Politics and Religion

The relationship between religion and politics is not only one of the most ancient social phenomena, but also one of the most controversial. Politicians throughout history have justified their rule over the masses by aligning their agendas with various religious movements, often to unsettling effectiveness. Logically, it makes sense for a politician or other social leader to sync his or her message with that of a higher power. Think about it: what better way to sway the masses than to threaten the security of their eternal afterlives? When a political candidate or party allies itself symbolically with a person’s most closely held beliefs about morality and spirituality, voting against that candidate or party can feel for some people like a personal betrayal of everything they stand for.
At various points throughout history, this strategy has proven successful. Yet, it should not be thought of as too simplistic to be plausible in today’s world: look at the U.S. presidential election of 2004.
In this most recent election, the conservative Christian base in America wielded extraordinary power over many of its followers and other traditionally right-leaning groups by associating George W. Bush with the traits deemed favorable to those groups. His campaign messages stressed family, loyalty, morality, and played heavily on the theme of good vs. evil. Indeed, this cut-and-dry logic employed by the Bush campaign strategists proved to be one of the deciding factors in his victory over Senator John Kerry. A breakdown of what percentages of religions voted for each of the candidates can be seen in this article by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public life. For many conservative thinkers who prefer quick, decisive action to some sort of organized rational thought, voting for Bush was a “no-brainer.” The way in which he likened the war on terror to some sort of biblical crusade, with defined good guys and bad guys, and a simple plot line ending in an American victory, was very convincing to those who base their lives around similar stories in the Bible. Kerry’s approach to problem-solving, which emphasized collaboration and rational debate, was deemed as ineffective if not cowardly. The truth of the matter is that Bush’s stance embodied more of the classic traits of a religious leader: he was passionate, clear-cut, steadfast, and decisive. His presence told his voters that if a conflict arose, he had an answer waiting for it, whereas Kerry would have to think and consult with others, possibly entertaining many options before making a decision. Not Bush. He knew his responses before the questions were asked. This certainty, although not necessarily wise, was comforting for those who do not want to be troubled with the global concerns of modern life. They just want a leader who will take charge and work for their interests. The problem with this deferment of responsibility is that the nation is not wholly comprised of Bush voters, or Christians, or conservatives.
This brings to light a fundamental problem of the interaction between religion and politics. Both societal constructs are meant to give guidance by creating and enforcing morals and rules to live by. Stephen Mack discusses this topic in his essay “Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual” seen here. Mack argues that “religious experience and democratic politics make overlapping—and often competing—claims to the deepest meanings we attach to our humanity.” He is correct that both religion and politics force us to dive deep into our fundamental moral set to decide what is right and wrong and what rules to live by. The problem with the rules enforced by religion, however, is that those rules were defined in a time when the world was much simpler. True, many religious tenets are just as valuable today as they were 5,000 years ago, but many others are not. It is simply impossible to apply these rules, which are largely based in black and white logic, to our modern day world, which is comprised of shades of gray. Politics however can be applied to issues of today since the political world is able to change at a much faster pace than religious principles. Faith and spirituality are different concepts than religion, yet all too often they are lumped together. Where faith and spirituality leave the door open to interpretation, religion slams it shut by giving people rules to follow without question. With such rules already in place, it is exceedingly easy for governments and political groups to simply apply their labels, and defy anyone to challenge their principles, for fear of challenging God himself.