The Position of Religion in Politics - Coursework Example

Freedom of Religion Introduction People consider religion and politics differently and there are varying policies adopted by different governments across the world. As a result, there have been arguments across the United States that religion and politics are different sides of the same coin that cannot be isolated to exist in solitary. Different theology and political scientists have examined the fact that religion has no place in politics and this has contributed to varying perception and attitude towards the two among different groups (Taydas, Yasemin and Minion 530). However, the position of religion in politics, an area that is characterized with brinkmanship and political lies, cannot be aptly stated. Mixing religion and politics is like mixing water and oil and forcing the two to coexist together without anarchy. Religion, as will be highlighted in this paper, has no role or position in politics and political endeavors in a country. Religious leaders can advise politicians on how to address different emerging issues but politicians cannot adopt their religious views and beliefs while making political decisions and options (Harlow and Mark 200). The church and the State Individual church members have power and influence over who should lead them and provide direction in case of challenges. As governments do not appoint the church leaders and the bishops, the church has no appointing authority over the government positions including presidents, governors and even judges. As a State, the duty of imposing and collecting taxes for the development of the country is left for the government officials (Taydas, Yasemin and Minion 530). As a result, no church is favored on matters concerning tax payment and this is because of the separation of the two institutions in the country. As a State, the constitution demands the protection of the rights of the citizens to belong to a religious group of choice without coercion or intimidation. This results into a situation where there is freedom of worship and access to any religious group in the country as long as this does not affect the freedom of others. In case of conflicts between Christians and pagans or Muslims and Jews, the State should adopt a neutral position and protect all of them irrespective of their beliefs. As a result, political offices across the country do not provide religious tests to the members to ascertain their levels of religiosity and thus their qualification (Harlow and Mark 200). Based on this provision provided by the framers of the United States constitution, the country can be considered secular with religious freedom granted to its citizens. The practices that were adopted by the founding fathers and leaders that has today become a tradition have contributed to the current confusion of the place of religion in the politics of the country. The history of the United States has for long been incarnate with a civil religion kind of practice in which different expressions are used in important areas. For example, historical documents, coins, speeches that were made by the founding president and the pledge of allegiance have created the notion of a religious public. According to statements attributed to Benjamin franklin, the powers of God the Creator are attributed to certain human rights freedoms and equality that are enjoyed today by the United States citizens. National holidays such as the Memorial Day held on July 4 every years has been granted a religious connotation that is attributed to the thanksgiving ceremonies that are held on the day. Despite their presence and continued practice, they cannot be attributed to a particular religion or denomination in the United States and this eliminates the Christian nation notion that has been adopted. Despite the continued presence of civil religion during our national holydays, it is not thus justified to claim that political leadership in the country is connected to religious beliefs and practices adopted (Noll and Luke 122). The civil religion perception perpetuated by those who believe that politics and religion is the same thing has been contested in different fronts in the country. For example, a student in California recently declined to take the oath of allegiance that has the words ‘under God’. This, according to the atheist girl coerced her into believing in the existence of God and forced her to make an allegiance oath based on this belief. According to her, a view that has been shared by other analysts, the oath of allegiance is a political oath that cannot be blended and joined to a religious belief (Harlow and Mark 200). This is because United States has been known to lack a common religion that should be practiced by all its citizens as witnessed in Arab countries. The Supreme Court has not been spared of the division as it has attempted to strike a compromise in religion and politics without being viewed as being unfair. The dilemma has demonstrated the view that politics and religion when tied together creates confusion and anarchy due to the multidenominational face of religion, and the freedoms granted to United States citizens in the constitution (Sonnenschmidt and Barend 213). Religion and politics While the church and the State have created institutional issues that are witnessed among public servants and other members of the public and their religion, politics defines different sets of issues. Members of a political party with active presence in different political activities have affiliation to specific religious groups based on their faith. This makes them belong to the secular society despite being active members of a religious group with doctrinal difference. Religious groups have different doctrinal beliefs and ethical practices that they are allowed to express in their daily lives. Such beliefs have moral and social implications on the society that conflicts with political discourse and agendas (Martini 1001). As a result, driving a political and a religious agenda creates confusion as different doctrinal and ethical principles and beliefs are adopted. Though ethical convictions are rooted in religious beliefs and belongings, there is no ground for disqualifying their application in political environment. However, the only challenge that arises is adopting the two practices and ethical grounds in political and religious realm within the public at the same