge religion and politics as a single entity because the religious force of the society should have no bearings on the power of a government. Nonetheless, if there were no religious elements in the society then individuals would not enjoy similar rights as others in the society. Still, “the separation of church, the state and the freedom of the individual were two of Constant’s central political principles,” (Sharma, par. 4). These principles serve to remind sociologists that instead of choosing between religion and politics one could easily incorporate both in one sphere as religion transcends one’s political feelings. The fact is that true religious beliefs come from the ability to follow the teachings of the Bible. These beliefs should not be coerced by the political beliefs of government as “religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God,” (Sharma, par. 6) and the “legislative powers of government should make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state,” (Jefferson, 1802:397 as cited by Sharma, par. 6).
Similarly, Prothero believes that many “Americans have historically opted to split the difference between living in a nation in which church and state are married and one in which they are not allowed to date,” (Prothero, par. 3). The truth is that this belief offers wisdom because of it compromise, but the society would be better off with less political influence in religion and less religion in one’s political ideas. Popular evangelist, Billy Graham, openly supported Mitt Romney as a political candidate and used his Evangelistic Association as a front for running ads for Romney’s campaigns. His evangelistic organization does not pay taxes as other organizations in the country, and still they run add for the political arm of the society. The society would take ordinary organizations to court for tax exemptions but that will not happen for Graham’s organization as the United States government will never go against their religious beliefs and take a pastor through the courts.
The fact is that when it comes to the issue of the church, one sees that “many young people are disaffiliating from Christian churches,” (Prothero, par. 3) as one third of the individuals sees the “church as mouthpieces for the Religious Right,” (Prothero, par. 3). Conversely, young people do not associate themselves with political parties because they are independents who “see that Republicans and Democrats alike are more likely to quote from the Bible than from Jefferson’s First Inaugural and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address,” (Prothero, par, 6). Nevertheless, “American politics has crossed a line, perhaps with Jimmy Carter, perhaps with Ronald Reagan, perhaps when the Democrats “got religion” after the stinging Kerry defeat in 2004,” (Prother, par. 7). Currently, the there are “two religious parties in the United States, with Democrats and Republicans alike working to connect the dots between their public policies and the teachings of the Bible,” (Prothero, par. 8). Interestingly, “religious organizations and leaders are shading over into politics,” (Prothero, par. 8), and this place a strain on the beliefs and value system of most religious organizations.
Agreeably, “the resurgence of Christianity in the United States and the return of family values were applauded by most conservative commentators,” (Shattering the Sacred Myths, par. 5). In fact, religion forms the foundations of a firm society. Aside from the controversial issues of simple social factors of homosexuality and abortion, the Church plays an integral role in the moral and ethical value system of a country. Nonetheless, religious hostility is common in only a “few troubled regions where people with differing religious faiths shared the same area of land,” (Shattering the Sacred Myths, par. 5). In essence, “religious differences often fueled bitter power struggles for political control of the land, which occasionally erupted into violence and bloodshed,” (Shattering the Sacred Myths, par. 5). Still, a country cannot hope to teach valuable lessons on morals if there are no religious foundations in its politics. If politicians can manipulate the laws to suit their selfish desires, then there will undoubtedly be an increase in the bloodshed and social divisions in the country. The harsh truth is that every political sphere should have a balance with religion which can only help political leaders to make sound judgments on what is morally right for the people.
On the other hand there needs to be a balance in the way societies integrate politics and religion. One cannot hope to murder large numbers of individuals in the name of religion as this goes against the teachings of the Bible. The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 had a tremendous impact on the Western world. Critics note that the act appeared to be a direct conflict between communism and capitalism that stalled more potentially devastating battle between Islamic and Christian beliefs and secular democratic materialism. The fact is that every region in the world has its personal cultural investments that must receive protection from the leaders. Nonetheless, the United States invasion of Iraq teaches that one must accept that the religious and political tensions will continue to increase as long as politics continue to influence religion and vice versa. Audi study reveals that more than fifty percent of Americans believe that that there is “a reversal of a decline in support for church intervention,” (Audi, par. 4). This belief “comes as the nation heads into midterm elections and the early phases of a presidential campaign, and at a time of friction between church and state,” (Audi, par. 4) that has led to a number of heated debates. In fact, “Protestants and Catholics alike have fought the Obama administration over the part of the Affordable Care Act that requires employers to cover contraception in workers' health-care plans,” (Audi, par. 5) even as a number of countries invoke their religious beliefs on avoiding to offer coverage for contraceptives.
In concluding, the abundance of religion in the political arena causes a split in the way one sees the political arena in the world. Some countries merge both entities and this cause much destruction in the political structure of these countries. Similarly, Middle Eastern countries merge religion and politics and each entity influence the level of violence in the country which has spread to other nations around the globe. Nonetheless, the integration of religious literacy in the political arena could serve to inoculate the society against a number of religious beliefs that impacts the actions of individuals in the society. The fact is that many individuals in the United States separate politics from religion, but if more citizens believed in the teachings of the Bible, then, politicians would have to give more extensive accounts of the simplistic theories on serious social issues such as the death penalty, tax policies, and abortion. In addition, racial prejudice could be curtailed if one leans towards the biblical assumption that God created everyone equal.
Works Cited
Audi, Tamara (2014, September 22) “More Americans Support Mixing Religion and Politics”
The Wall Street Journal, Internet Version. Accessed: December 11, 2014
Brahm, Eric, (2005) Religion and Conflict (2001 – 2014), University of Colorado. Web.
Accessed, December 5, 2014
Osbourne, Myles (2010) “Religion and Politics in Kenya: Essays in Honor Of A Meddlesome
Priest (Review)” From: Africa: The Journal of the International African Institute Volume
80, Number 4, 2010 pp. 672-674. Accessed: December 11, 2014.
Prothero, Stephen, (2013, February 5,) “Are religious groups too political? We Need Less
Religion in our Politics and Less Politics in our Religion. Web. Accessed December 11,
2014)
Sharma, Rhia (2014, June 14) “Should Politics and Religion be Kept Separate?” Introduction of
Political Theory. Web. Accessed December 11, 2014
Shattering the Sacred Myths Chapter 15 – Politics and Religion (2005). The Academy of
Evolutionary Metaphysics.
Stirrett, Nick (2011, April 19) “ he Natural Relationship Between Religion and Politics” Web.
Accessed: December 11, 2014
