Separating Religion from Politics

For several centuries, political theorists have argued that religion and politics are not one in the same but instead independent ideas.

This revolutionary concept began with the teachings of Martin Luther during the Protestant Reformation and has continued to be incorporated into the work of later authors, including William Penn and John Locke. In each of their accounts, Penn and Locke both hold the belief that the spiritual and civil realms must be different from one another in order to achieve toleration.

More importantly, religion and politics should be different kinds of affairs in their nature, but in practice, they are actually similar. This argument presents both historical and individual reasons in examining how and why religion and politics are so closely integrated. Along with these reasons, one must understand that this correlation between spirituality and civil government does not allow for toleration among all people.

While many philosophers regard religion and politics as separate issues in establishing toleration for all people, history shows that religious principles often shape the code of behavior that governments implement for their citizens. Because religion is the oldest form of law, ancient religious principles and morals often determined the fundamental parameters and policies of modern society.

With this in mind, God's word ultimately held absolute power in defining which actions were deemed moral or immoral and consequently, determined which codes of behavior would then be instituted as laws for society. While a government may use its political power to determine the laws of a specific society, the spiritual power of God dictates the law of the land for the entire human race.

In particular, much of the legislation by which we abide today is specified in these texts, which most notably include laws against murder, assault, rape, and theft. The United States has adopted many values and principles that Christians and Jews have practiced for thousands of years.

Specific passages within the Bible and Ten Commandments have provided human beings with the foundation for civil law. This ancient scripture defines morality by describing acts of right and wrong for all people.

For instance, the word "God" can be seen in the judicial system of the United States. When a witness takes the podium in court, this person is required to place a hand on the Bible and say the words "so help me God" before the he or she can begin to testify. This societal norm derives from God's commandment that "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Today, many Americans recognize these religious tenets as the standard rule of law for all human beings. Thus, the influence of Christianity on Western democracies has provided this grounding for defining civil law around the world.

Even so, Christianity is not the only religion that has become embedded in the political realm.

Other forms of religion have become the basis for establishing law in many societies outside of Western civilization.

For example, various tribes in Africa and South America have used their strong religious convictions as a primary resource for establishing law. These indigenous groups each have their own divine set of virtues and sins that are used to govern the actions of men and women.

While individual societies may vary on the specific faith and practices of worship, each uses religion as a criterion for determining right and wrong.

Historical contexts play an important role in demonstrating the correlation between religion and politics, but an individual's belief often determines his or her course of action.

On the simplest level, the religious teachings that a person conforms to influences his physical daily actions-these actions cannot be separated from his or her own spirituality. This concept implies that the soul and the body operate in conjunction with one another; a person's moral conscience and salvation within the soul will determine whether his or her own body conducts actions of benevolence or malevolence.

Consequently, these actions define one's own identity as a human being.

Even though religious belief represents a private matter to most individuals, the morals and values instilled in such practices have become a part of public life. Thus, the relationship between religion and politics are so intertwined and inseparable in the private and public sectors of society, that these realms are similar in nature.

Both the spiritual and secular realms deal with similar issues regarding morality-this interrelationship makes it impossible for either to exist without the other.

Because religion and politics are so closely linked in many civilizations throughout the world, toleration can not be achieved.

The integration of religion and politics in society unconsciously preaches the values of a certain religion, never truly granting its citizens an objective perspective of religion. Each civil government forms a bias or prejudice of which religion provides the most acceptable values to be used in determining law-the teachings of Christianity have formed the basis of law for the United States since its independence in 1776.

With this mixing of religion and politics, people do not have the freedom to choose religion strictly of their own accord, for civil law creates a preconceived notion of what values are right and wrong. Thus, those people that do not uphold the Judeo-Christian values used in Western democracies are often not tolerated for their differences in belief and practice.

Because of this strong correlation between religion and politics, disagreement and even violence can consequently arise between various religious groups coexisting in the same society.

For example, the Bush administration has proposed an amendment to ban gay marriage and redefine marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. Based on Christian law, this proposal shows that the United States is intolerant of homosexuals and their practices.

By allowing the Christian faith to determine policy-making in America, the Bush administration has commanded that same-sex marriage is unacceptable. Many citizens, particularly those not of the Christian faith, have been outraged by this proposal, believing that it represents a form of prejudice and intolerance.

President Bush's ban on new stem cell research also comes from a literal interpretation of the Bible and has caused much controversy over the past year.

Conversely, there are others who reject the relationship between religion and politics, believing that morality can be understood without any religious background or belief. These opponents claim that a distinct line separates religion and politics.

While some believe that ancient Judeo-Christian values and principles provide a foundation for the laws established in a modern-day society, they suggest that the spiritual and secular realms are different and can actually exist independent of each other. This theory comes with the belief that one does not have to practice a specific religion in order to have a basic understanding of morality.

One example that this theory holds true for is the belief in no God. Many followers of this practice, known as atheists, do not believe in a higher being or follow a path of spirituality.

Nevertheless, these individuals still have the capacity to believe in morality and obey the tenets of civil law without ever holding a religious background. This common understanding of morality is learned not from religion but from accepting the ways of civil society and government, which encompasses people of many different religions around the world.

Theoretically, even if a government abolished all religions, it still would be able to preside over society by developing its own codes of behavior. These rules would not be controlled by any set of religious beliefs-the morality of a society could still be just and virtuous in the absence of a religious disposition. Thus, the separation between the secular and the spiritual realm would essentially promote less bias and prejudice in the laws and routines that govern its citizens.

Along with this perception, the opposing theory dictates that toleration can still be achieved for all human beings. In the United States today, there are a variety of different religions that people practice: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and more.