time (Wabel 204). During political campaigns and competitive elections, the electorate is convinced based on facts and policies that appeal to them and not based on the ‘civil religion’ adopted in the country. As a result, the arguments of social policies to a multidenominational and religious America cannot be based strictly on religion but rather a political approach that is acceptable to all, irrespective of their religious belief (Turan and Menderes 173). Politics is instrumental in the development of laws and statutes in the United States and this must be based on a secular notion as opposed to a religious ground. For example, passing of laws prohibiting abortion in the United States has been debated for and against centered on moral and medical beliefs as opposed to religious views. To almost all Christians, abortion is immoral, ungodly and cannot be legalized, a view that is not supported by the atheists in the country (Kao and Jerome 130). Passing an anti-abortion law based on the moral views of the Christians will be imposing a religious belief and practice of one group upon the other. Any law, either prohibiting or legalizing abortion, must be based on legal, social and moral grounds as opposed to religious beliefs and arguments. This demonstrates the clear differentiation of politics and religion in different spheres of life of the American citizens across the globe (Gontier 25). The Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, signed by John Adams: Art. 11. States that "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." (Ray and Hester, 41). Based on this treaty, therefore, no government can impose a religious treatise or principle on the people as no laws have been enacted and wars fought on the same premise. The first amendment further entrenches the liberty of the people to belong to a religion of their choice without the influence of the government. The very first line of the First Amendment: "The following is the text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" (Shiffrin, Steven and Jesse, 69). Laws enacted by the United States congress cannot thus be aimed at entrenching a particular religion on people and thus restricted their freedom to believe or not. Pledge of allegiance and religious conflicts In the face of non-believers and atheist, the pledge of allegiance is discriminatory and imposing a religious belief upon them contrary to the supreme law. As highlighted in the previous sections of the paper, arguments have been fronted on the secularity of the United States and the place of the religious pledge of allegiance. In schools, students and parents have argued that the pledge of loyalty infringes the founding clause of the first amendment that restricts the imposition of religion on the American people (Hatcher 183). Between 1924 and 1954, the phrase ‘under God’ was not part of the pledge of allegiance but the phrase was included during the McCarthy era as a response to the communist scare. Students have recited this law across the country and this has created ground for the conflicts between political pledges and religious beliefs. This violates the provisions of the United States constitution that has distinctly separated the roles and position of the government and the church in the society (Taydas, Yasemin and Minion 530). By stating that the pledge cannot be recited in its form in public schools, the Supreme Court judges highlighted the fact that religion has no place in religion and religious beliefs. However, legal experts have continued to oppose this position, arguing that other symbols and documents used in the United States makes reference to God. For example, the United States coin have the phrase ‘in God we trust’ an illustration of the belief of the people on God. Conclusion Religion and politics have remained critical in the life of people for a long time and the confusion and collision has always created a complicated situation for the public. In most instances, politics has been viewed as being joined to religion though this has been opposed by non-believers (Hatcher 183). In this paper, the notion that politics and religion are two different practices that cannot be viewed from the same lens has been adopted. During the times of Christ, he directed his disciples to give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and God what is God’s, an illustration of the different roles of politics and religion in life. Works cited Gontier, Thierry. "From “Political Theology” To “Political Religion”: Eric Voegelin and Carl Schmitt." Review of Politics 75.1 (2013): 25. Harlow, Luke E., and Mark A. Noll. Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Hatcher, Anthony. "Adding God: Religious And Secular Press Framing In Response To The Insertion Of “Under God” In The Pledge Of Allegiance." Journal of Media & Religion 7.3 (2008): 170-189. Kao, Grace Y., and Jerome E. Copulsky. "The Pledge of Allegiance and the Meanings and Limits of Civil Religion." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 75.1 (2007): 121-149. Martini, Nicholas F. "La Iglesia In Politics? Religion and Latino Public Opinion*." Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 93.4 (2012): 988-1006. Noll, Mark A., and Luke E. Harlow. Religion And American Politics: From The Colonial Period To The Present / Edited By Mark A Noll And Luke E. Harlow. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Sonnenschmidt, Reinhard, and Barend Christoffel Labuschagne. Religion, Politics and Law: Philosophical Reflections on the Sources of Normative Order in Society. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Ray, William, and Hester Blum. Horrors Of Slavery, Or, The American Tars In Tripoli. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2008. Shiffrin, Steven H., and Jesse H. Choper. The First Amendment : Cases, Comments, Questions / By Steven H. Shiffrin, Jesse H. Choper. n.p.: St. Paul, Minn: West Pub. Co., 1991. Taydas, Zeynep, Yasemin Akbaba, and Minion K. C. Morrison. "Did Secularism Fail? The Rise of Religion in Turkish Politics. “Politics & Religion 5.3 (2012): 528-554. Turan, Kürşad, and Menderes Çinar. "Religious versus Secular Politics: Competing Ideologies in a Changing System." Middle Eastern Studies / Ortadogu Etütleri 4.2 (2013): 165-192. Wabel, Thomas. "Leaving the Void Open: Forms of Remembrance in Civil Religion, Politics, and Art." Journal of Church & State55.2 (2013): 199-220. Read More