Question

Why should religion and governments be separated?

BTW, you need to do a lot of research to answer this question, please help!

Answer 1

The notion of whether or not politics and religion should be kept apart is highly controversial in today’s world. ‘While religion has often been ignored as an important political factor, it is becoming increasingly clear that it plays a substantive role in world politics, both internationally and locally’ . Conflict has spread internationally in regards to religion, to places such as Israel, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. ‘In addition, the international network of Al- Qaeda has demonstrated the potential international impact of religious movements’ . This essay will argue that politics and religion should be kept separate giving reasons through a liberal perspective. It will look at the liberal ideas of John Locke, Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville. The liberal approach claims that there should be a separation; because without separation conflict can spread among human beings about religion. ‘Although enlightenment thinkers and their precursors differed on many important issues, they were unified in their concern to wrest the notion of legitimate government from its religious, particularly Christian foundations’ .This essay will go on further to explore the ideas of Thomas Jefferson and the ‘wall of separation’. Lastly it will look at the example of Islamic states which incorporate religion into their political system and assess whether it is a viable idea to deal

Before arguing why religion and politics should be separate, it is necessary to briefly understand why some key thinkers believed it was necessary for religion and politics to remain united. Niccolò Machiavelli believed ‘religion was the foundation of state and society’ he stated that ‘rulers use religion accordingly since religion is under his control’ Montesquieu also had a firm belief that religion should be part of politics as ‘religion provides unity, harmony and social stability for society’. Thomas Hobbes argued about religion and politics in many of his works, the key argument being in the context of a religion and a world state. Hobbes argued that religion was vital for politics as ‘religion drives people to obedience, makes them familiar with laws and how to live in a peaceful society’

Reverting back to liberalism, John Locke expressed his ideas in: A letter concerning Toleration (1689), it should be noted that Locke never mentions a separation of religion and politics, he tends to speak more about the ‘difference’ between the ‘Church and the State’ So what is the difference between Church and State and Religion and Politics? It could be said that the church and state are more institutions that are separate from each other, whereas religion and politics are activities that occur in spheres of citizen’s everyday lives. Nonetheless, Locke claims that the idea of separation is linked to tolerance, as human beings lack tolerance for one another, the controversy between religion and politics increases. Locke mentions that if religion was forced onto a country, how would one know which to follow from the multiple religions in the world? Locke summarises his letter with, ‘the sum of all we drive at is that every man enjoys the same rights that are granted to others. Is it permitted to worship God in the Roman manner? Let it be permitted to do it in the Geneva form also… Let no man’s life or body, or house, or estate, suffer any manner of prejudice upon these accounts’ From this summary, Locke addresses his fear of ‘religious forces’ threating to rule the state and its citizens Locke was ‘concerned with religious freedom’ and believed that the biggest threat to citizens would be if the state starting talking about religion. It is evident from Locke’s letter that he did not accept the notion that the church and state or religion and politics should be one entity.

Benjamin Constant was another key liberal thinker who believed in separation of the religion and politics. ‘The separation of church, the state and the freedom of the individual were two of Constant’s central political principles’ . So, Constant suggested that ‘rather than having to choose among religions, why not accommodate them all, only taking care that they be contained inside the private sphere of the individual’. Furthermore, ‘according to Constant, religious sentiment is one of the expressions of the human capacity to transcend oneself’ . Religious sentiment is an important term; Constant believed that since religion was mostly about transcendent feelings, it should not be connected to important political matters in the country or globally. Once again it is clear to see that Constant believed that religion should be kept as an independent practice and that religious feelings should not interfere with political decisions. ‘Constant’s take on the relationship of political institutions to social mores was similar to one of the main points Tocqueville would make over thirty years later’