Democracy tolerates these different practices in giving everyone the equal opportunity to practice their own religion and determine their own faith. The majority of these current citizens are tolerant of one another's spiritual differences. Thus, these people have separated their religious faiths from the law, believing that a universal conception of morality exists among all of them.

Individuals avoid religious restraint and persecution when they believe that a separation of religion and politics exists.

Take the example of a Buddhist monk in the United States. Not only can he follow his own religious teachings, but he can also be tolerant of other faiths through his acceptance of the tenets of civil government. Therefore, toleration is closely allied with government due to the integration of politics and religion.

Similarly, William Penn incorporated this separation of religion from politics to argue for the freedom of all people in "The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience." He took this approach to convey that the nature of religion and belief was an individual matter that had no bearing on matters of civil law.

Penn made a claim for his group of Quakers, stating that "to enact any Religion, or prohibit from the free Exercise of theirs, sounds harsh in the Ears of all modest and unbya'st Men."

By persecuting the Quakers, the English invaded the divinity of God, overthrowing his authority as absolute ruler and destroying the values he established. Penn criticized the intolerance of the English government as he pledged for religious liberty through peaceful efforts. Therefore, his proposal for freedom of religion supports the belief that one's conscience and actions are independent of each other.

He later clearly affirmed such separation between the body and soul: "For a Man may differ in Judgment about Matters of Faith, from the National Religion, and yet correspond with the Government in Matters Civil…"

Penn demonstrated that the separation of religion and politics was a significant ingredient in achieving toleration for the Quaker community. He supported the conception that man can differ in his matters of faith and national religion while still following the laws of civil government. Therefore, Penn asserted that people are still able to cooperate with one another in civil, secular society despite having their own beliefs of spirituality-organized religion is not a requirement for maintaining peaceful society.

Moreover, John Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration" drew a precise distinction between the secular and spiritual realm as two separate worlds. He described the commonwealth as a society of men designated for maintaining and improving their civil interests of life, liberty, health, leisure, and earthly goods.

In contrast, he identified this civil realm differently from the religious, which could not be influenced by civil government or other outward forces; any punishment, imprisonment, or torment could not affect the soul and belief but only the body of a person.

Locke provided his reasoning for this separation: "I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the Business of Civil Government from that of Religion, and to settle the just Bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the Controversies that will be always arising, between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a Concernment for the Interest of Mens Souls, and on the other side, a Care of the Commonwealth."

Like his predecessor Penn, Locke theorized that religion was not necessary for maintaining political structure and civility within society. He explained that this distinction between the spiritual and the secular provides civil society with the opportunity to produce toleration for all people.

Without this separation, Locke stated that controversies will continue to arise between both realms. Ultimate power could not be given to the Magistrate even with the consent of the people; no man could abandon his right to choose what religious path to follow, otherwise his belief was not individual.

He supported this belief in his account: "No private Person has any Right, in any manner, to prejudice another Person in his Civil Enjoyments, because he is of another Church or Religion."

Locke defined the choice and obligation that comes with religion and civil law-keeping these realms separate avoided the interference of religion in the policies formulated by the Magistrate. When religion becomes involved in the policy-making process of civil government, those who are excluded from the law based on their religious beliefs are not granted the same freedoms as others with morals that directly correspond with the standards of the existing system.

Although on the surface, government seems to be built around the basic concept of separation of church and state to allow for religious tolerance, religion does affect political decisions due to the fact that religious precepts form the basis of many of our current policies and traditions. Judeo-Christian ethical principles have long been the framework for law throughout the world. In essence, many societies have been built around a belief in "God."

Without this belief in God, societies would not know how to form a code of conduct for its people to obey-the religious teachings present human beings with a clear distinction of right and wrong.

However, like Penn and Locke, I agree that religion and politics should be different from one another.

No level of authority should have the power to tell a person what to believe by means of coercion or more importantly, political persuasion-one must have the liberty to find his or her own spirituality and still be able to follow the laws of civil government. Religion rather is a personal choice that should only affect the decisions that a person makes individually.

Today, the religious and civil spheres are still mixed together in many of our traditions and customs, but this trend should be put to an end so individuals can voluntarily pursue the right to freedom and choice.

By continuing to incorporate the Judeo-Christian traditions in our government and other elements of modern-day society, citizens are not truly free to choose their own religious beliefs. Separating religion from politics would allow governments to be free of religious bias and to form a secular code of justice and morality.

The interrelationship of religion and politics does not offer people an opportunity to form their own belief system. This opportunity should be presented to all people in order to allow for self-liberty and ultimately a greater chance of achieving toleration. Without a dominate religion influencing policy making, people will be more accepting of religious diversity and laws can be formed that do not embody the practices of one faith.

In their proposals for toleration, many authors have theorized that religion and politics are different issues capable of existing independent of each other. While religious morals and principles instilled within governmental regulations and policies make this claim difficult to achieve, modern-day societies nevertheless need to make a greater effort to distance their politics from any sort of religious path.

As Penn and Locke argued in the seventeenth century, human beings still deserve the right to live in a society that does not favor any formal religious teachings. With the twenty-first century in full swing, a secular code of behavior should become a priority for governing the entire human race if religious freedom is to be accomplished.

Without this separation, many people are not given the freedom to think for themselves. Rather, they lead lives according to a government that is heavily influenced by the Christian conception of morality.

Furthermore, the inseparable nature of religion and politics continues to create intolerance-it forms a standard that all people are expected to follow.

People are still not respected and treated fairly unless the law of the land is closely tied to the values practiced in their personal religious following.