It's a popular position to say that religion and politics shouldn't be mixed. But in what ways are religion and politics similar? Both have adherents that tenaciously embrace beliefs they can't prove to be true. Both involve world views that guide the lives of their adherents. Both incorporate underlying value systems. Both create rules of behavior. Both have led to wars over whose belief system is best.
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
-
I think the primary reason is that politics are supposed to provide a framework for generating satisfied citizenry through material means, religion through spiritual (whatever that means).
-
-
But politics are ultimately based on immaterial, abstract, unproveable principles of justice. And religion often deals with meeting material needs as well.
-
-
But in what ways are religion and politics similar
they both require organization,and a beauracracy to operate the organization
They both have a central figure of authority
they both illict funds for the operation and maintenence of the organizations..
. -
-
Not always a central figure for either, but it is common I suppose
-
-
How do we find a balance between politics and religion??.
-
-
-
-
we don't have to look far to see how religon is trying to affect peoples lives in the most personal ways and it is not aways in a good way...
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
-
-
Why?do we need balance....Why not..We see the results of one party rule everyday now, are you happy with it?.Pollitics and religon have always been mixed somewhat..(no. I am not a history major)..but not to the extent(intertwined) that they are in todays world.You are as familar as I with some of the legislation people from the far right are trying to push thru in various areas I cannot believe you would support some of their ideas any more than I would.
Extremism can be dangerous in any form...
-
-
-
-
-
-
"But politics are ultimately based on immaterial, abstract, unproveable principles of justice. "
Not at all. In every city charter, in almost all American state and even federal constitutions you find specific lagnuage saying the institution is being founded to provide for the common good of the citizenry. How this is implemented is always different, but thats the premise.
Religions have no such component. In fact they are averse to this idea, in practice if not theory.
Political systems, in the US at any rate, are there to provide what is in their charter to all citizens regardless of race, color, creed or religion. Religions are routinely designed to exclude those of differing belief systems. Religons,save in theocracies, operate seperate of the state, the primary reason being no theocracy can last in todays world. Religions deal with intangibles, poltical systems deal with picking up trash and resolving disputes between parties. -
-
"is being founded to provide for the common good of the citizenry"
And the basic values underlying what someone considers the "good of the citizenry" are ultimately based on immaterial, abstract, unproveable principles of justice. Do we respect the rights of the individual if in conflict with maximizing social utility? Do we respect or embrace the concept of fundamental "rights" at all? Is the good of the many always superior to the good of the few? How important is the principle of popular sovereignty relative to the principle of maximizing public welfare? etc.
"Religions deal with intangibles, poltical systems deal with picking up trash and resolving disputes between parties."
And enforcing intangible principles of justice. All law, which is what government and politics produces, is ultimately based on the codification of some unproveable value. -
-
>>And the basic values underlying what someone considers the "good of the citizenry" are ultimately based on immaterial, abstract, unproveable principles of justice.<<
Truth. Yet there is still a difference--those "immaterial, abstract, unproveable principles" that politics deals in are rooted in the material world. The principals and ideals that form our political philosophies and rhetoric might be largely immaterial and abstract, but the goal of those principals and ideals is firmly rooted in the daily lives of the citizenry. The abstractions enunciated by those philosophies might be unprovable, but in the final analysis political systems are judged in some relatively concrete ways--
Can I put enough food on the table to prevent my family from going hungry?
Can the majority of my friends and loved ones do the same?
Can I provide a comfortable shelter for my family?
Will my children find opportunities available to them to do the same when they are adults?
Will my children receive the necessary education needed to take advantage of those opportunities (if they exist)?
Do I live in fear of 'those in power,' or do I feel free to criticize their decisions when I disagree with them?
To what extent am I required to conform my behavior to 'societal norms?'
If I work hard will I be able to improve the standard of living for my family, or is my families situation predetermined by other factors?
Does the trash get picked up?
Is the water fit to drink?
Do the busses run on time?
etc. etc....
