Did Religion Play a Part in Politics in the 1980's - Literature review Example

Did Religion play a part in Politics in the 1980s? Introduction Religion defined the rank of political leaders in the early 1980’s. This is why in the last quarter of the 20th century religious right emerged to protect freedom of worship. When people became aware of the fact that they had religious rights, many things were compromised, as for instance, some politicians used religion for cover up politically, because when one was down to what the politician believed in, it was clear there was no religion attached to the politician’s belief. Examples of the churches existing in the 1960’s are Catholic and Protestant ones (Goff 316). By late 1970’s, other groups of faith started emerging, and it was evident that it would be the norm. People started taking their stand regarding leaders and their faith. Some leaders were identified according to their faith. Religion has been known as the social glue that binds the constituent elements of societies together; by doing so, it underwrites the social order (Djupe and Olson 114). When civilization comes in the picture, a person wants to know what makes his or her counterpart civilized. It is very simple when considering religion as a key factor. A civilized person has conviction in something, at least the person feels or thinks there is a reason behind everything happening in his or her life. The civilization of a person in a societal was based on the religion of the person apart from being able to read and write. Religion of a person is quite imperative to the person and to the society. Someone’s faith may be the key to having what he or she thinks is best in a societal setting. One can say religion is the engine of a number of things. Yes Response It is obvious that religion did shape politics in the 1980’s. The impact of religion on politics is what brought about civil religion in America in early 1967. Civil religion in America was defined as an institutional collection of sacred beliefs about America as a nation. The civil religion also believed that there was a transcendent being called God. The citizens believed that God had laws and rules that governed them, and the fact that God was guiding and protecting the Americans. All the leaders believed in some faith including the Reagans although they never clearly showed their religion, they were known more as protagonists than religious individuals (Wilson and DiIulio 221). Majority of American leaders were identified with the particular faith they believed to be significant. As people became more enlightened about the civil religion in America, it was not referred as the civil religion anymore, it was known as the individual credence of a person. Religion played a noteworthy role in the early 1980’s. How can one explain the fact that every standing candidate wanted to be identified with a particular religion? It is so clear for fame or civilization. Religion, as much as it helped unite peoples, became a tool for hypocrites to hide their true colors. Politicians went to religious functions to be seen to support a particular faith. Some of the politicians did not even believe in God or any other superficial being. The politicians worshipped their social status and money (Peterson 121). When someone sees that he or she is sharing a church with a particular politician, it is quite understandable if the person would want to vote for that particular politician. Politicians employed religion to get power, to get people to trust their ideas and visions. Religion has been known to identify people that are civil from those that are not civil. It is normal for a politician to run for a particular seat in the pretence that he or she shares in a particular faith. When people saw politicians in their different churches, they believed they were the right people to lead their nation or state. There is no argument to this; it is not erroneous for people to trust such a person. Politicians learned about this fact, and they used it to their advantage on the expense of the unsuspecting citizens. Religion became a political stall mark in different instances. In 1980’s, when strikes and political demonstrations were held, religious imagery was used to bring the nation back to sanity. At this time, the clergy were requested not to speak openly against the regime. Some priests played a part in politics by giving anti-communist sermons. In 1984, members of the secret police murdered father Jerzy Popieluszko because of his political stand. The murder of the father led to the solidification of the bond between Catholicism and the opposition. The new bond formed only paved way for politics to mix with religion. With the development, the church became a primary site for anti-communist activism. It was quite apparent that many people were turning up in churches not to pray, but to express their political resistance against the communists. In the late 1980’s when communists’ regime extended feelers towards the opposition, the church was asked to serve as a mediator. This shows that the church played a vital role in political activities. The church had to be consulted before major decisions were made and it played a part in making the final decisions. When the religion regime started many churches or hierarchy in churches did not play a part in politics, but as time went by, the church became a significant role player in politics. The church turned from a holy and religious ground to a political ground. The fact that most of the leaders were against communism was enough reason to turn the church into a political ground. From the above arguments, it is quite clear that the religion played a significant role in politics in the 1980’s. Religion was used an excuse for people to believe in something. People went to church not to hear the sermon but to show their political stand. Religion brought meaning to politics; politicians used churches to campaign for seats. No Response In the early 1980’s, the church did not have much power as it has today. Currently, there are many religions from non-official cults to Protestants. People who believed in religion were sincere because not much confusion was there in terms of religion. It cannot be said that religion affected the nature of politics in the early 1980 (Troy and Cannato 131). In these early years, the common church was the Catholic Church. This was