As we move toward a religiously diverse America, the call to separate religion and politics grows. As Americans head into the future there is a huge immersion of the different religions into one common society. It is becoming a challenge in trying to appease and maintain these different religions in the secular social world. For some Americans the solution is to remove all religious affiliation from the state. Upon analysis of Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s discussion of religious diversity, Maritain’s position on the relation between religion and the secular world, and Hegel’s presupposition about abstract rights, this common question arises. Should the secular world be isolated from the religious dimensions of Human life? With so much religious diversity among groups of people could government politics function without any religious affiliation and still represent the will of the people as a whole. In Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s book The Faith of Other Men he starts by describing his challenge as a teacher in Lahore. He mentions that his colleagues were, like the great majority of the students, a mix of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhns. As a Christian he and the rest of the community had to work toward the construction and maintenance of a religiously diverse community. The missionary college emphasized the message that faith was a serious and fundamental matter, that could neither be taken for granted nor dismissed. That message for Smith’s can be echoed in the oversimplified religious society of today. The religious life of humanity according to Smith is one that religiously plural, and this is true for all of us. Muslims, Hindus, Confucians, and Buddhists there no longer these far away peoples but rather they have become our neigh... ... middle of paper ... ...Hegel fails to address about the common good/ will with religious diversity. (Maritain,14,11-19, 73,75, 76-8) After looking at philosophy’s of Goerg W.F. Hegel, Wilfred Cantwell Smith and Jacques Maritain clearly society cannot ignore religion. In ignoring religion society would as a result overlook the essence which makes an individual a whole. There can never be a society free of religion, nor can religion be without the secular social world they are intertwined. Works Cited Georg W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Mind: Part Three of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1830), William Wallace trans, (Oxford: the Clarendon Press, 1971). Jacques Maritain, The Rights of Man and Natural Law, Doris C. Anson trans, (New York: Gordian Press, 1971 [1943]). Wilfred Cantwell Smith, The Faith of Other Men, (New York: New American Library, 1963).
For more than a century, the concept of secularism and its boundaries has been widely disputed by secularists and non-secularists alike. English dictionaries define secularism as simply the separation of church and state, or, the separation of religion and politics. Michael Walzer, a true secularist, believes that this separation is an essential democratic value and ultimately fosters toleration of a plurality of religions (Walzer, p. 620). Wæver, an opponent of secularism, defines secularism as “a doctrine for how society ought to be designed”– that religion and politics ought to be divided in order to ensure religious liberty, as well as religious-free politics. However, he does not deem that such a principle exists (Wæver, p. 210). Based on these different viewpoints, I have established a unique concept of secularism: the principle that religion and politics be kept apart, that the state remains neutral in regard to religion, and that liberty, equality, and fraternity be upheld in an attempt to successfully promote religious toleration and pluralism.
At this time in our nation's history, two-hundred thirty years and counting, there is a great debate raging on. In many peoples' eyes our country has made a turn for the worse. We have thrown our Forefather's to the wayside, and there belief in strong Christian influence along with it. To them all could be solved if we merely "re-instituted" the Christian morals and teachings that this country was founded on. On the other hand, there are many who are calling for the complete and utter extraction of all Christian and other religious beliefs from public life and governmental law. To these individuals nothing good and beneficial can ever come from religion. Both of these belief structures are sadly flawed to their very core. But where is the middle ground and why haven't we been able to find it. This is precisely where Jon Meacham's American Gospel shines like no other. If nothing else Meacham's book is an answer to the times. American Gospel covers religion, philosophy, and ideology that shaped American law and thought from the birth of our rich and diverse nation to the time of the Reagan presidency.
The most important aspect to consider is why political parties split when it comes to religious battles in the first place. Glaeser (2005) starts this argument by explaining that when you attract the median-voter there is always a high voting turnout. If this is true, then why do politicians take both ends of the spectrum in most cases when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage and abortions? Glaeser (2005) contends that there are statistical evidence that supports the connection between religious attendance and religious extremism. Exit polls from the 2004 Presidential election show a strong rise in the correlation between religious attendance and party affiliation. This happens because religion as a whole becomes a medium for discussion, much like major news organizations. The only difference is that religion is singular in its method, as Glaeser (2005) points out, in that the people focus on one issue and decide politically based on the preferences shown. The political parties differ for two majo...
As many people already know, politicis and religion some times go hand in hand. Recently, president Obama delivered his Inauguration Speech to the world. There were several remarks mentioned that pertained to religion. Many of the remarks can easily tie in with the American culture core values, which include, Americans are among a chosen people, manifest destiny, morality yields prosperity, and the protestant ethic.
I conclude that the role of the church in the state is indispensable to the extent that it produces morally upright leaders. However, it cannot influence public policies by imposing its doctrines on the state or coercing any politician or political entity thereof.
In 1789, the First Amendment established that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” This meant the Federal and State Governments could not be partial or show support for any certain denomination or religious organization. However, throughout the history of the United States the controversial question over the relationship between church and state has always been called into question in establishing a one religion government. The main focus of the inquiry is to decide whether to keep the establishment clause or to tear it down and move towards a theocratic system. One side of the debate is the group against the separation of Church and State, who believe that if America was a more religious nation that it would become more moral as well as bring everyone in agreement with national decision making. Therefore the belief is that the United State would become more unified in an already corrupt system. On the other hand, the side for separation argues that the distance between established religion and national government is inherently necessary to keep maintain: religious tolerance, prevent biases, and prejudices, along with any sort of religious freedom in country that has thousands of different organized religions.
