It is a widely held idea that the church and state should be separate, or that religion and politics do not mix. In practice this is what takes place. Does this then mean that a person who is religious cannot truly be a politician, or a politician cannot truly be our religious person?
Yet, we know that religious people are politicians, and that politicians are also religious people. This then creates a conundrum. How can any one person be both a politician and be religious? If he were both, then he will end up being hypocritical either to the religion or the government and the people. I do not think that anyone serving in both capacities considers himself to be a hypocrite. He will, in all likelihood, try to fulfill his obligations to his religion and to the government.
If politics and religion were to be separated, then it would appear that a person who is a politician and also follows his religious tradition, must inevitably have a divided personality. For in his religious activities he will adhere to certain values, traditions, doctrines, philosophy, rituals and scriptures. It is not conceivable, if he is true to himself, that he will change his values and teachings when he joins a political party and participates in politics. Since we must reason that the person maintains his whole identity whether he is religious or political, it follows that his religious and political ideals must converge. This same holds for everyone who is religious, and who is also political. If this line of thinking is rational, then religion and politics, or the church and state cannot truly be separated. In the final analysis, both institutions are there to serve, in general, all the people.
There are certain points that need to be considered. Politics is the science and art of government. A government has jurisdiction in its own state, and cannot legitimately operate in another country that has its own government. Religion, on the other hand, does not have any such clearly defined boundary. The head of any one church or religion has jurisdiction over its adherents even if they live in different countries. An example is the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church who has jurisdiction over all Catholics everywhere in the world. The same also holds for the Archbishop of Canterbury who has jurisdiction over Anglicans everywhere. A similar situation exists in other religions also, but perhaps not so well defined. But for the purpose of this discussion we have to confine ourselves to any one country and its religious people and, by extension, apply it to every other country.
It would be a good idea to consider a subject in which both the government and religion have a stake. Such a subject is abortion. Religions do not recommend or condone abortions, as it is considered the destruction of a life. Granted, some people believe that life does not start conception, but later in the pregnancy or even with the first breath. This is outside the scope of this discussion. Many politicians, on the other hand, have passed laws that have made abortion legal, and millions of abortions take place annually in the world. Many of the politicians who have voted in favor of such laws, and also go to their respective churches and profess their faith, must be considered to be hypocrites. Yet none of them would consider himself or herself a hypocrite. How are we to make sense of what is happening in the world when religion and politics must work together? Another glaring example is that religion forbids violence and killing of people, but governments often see it expedient to wage war to improve its own welfare, or to remove what it perceives to be unjust or dangerous even if it is far away from its own borders. This has happened in many of the wars that have been perpetrated in the world.
It appears that people who are generally religious will either bend or neglect their religious principles, and take part in an activity contrary to the teachings of that religion. Abortion fits into this category. What is it that makes people do things so that they neglect their cherished religious beliefs and church, and participate in activities not allowed? In the final analysis, it appears that people set their own standards in what affects them on a personal level, but accept the religious teachings when it applies at the general level.
Perhaps there is no way to reconcile what people of different religions, or atheists and agnostics, believe or do in their personal, religious or political lives. It is likely that we have to live with confusions and contradictions as long as we are dealing with people of different levels of commitments, values, integrity and expectations. In a holistic sense, the best religious people would make the best politicians, but they will be faced by people clamoring for their own interests. It would be ideal if all people could live under religious and political principles that are just, universal, equal, loving and caring for all people.
Dr. J. Das is a Surrey based writer and spiritualist. He can be reached at [email protected] or visit www.kabir.ca
