Religion and Politics: Why Church and State Should Stay Separate

Introduction: The Role of Faith Groups in Politics

Some groups hold the view that faith groups and other institutions have a very significant role to play within the political arena, and that they have a duty to enter the political fight while expecting the government to remain supportive of this obligation. However, the central argument of this essay is that religious and faith groups and institutions should never be permitted to form political parties, and they should never attempt to exercise influence over the workings of government — whether by inserting their views and values into political discourse or by attempting to elect their own politicians.

Different countries have varying degrees of separation between government and religious institutions. A number of countries have moved ahead and established explicit barriers between church and state since the 1780s. The United States Constitution recognized this need by acknowledging the separation of church and state in the First Amendment (Daniel L. Dreisbach, 2006). Even so, many countries still believe in a strong interconnection between these two institutions.

Separation of Church and State: Historical and Global Perspectives

These variations on separation are well evident in countries with a high degree of religious freedom and tolerance, including those with strong secular political cultures that nonetheless maintain state churches or financial ties with certain religious organizations. In nations such as England, there is a constitutionally established state religion, but other faiths are tolerated. The British monarch serves as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and 26 bishops — known as the Lords Spiritual — sit in the upper house of government, the House of Lords.

Theologians generally hold that separation of church and state is essential for the continued vitality of the church. According to them, without separation, the state would attempt to corrupt religion and find ways of controlling it. Therefore, they see this separation as necessary for protecting the vibrancy of the church. Rationalists, as another group, are more concerned with the impact of a state religion on individual freedoms. Their general argument is that religion is a private matter between a person and God, and that the government — acting through the church — must never force a particular belief upon individuals.

Aristotle describes politics as the art that directs people toward the highest good achievable by action, which he identifies as a life lived according to virtue. His argument is that religion is subordinate to politics: if politics is the most authoritative and architectonic art, then political authorities will inevitably direct the religious life of citizens (James Leon Holmes, 2003).

Religious Involvement and Democratic Values

Faith group and institutional involvement in politics will inevitably be inconsistent with democratic values. Beyond the problems faith groups face in allowing political participation, such involvement is fundamentally at odds with democratic principles. Since the power of religious institutions in society would increase once they become involved in politics, this creates a serious problem for modern governance. It could, to some extent, pave the way for their followers or members to be overrepresented in political debates and political life. Increased power tends to give a particular group more leverage to press its views on the entire polity, and such power invariably leads to the overrepresentation of that group's particular concerns. In addition, increased power may cause a minority group — the one that has received more power — to lash out against other minority groups. Politicians may become reluctant to support any initiatives from those other groups, particularly when doing so would hurt large segments of society.

Even though such cases have been limited within the United States, other countries have fallen victim to religious parties gaining too much power. In Israel, for example, religious parties wield significant influence by virtue of the fact that religious leaders are the ones who balance power in the Knesset. This means that although Israel is a democratic nation, religious institutions still exercise significant control over personal autonomy. This was evident as far back as the Ottoman Empire, when Jewish religious courts were involved in handling most matters relating to personal autonomy.

Other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are governed by theocracies, encounter more serious problems. These theocratic countries are highly intolerant of minority religions and tend to be extremely intolerant of individuals who choose not to practice the state-sponsored religion. Democracy is strengthened when the rights of minorities are respected and protected and when all citizens have an open opportunity to participate in the democratic process. A system that tips the scale in favor of one particular group over others poses a serious potential to challenge majority governance and to trample on the rights of minorities.

Conclusion

Even though some philosophers and religious thinkers hold the view that there is nothing wrong with religious institutions' involvement in politics — arguing that political intervention or discussion of a candidate is a necessary component of the exercise of an individual's religion, and that churches engaging in political debate or endorsing a candidate is an act of theological necessity that should not be denied to people — the weight of evidence and argument points in the other direction. For the sake of the high integrity of the church, and to preserve the faith that its followers place in it to always speak truthfully against what is wrong, declaring support for a particular candidate risks compromising the church's position on sensitive moral issues and ultimately undermining the very mission it exists to fulfill.