Throughout our history there has been an ongoing argument between religion and government. Should religion play a part in the government, schools and other social compasses or should it be separated? Some believe that religion should be a part of the government while others believe that there should be a distinct separation. Some believe that religions should be able to influence the workings of the government and attempt to elect their own politicians. I believe the opposite. I believe that religion should have no influence on the way our government approves laws, elects officials or conducts their business. Throughout this essay I will give reasons and references as to why I agree with the separation of government and religion.
Thomas, Oliver "Buzz". "How To Keep The 'United' In United States: Coping With Religious Diversity In The World's First 'New' Nation." Church & State Feb. 2007: 19+. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 1 Mar. 2013.
With sounds of youthful laughter, conversations about the students’ weekends, and the shuffling of college ruled paper; students file into their classrooms and find their seats on a typical Monday morning. As the announcements travel throughout the school’s intercoms, the usual “Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance” becomes no longer usual but rather puzzling to some students. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.” Confusion passes through some of the student’s minds. With the reoccurrence of “God” in the backdrop of American life, the relationship between church and state has become of little to no matter for American citizens just as it has with American students. While congress makes no law respecting an establishment of religion, the term “freedom of religion” presents itself to no longer be the definition of “free”, while also having its effects on debates today. According to Burt Rieff, in Conflicting Rights and Religious Liberty, “Parents, school officials, politicians, and religious leaders entered the battle over defining the relationship between church and state, transforming constitutional issues into political, religious, and cultural debates” (Rieff). Throughout the 20th century, many have forgotten the meaning of religion and what its effects are on the people of today. With the nonconformist society in today’s culture, religion has placed itself in a category of insignificance. With the many controversies of the world, religion is at a stand still, and is proven to not be as important as it was in the past. Though the United States government is based on separation of church and state, the gover...
Religion and Politics Both liberals and conservatives have become quite adept at mixing religion and politics in our current society. One also continues to observe an ongoing practice of civil religion demonstrated by presidents and office-seekers on both the left and right. Generally, the leftist merger of religion and politics has received greater social acceptability because it has been cloaked in such rights' causes as civil rights, women's rights, or economic rights (the social distribution of wealth). The advocating of these rights issues have provided an appearance of transcending religion, keeping the left relatively free from criticism of any church and state overlap. Christian Conservatives, however, have found it more difficult to reasonably combine faith and politics because they have more overtly recognized that their political positions are grounded on faith assumptions.
A functioning society seeks to work together in harmony to maintain a state of balance and social equilibrium for the whole. There are thousands of different types of religions in the world. So how do they maintain this ability to function and to keep a society functioning. Not all religions are as harmonious. Berger states there is a crisis of credibility a loss of religious legitimacy and plausibility. Pluralism threatens to rip apart a
Religious tolerance and religious pluralism have many different definitions, depending on the person’s interpretation of the word and where the person gets the definition. Every person of every faith and the people without a faith can have a different definition for tolerance and for pluralism. Diana L. Eck, the director of The Pluralism Project at Harvard University, gives a clear definition for pluralism. Pluralism is a two way street of dialogue, knowledge, understanding, and active participation (Eck 2 “From Diversity”). Pluralism is not meant to be an assimilation of religions or that a person of any faith has to believe all religious paths are true. Religious Tolerance is the continuous congruent relations betw...
For thousands of years, religion has exerted a great influence over economic and political life. Even today religion is called upon to support rulers, contacts and other legal procedures.
Our country blends the lines of religion and secularism so much that it seems as though they aren’t separate at all. Religion affects our country, our rights and our freedoms in ways that can’t be seen through one set of lenses. It takes pulling apart layers and layers and going through our history and seeing how religion has impacted and influenced us to see that the United States of America is not solely a secular nation. We are so greatly reliant on religion that political arguments can’t be fought without the mention of God or the Bible at least once. America is not a secular nation but a nation that has a little of both sides.
The role of religion in politics is a topic that has long been argued, and has contributed to the start of wars, schisms (both political and religious), and other forms of inter and intra-state conflict. This topic, as a result of its checkered past, has become quite controversial, with many different viewpoints. One argument, put forth by many people throughout history, is that religion and the government should remain separate to avoid any conflicting interests. This view also typically suggests that there is one, or several, large and organized religions like the Roman Catholic Church, which would be able to use their “divine” authority to sway the politics of a given state by promising or threatening some form of godly approval or disapproval. By leveraging their divine power, individual figures within a religion, as well as the religion as a whole, could gain secular power for themselves, or over others. A second view, which was developed by many theologians through history, suggests that that without religion there would be a general lack of morality in the people and leaders of a given state, which would give way to poor political decisions that would not be in the interest of the people and perhaps even God (or the gods). This argument, however, does not address the fact that morality can exist without religion. In sociology, it is commonly accepted that social norms, which include morality, can result from any number of things. Religion, laws, or the basic desire of survival can all create these norms, so it suffices to say that as a society, our morals reflect our desire to live in relative peace through the creation of laws that serve to help us to survive. The argument of whether or not religion and politics should mix...