among the first churches to be formed. Church and religion never met. During these times, religious leaders were strict on their callings as bishops and priests. Churches were of no significance to politics, they did not offer any logic to politicians. Religion could not be used as a tool for campaigning for politicians because not many people went to churches or had faith religiously. It was not an advisable way of campaigning or preaching politics. Religious leaders did not want to be associated with politics, they set there boundaries on that issue. Being a religious leader and a politician at the same time was a hypocritical act (Wolfe 122). The two would never mix, and religious leaders did not want to be the cause of confusion. To avoid people losing faith on bishops and other church leaders, religion was set on its side and politics on another side. In the 1980’s, many political atrocities were committed, like slavery, to give an example. Slavery was an inhuman act and it was politically based, the church supporting politics is like the church supporting the atrocities. Politics was a dirty game in those early years; everyone in power was a threat to everyone who was not in power. There was so much inequality and racial segregation. The church has always preached that people are made in the image of God. Religion could not mix with politics because politics supported everything that religion denounced. Religion does not support racism yet in those years, politics supported racism. Some church leaders were against communism, but that does not mean they supported politics. The leaders are normal human beings and they are entitled to their opinion. The fact that they were church leaders and were expected to be neutral in terms of political views made the leaders a subject to critics in cases where they openly declared their stand in terms of politics. The leaders had their reasons of not supporting communism, but this decision by them was not taken lightly it became the subject of many conversations and brought about some assumption, like the church is involved in politics. Religion and politics only came in contact in cases where the public was involved. Swearing in of a person and a person swearing by the Bible in court were some of the situations where religion played a major role. Religion cannot, therefore, be said to have made an impact on politics in the 1980’s because it only played a role by ascertaining to the decisions that had been made. Politics took the lead role in decision-making. When religion played a part in politics, it cannot be said that it was the basis for decision-making, it only played a part, which was significant but not crucial. Analysis With the two arguments, it is apparent that religion had significance in politics in the 1980’s (Brint and Schroedel 113). Religion was like the base for politics, everything political had some attachment to religion. Political leaders depended on religion to make sense. Religion upgraded the status of politicians. When people trusted in a religious politician, they were more confident that the particular leader could be relied on, despite the fact that not all the leaders were true to their words. Without religion some leaders could not be known, the best places that they appeared to be seen were in churches. The idea of people going to church to make their political status known, and not to pray, clearly showed that religion had some power over politics. When some leaders were against communism, majority of people who went to fellowship were influenced. This shows that people had so much faith in their religious leaders that they followed what the leaders thought was right, without thinking about their own perception. Religion became a way of people stating their political opinions than what is expected of religion (Noll 159). Some politicians believed that having a particular faith would make them succeed. The result of their belief was the formation of different religions, each religion preaching its stand. From the two early religions, which were Catholics and Protestants, many other religions were formed. This shows sow religion had a great impact on politics. In the 1980’s, some states and nations were still practicing racism and slavery. Some political leaders believed practicing such inhuman acts was a way of respecting their religion. They believed that people should never be the same (Murrin 101). This cannot be said to be politics, this was religion controlling the political views of a person. When leaders based their views and arguments on religion, they ended up having so much power because no a single person can question religion. Religion had an unquestionable impact on politics in the 1980’s, but unfortunately, some people used religion for the wrong purposes and religion in some states ended up losing the respect attached to its name. One thing is clear, politicians will always be politicians and they are the biggest opportunists. Politicians know where there is a multitude and they will use the multitude to their advantage. In is not advisable that the church got involved with politics, because politics and religion are two different aspects. When religion decides to be the basis behind politics, what is left for people? Works Cited Brint, Steven G. and Jean R. Schroedel. Evangelicals and Democracy in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2009. Print. Djupe, Paul A. and Laura R. Olson. Encyclopedia of American Religion and Politics. New York: Facts On File, 2003. Print. Goff, Philip. The Blackwell Companion to Religion in America. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print. Murrin, John M. Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Noll, Mark A. Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the Present. Oxford [u.a: Oxford Univ. Press, 2007. Print. Peterson, Anna L. Martyrdom and the Politics of Religion: Progressive Catholicism in El Salvadors Civil War. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997. Print. Troy, Gil and Vincent J. Cannato. Living in the Eighties. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Wilson, James Q. and John J. DiIulio. American Government: The Essentials. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 2008. Print. Wolfe, Alan. Religion and Democracy in the United States: Danger or Opportunity? Princeton, NJ [u.a: Princeton University Press, 2010. Print. Read More