Comparison And Contrast Of The Importance Of Religion And Secularism - Essay Example

? Comparison and contrast of the importance of religion and secularism Lecturer: The issue of religion and secularism has had a central part in many of the historical and political discourses. This is due to the fact that faith has played a significant role in formation of political organizations from the time in memorial. The paper seeks to compare the religious and secular view of philosophers, Machiavelli, John Locke and Marx and Engels. In the prince Machiavelli does not direct reference to religion or secularism because his view is the well being of the community and security. He does not give so much emphasis on morality in political actions. For him moral acts were just part of instrumental in achieving political expedience. So for him the social and political consequences f acts interested him more than th moral intent of any action. For Machiavelli in human nature all actions are bound to be either good or evil. Machiavelli feels that the violation of personal morality is not justified. But quickly points out the fact that the violations of the standards of personal morality can excused in ceases of public interest. The honors are thrown upon statesmen according to Machiavelli to know when to act in the interest of the common good. Machiavelli himself was a Christian though he had attacks on the church which was nearly directed at the clerics. These attacks can never be considered as anti religious but rather on the scandalous live of popes and their political activities. His critic on religion was mostly on Christianity since it helped the some minority to achieve political expediency and the socially undesirable ends. This led him to call for the return an original creed. He promoted the idea of social pragmatics in religion than encourage secularism. According to Machiavelli Glory is rendered to acts that are cherished and remembered by mankind. In his view finding religion involves the founding of religion, establishing commonwealths, creating literature and through process of commanding armies as well. . John Locke’s views on religion tend to align to those of Machiavelli. In the simple respect that lock views religion as an individual decision and not one imposed by the common wealth or state. According to Lock religion should only be addressed in private sphere. This has to an impression that john lock in actual sense trivializes religion not seeing not seeing the importance of having it in the public. Especially when celebrating religious activities publicly. In the treatise of government makes a categorical attack on religion labeling those who disagree with him as not being part of the body of Christ (23). Lock further notes that the authority of the church merely comes from the priests and in his view does not come from God. He further notes that orthodoxy in religious belief and adherence comes from individual belief.  According to lock churches should not be involved in worldly maters and therefore it has no impact on what people do (32). Lock view on religion is that individual should find their own path and does not understand which path is the right to follow. This is in respect to the fact people follow different paths. He actually trivializes the Christian traditions by claiming that Christ mention that he is the way is not right. Since some people do not see that as right (36).Jons hn lock’s attack on Christian traditions include an attack on baptism and the holy communion. He mentions how the two traditions are in respect to individual discretion for example how others are allowed to take the Holy Communion while others are not allowed. Lock also mentions the different baptism to justify himself on individual discretion on the practices   lock presents himself as secular holding no traditional religious beliefs or practices. Quite different to Machiavelli who despite his philosophy does not parapet religious beliefs. He himself was raised and died as a Christian. This is quite different john lock who is secular in his views and perspectives. The travesties’ of government is more of a political document and tend to focus what is important and works in politics,. In the process disregarding or dismissing the value of religion id there exists. The Marxist view on religion and secularism is advanced by works of Engels and Karl Max. Their views are based on the tenant on theory teaching on the communist manifesto which is view of everything is based on the class struggle. The struggle between the proletariats’ and the bourgeoisie. To uplift the proletariat must conduct a communist revolution to uplift them. This revolution according to the communist manifesto is am moral undertaking. According to the communist manifesto it is acceptable to leave generally acceptable moral standards o force through the proletariat revolution. Their view is that what holy can be profaned to achieve the communist state. According to the communist religion is part of the class card used to suppress the proletariat from achieving freedom and economic success. This they include law and morality which they view bourgeoisie prejudices. For them religion is an idea, an idea like Christian whose time will pass. They point the idea of Christianity were overtaken and abandoned by 18th century ideas of rationality and feudal society to bring into more the bourgeoisie into a more powerful position after accumulation of wealth. They view of religion is that its ideas only give conscience to be to sway the free competition necessary in the domain of knowledge. From this observation it can be agreed that their views are far from those of John locker and Machiavelli in respect to the place of religion in everyday life. Their view is that the influence of religion has been but negative and therefore should be done with. John Lock on the other hand does not acknowledge the value of religion in the political discourse while Machiavelli accepts religion as an integral part does accept that religion should be given precedence over common goo. Communism abolished all truths. They only truth is communism and to try to o rigt to the thousand of the under privileged class. It abolished religion, morality and therefore contradicts all past historical important experiences including religion. Due to the tenets of communist ideology