Religions, on the other hand, are not typically judged by such well grounded standards. Most religions are concerned with questions such as 'ultimate truth' and reserve their promises for the afterlife (or the next life, or whatever) rather than seeking to improve conditions -now-. Although many religions do spend some energy on charitable work, seeking to ease suffering and improve peoples lot in life, this is only a side-line for religions.... the Bible suggests that slaves should be loyal to their masters and offers an eternity in heaven to offset the suffering and injustice they experience in the 'material world.' Politics deals with the issue of slavery head-on, and asks whether the benefits slavery offers to the few justifies the suffering of the slaves themselves. Politics is not interested in what happens after we die--politics deals in the here and now.
The concept of "fundamental rights" might be a convenient fiction, but it is a fiction that enables me to freely speak my mind without fear of governmental reprisal; it is a fiction which enables me to freely choose my religious practice without fear of being burned at the stake; it is a fiction which enables me to choose my own course in life, accepting the consequences for my own mistakes, instead of having all my decisions made for me by 'those in power.'
The immaterial, abstract, and unproveable principals of political philosophy have very material, concrete and provable consequences attached to them. The abstract principal of "freedom" translates down into questions like--How many options do I have? What if I want to quit my job and try to become a rockstar, am I allowed? What if I want to start up a coven of witches in a predominantly christian country, will they burn me alive for it? If I disagree with the powers that be can I say so without furtively whispering and looking over my shoulder every instant? The abstract principal of "justice" translates down into questions like--If I or a loved one am victimized am I on my own, or is their a system in place to help me deal with it? If I am accused of a crime I didn't commit will I recieve a fair trial? Am I completely at the mercy of those who are more powerful, or do checks and balances exist to at least give me a fighting chance?
Politics is grounded in the real world real-life concerns of real people here and now--religion is concerned with what happens after we die; politics is concerned with what's happening tomorrow.
-
-
-
-
People find spiritualism in whatever comforts them. The government is very comforting to many, and these people have spiritual investment in that system, whether they call it that or not. The reason why people don't like to mix religion and politics is because religion is politics and politics are religon. It is because that they are the same thing that they don't get along to well, or that's the way we are raised to see it. Ultimately, they are no different and anything that can be applied to the one can to the other. Perhaps the only thing that may seem different is that religons often provide a beggining and an end. Politics is the idea of perpetual existance. Look at Hinduism. The Hindu caste system worked relatively well because it filled a political role, and more importantly, provided people with a sense of perpetual motion that is always sought after in politics.
-
-
Well, I suppose that it's more or less the underlying faith (funny I should use that word...) in our government that people have. Look at our country before "freedom" truely broke out. We supported Christianity, and only Christianity.
The faith is that: although they dictate how we live our lives together, they can't dictate our singular beliefs.
I believe there's a certain psychology that goes behind it. It's how people view things. It's an appeal of freedom that's worked it's way into our mind.
Besides, the way our government is set up destroys (tries to) the dictatorship of a country. Each is entitled his or her or...whatever's own opinion. Faith is an opinion, yes? So without the dictating of an opinion, why should we dictate a sub-category of it?
Or:
We may not need an extra catalyst for something, such as a war. You believe who you want to, and I guess that's what it's all about. If they dictate that such and such is right when you believe something completely opposite don't you get a little angry and frustrated? You listen to who you believe, and if the head of power (or a very powerful figure) started to incorporate it into what they believe is right (when others in the party don't agree or have different religious beliefs) then do you not doubt that factions would develop and more war within ourselves will develop? -
-
I'm under the impression that you all are not making any distinction between politics and government. Am I right?
To me, politics and government are VERY different. Politics seems to be the wrangling for position and power. It doesn't have any one central figure, but many within a party. I'm too lazy to look up definitions right now. I'm winding down for the day.
Just thought I'd jump into the conversation for the first time. I have a bachelor's in philosophy with a minor in religious studies (including Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christian history). Howdy, everyone. -
-
To me, politics and government are VERY different. Politics seems to be the wrangling for position and power
And that is why there can be NO difference between Politics and Religion. Politics is a tool that Religions use to keep from being labled a "cult". Trying to find a difference between Politics and Religion is like looking for the difference between a Carpenter and a hammer.
