Religion and politics throughout history

Religion and politics have long been intersecting factions. In fact, America's founders were so concerned about the complication that come form the intersection of these two factions that they established a separation between church and state. The purpose of this discussion is to critically assess a popular depiction of the relationship between politics and religion in the contemporary world.

Religion and Politics

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11 there has been a great deal of emphasis placed on the relationship between politics and religion. This is particularly true as it pertains to the Muslim Religion. Following the terrorists attacks many Muslim Americas were discriminated against because of preconceived notions about the Muslim faith due to the actions of Muslim extremists. This discrimination has created the issue of providing religious freedom while still making concessions for national security. That is the ability to practice religion freely is now made more complicated because of concerns about national security (Farr, 2008). Because governments in the West are built upon the notion of religious freedom, there is a careful balance that must be struck so that citizens are not put in danger and people still have to ability to freely practice their religion.

In addition, as a result of the terrorist attacks war was declared in Afghanistan and Iraq. Politicians have been careful to describe these missions as war on terrorism. However, there is an underlying tension which reflects the belief that these wars are actually against Islam and the nations that practice the Islamic faith (Bilgrami, 2003).

Tosteson (2003) asserts that religion is responsible for the plague of war. That is people that have different religious beliefs persists to war against each other based on the idea that one religion is superior to another. In this way differences of opinion based on religious beliefs become political because of physical aggressions that occur. This phenomenon takes place from generation to generation creating a plague of war (Tosteson, 2003) .

In recent years there has also been a great deal of tension between Christian fundamentalist and more liberal political factions as it pertains to issues such as abortion and gay marriage. In both cases religion and politics have become intertwined and in some ways seem to be inseparable even though there has been an effort to separate the tow. On a fundamental level, religion tends to form the belief systems of individuals.

When there are large numbers of individuals within a country who share the same religion, it is inevitable that politics becomes influenced by society. Marty (2003) asserts that "in recent decades, many experts have marshaled empirical data demonstrating a secular trend in modern societies. Still other experts, marshaling different data, have documented a resurgent religiosity in these same societies (Marty, 2003)." Although there is conflicting evidence as to the level of influence of religion in society, there is evidence that there is some influence. This means that there must be some correlation between religion and politics. Indeed Keddie (2003) asserts that there is an aversion to the word secular and that most countries that try to embrace this idea are not content.

According to Carroll (2003) this inevitable link between religion and politics forces the question of whether or not the world would be better off without religion. The author asserts that misconceptions about religion have caused a great deal of turmoil and war. As such societies around the world might be better off if religion did not exist. However, te author also understands that to "ask such a question from within a religious tradition is like asking, Would the world be better off without desire ? (Carroll, 2003)

Throughout the article Carroll presents a rather dramatic analysis of the manner in which the relationship between religion and politics should be handled in society. The author is honest but sometimes cynical in the manner in which the issue is addressed in the article. He asserts that "in every way that religion can be sacred, it can be trivial; in every way consoling, threatening. A ready source of humility, religion embodies an impulse to triumphalism, too (Carroll, 2003)."

In many ways the author seems to concentrate on the negative issues that can arise because of religion and how these negative attributes of religion tend to effect politics in a manner that is detrimental. This particular article appears to be somewhat biased in its approach and does not fully take into consideration the real bonds and commitments that people have to their particular religious beliefs. In doing so the author trivializes the complex relationship between religion and politics.