that man mind is always on the constant path of changing, the issue of morality is also on the continuous change including Christianity. This means that man’s mind changes constantly with the changes the material existence around him The Marxist philosophy pegs the issue of God and morality to the bourgeoisie as a controlling tool. The issue of God, 10 commandments and morality are all viewed as a way of ruling the proletariat. This clearly brings out with the fact the clergy and landowners used the name of God to further their interest of having more land. Hence according to the communist philosophy Christianity is a myth used to exploit class advantages to suppress the under privileged class. According to the communist philosophy morality is on continuous shift. The view of religion and secularism is therefore pegged on the advances of society class shifts. Which are evidenced by both economic transformation and change of ideas? While the communist ignore the value of history in shaping the concept of religion and morality it is important to note that can only be viewed in the context of history. According to the teachings of Machiavelli, John Lock, Engels and Karl Mar religion or secularism is integral part of society. Either influencing the morality of society, incrementing the creation of a superior class or according to lock does not have any political influence. Despite the differences there is commonality on all the mentioned philosophers. This leads to need to ignore the influence of on political discourse and chart a new path, where common good superseded the moral inclinations. Conclusion The ultimate end of politics according to Machiavelli’s is the open view, the security and the continuity of the community and not to base on the existing morals that have been in force by thoughts of others. His validation analysis of opinioned precepts by looking on impact of certain political situations, he regards moral activities similar to others, from a rigorous point. First, initiation, spiritual union, and scripture are not to mark our difference. He Says that they doesn’t matter as his major declaration of the view he has for them and their doing. Second, any account on religious role in communal associations is both a spiritual and biased declaration. It is an account on faith control or lack of supremacy in our living and it's a proclamation on what counts as well as what does not count in political affairs. Locke tries to view himself as a kid by claiming that decision in one kingdom do not or should not influence others: having no say in any setting has a large influence as far as decision making is concerned. Moreover in Locke's letter with reference to spiritual tolerance can only obtain their tranquility and security by abandoning the worth out of their belief. We can be in agreement that withdrawal of liberation, and among others, with reference to faith is destructive and catastrophic, but we can also have the same opinion that it is worth living and worth dying for and viewing that as away is as well tragic. Political impact of acts has forever fascinated him more compared to the moral target of the performers, and he concludes that that in individual associations the costs of acts are bound to be both right and wrong. Essentially, he didn’t give concentration to challenges of moral viewpoint, and he acknowledged the reality that a life of achievement is inevitable to one of ethical predicament and inconsistency. Possibly Machiavelli’s one significant moral approaching, did not explicitly express, is that the very circumstances of individual decency are reliant upon the safety afforded by the depravity of the state. Locke tolerance is a meaning that churches should form a base. He extensively continues to say that churches have lack authority in Worldly affairs which means that belief has no impact on what people do. In its place, people have to find their own ways. Locke adds that in the immense assortment of ways to be followed by men, people are still skeptical on which way to take. He remains on a direct subject with Christ's declaration to be the Way; Locke is skeptical as which way is the Way, or for those who are not followers of Christ which way for them to take. Locke does not have a feeling of comfort to inform them of their undiscovered fault. He views the Way to be unknown or not being the Way, or should not be discussed. Several significant conclusions are evident in this study. Its worth to acknowledge the increasing levels of individual safety, the publics of almost all higher industrialized societies are on the way to more worldly orientations. It’s evident that modernization at a large extend weakened the authority of spiritual institution in well off settings, leading to minor rates of turnout at sacred services, and making faith personally less significant in people’s way of living. Additionally, it will be wrong to make an assumption that secularization is successfully having an advance and that spiritual ways will finally vanish all over the world. Another observation is that, as a result of demographic ways in inferior society, the world at large has many people affiliated to customary religious compared to earlier times – and they comprise a rising percentage of the world’s inhabitants. Wealthy settings are secularizing but they include a declining divide of the world’s residents; while underprivileged settings are not secularizing and they restrain to a rising split of the world’s populace. Thus, transformation do not certainly carry a de-emphasis on belief within almost any state that encounter it, but the proportion of the world’s inhabitants for whom faith is vital, is on the increase. References DIAZ DEL CASTILLO, BERNAL: the Conquest of New Spain. Penguin Classics. J. M. Cohen (trans.) (6th printing (1973) ed.). (England: Harmondsworth, 1689). Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince (Antonio Blado d'Asola, 1532). John Locke: The Second Treatise of Government, (Awn sham Churchill, 1689). Marx's General: The Revolutionary Life of Friedrich Engels (Trist ram Hunt, 2009). Pippa Norris: sacred and secular religion and politics worldwide (Cambridge university press, 1999). Thomas R. Metcalf: A concise history of India, (Cambridge University Press: 2002). Arvind Rajagopal: Politics After Television, (Cambridge University Press, 2001). Read More