Inkwell Institute
Professor’s Classroom
Subject: Political Philosophy/Religion/Governance
Paper #14
Now here is a subject that gets the blood boiling, both pro and con……there could be a debate on this for decades and NO one would win the debate…..but I am not here to condemn or support the idea….I just want to point out what part it has played in the past…..both recent and long ago…..do not shoot the messenger…..
Since almost the beginning of what is called political philosophy there has been a debate on what part religion should play in the governance of society……
For instance, St. Augustine in the 5th century AD…..believe that since humans were volatile and irrational, then government must be a God given phenom…he believed that people MUST obey their government as they do their church…..then we come upon Machiavelli……he believed that christian morality was clearly inappropriate for a ruler to use in governance……John Locke…..thought that religious toleration was to be paramount in government, but he also thought there should a a “state” standardized form of religion….The along came Rousseau….who thought that the state should have a “civic religion’….there is a very short sampling of what was thought of religion as it pertained to the state or government or political authority….as you can see religion has played some part in the act of governing….
Most people think of religion because they are taught to think a certain way……does religion belong in the same office as government?……There are many ideas of what religion should do……But what do the different political players think of religion?
Liberals–religion is a private matter linked to individual choice and personal development. Religious freedom is essential to civil liberty and can only be guaranteed by a strict division between religion and political activity and between church and state.
Conservative–religion is a valuable (possibly essential) source of stability and social cohesion. Provides society with a set of shared values and the bedrock of a common society, and culture and church and state are inevitable and desirable.
Socialist–portray religion in negative terms, at best it is a diversion from political struggle and a t worst a form of ruling class ideology. In other words, a way to keep the masses under control.
Anarchist–regard religion as an institutionalized source of oppression of the working class. Church and state are invariably linked, with religion preaching obedience and submission to earthy rulers, while also prescribing a set of authoritative values that rob the individual of moral autonomy.
Fascist–Rejects religion on grounds that it serves as a rival source of allegiance or belief, and that it preaches decadent values such as compassion and sympathy. Fascism seeks to function as a ‘political’ religion, embracing its terminology and internal structure, such as devotion, sacrifice, spirit, redemption and so forth
(Once again I thank Andrew Heywood and his book “Political Ideologies”)
In recent decades fundamentalism is becoming more entrenched in American politics, they see the body of religion is essential, it dictates not only the personal conduct but also dictates the organization of social, economic and political life. These people believe that religion cannot and should not be limited to private sphere, that its place is with the politics of the land. They will impose their beliefs on everyone….personally, I do NOT want someone telling me what is right and wrong and passing laws with their personal beliefs…….
As you see the different “roles” that religion can play in the function of a government. But is it a “Ship of State”? IMO, it is NOT……religion is a personal thing that an individual makes and there should be NO room for it in government…I agree with the Anarchists in some ways and the Liberals in others…religion has No place in a modern government….laws should NOT be made from a religious point of view…no matter what one thinks the Founding Fathers had in mind…..