You should look at the differences between Religion and Government, or Carpenters and Masons, They both use hammers but to different ends; the same can be said of Goverments and Religions with regards to Politics. -
-
Based on the context of the original post I'm guessing he meant something closer to 'political philosophy,' as in 'party politics,' 'liberal/conservative' etc. There are certain similarities there between political philosophy and religion.... at the least they are more similar to each other than either is to 'government' or 'politics' (the wrangling for position and power.)
-
-
-
Not to be picky, but the country is actually more christian now than ever, and it isn't even a majority factor, but a factor of who is in control (protestants). Our nation was never founded on Christian ideals in the way that they are now. This change was mostly evident around the 50s. Not suprising that all of the things that made the 50s such a golden era are now becoming a thorn in our side as we try to diverge from the hipocracy of christianity.
-
-
Why do you say that position is popular? I would have guessed the opposite. I think separation of church and state is popular in the US, but I thinks thats different than religion and politics.
-
Unsu...
The only way to keep from mixing politics and religion is to keep all religious people out of politics. I don't advocate this. For starters, it would undermine freedom of religion: "You can be religious as you like so long as you don't also vote."
I think there will be no peace between the many opposed camps here until there is an agreement on what the good life is. (I don't see this happening anytime soon, but I think it's the root question.) What is the good life? What should a state provide for citizens? What values are to be protected at all costs and which are less important? Who decides? What's it all about? Only after agreeing to that can we agree about how is best accomplished. Until then, we're trying to build several different houses on the same piece of property.
My two cents...
-
Both religion and politics are based on giving power to an authoritarian entity. This authority figure enforces their will with force - God sends people to heaven or hell; governments enforce morality through punishment.
People who are resigned to believe that there is a god and that he is a bully who will punish them if they do not follow his rules are also more likely to be resigned to a government that is a bully (especially if they think they can get on the right side of that bully and thus be protected).
People who are willing to take on “faith” laws they are not able to prove are a politician’s wet dream. These are people who are highly suggestible and easily manipulated.
Religions and politics also see morality as something that comes from a teaching, book or law and is handed down by a leader as opposed to something that comes from within, from individual experience and understandings. Both actually discourage personal responsibility and encourage submitting to a “higher law”.
Politics and religion are both predicated on the supposition that man is inherently evil and bad and must be controlled by laws and rules.
Politics and religion are both opiates of the masses. They release their adherents from personal responsibility. If one thinks that global warming is God’s will, why do anything about it? If one thinks believes politicians when they say marriage is threatened by gay marriage, why stand up for the rights of the oppressed minority? Both politics and religion discourage people from thinking for themselves.
Both politics and religions seek to divide people into groups – us and them, the saints and the sinners, the democrats and the republicans, the hindus and the sikhs, the conservatives and the progressives. Divide and conquer.
Neither government nor religion is required for societies to exist. -
-
There are basically four aspects of religion, one of which is politics. Let me elaborate:
The first is the personal or psychologic aspect or dimension. Religion answers questions which were not answered by science or philosophy, such what happens when we die, why am I here in this world, etc. It gives solace to those who have lost loved ones, it shows how to alleviate guilt feelings, etc. A good number of these questions can now be answered by psychology, but in the ealy stage of civilization, the priest/monk was in some way your shrink.
There is the social aspect. Going to church/temple/synagogue gives one the feeling of belonging to a group, where you can seek mingle from those who think like you. In times of crisis, you turn to your church for help., etc.
There is the political dimension, in which often in the past, the ruler was a god or his authority was given to him by God -- as was pointed out in previous postings. This help the ruler to consolidate his authority. We must remember that when civilization were born, there was a lot of anarchy and chaos. Religion provided the glue for social cohesion. Some rulers would overbid their power and launch the whole population on mega-projects as the pyramids or other 'wonders' of the world, or declare war on the infidels.
The fourth aspect, which is often neglected, is the mythological one. Every culture is in need of heroes and a storyline for its origin. Prometheus is a good example. For giving mankind enlightment, he is eternally punished. The Jews were given a promised land by God, etc. Most religion incorporates some mythological elements in their doctrine.
As one can see, religion is a powerful agent that can mold a society. Those who believed that religion would eventually disappeared, I'm afraid, will be proven wrong. But to tame the beast, one needs to understand the beast. I hope I have shed some light on that beast.
Just my two cents.
-
