The pontiff said it was "fundamental on the one hand, to insist on the distinction between the political realm and that of religion in order to preserve both the religious freedom of citizens and the responsibility of the State towards them."Upon first analysis, I believe this is well put. When most people champion the seperation of church and state principle, they are generally reacting to the unwanted prospect of the Pope's first statement. In other words, people do not what to be told by the state what they should and should not believe. Nevertheless what most do not readily admit is that there is indeed plenty of faith floating around in politics and the so-called public realm in general.But he added that societies must also be "more aware of the irreplaceable role of religion for the formation of consciences and the contribution which it can bring to -- among other things -- the creation of a basic ethical consensus within society."
I like the Pope's second statement, but I would take it a bit further. He seems to be suggesting that the secular/political realm should draw more from the richness of religious ideas in the forming of laws to guide society. I would say that more recognition should be given to the faith-nature of all political views and of secularism in general. This, I must admit, is sounding the call of what I understand of Radical Orthodoxy, a sensibility to which I often ellude.
So, what am I saying? Perhaps if it is more widely recognized that all political idealogies are based on some sort of belief system and could, in that sense, be referred to as faiths in themselves, the door could be opened a bit more for dialogue between those in the political realm and those associated with what are already recognized as faiths. The faith-filled secularists need to stop faulting others for being faith-filled. The pot should stop calling the kettle black.
It has generally bugged me the number of times it is insisted by candidates in the US elections that their faith will not be brought into their governance. All I have to say is, oh brother! Though you claim to enter the political realm naked of any of your faith clothing, you are indeed, after all, still full clothed (the opposite of the story of the emporers new clothes).
Posts
3 comments:
It is an interesting thought - the influence of faith into the political realm. As you rightly said, one can claim that their faith will not affect their decisions as gov't agents, but they will only be disillusioned in the end when they are making those decisions, small or large.
Unfortunately, at least in America, particular faith confessions seem to mainly be made to 'win the vote'. I'm not saying particular candidates aren't Christian, but the underlying reason for claiming such is seems to mainly be connected with winning the vote. That is the sad part of it.
I believe the specific purpose of the 'separation of church and state' is that no one particular church group/faith/denomination/etc would be the controlling group behind the state. We can trace the effects of the Roman state/church from Constantine on, as well as the history of the early Anglican church in England, and see the mostly disastrous effects.
There is no doubt God desires His people to be salt and light in the political arena, as in education, sports, art, medicine, banking, etc, etc. But as for The Church (speaking more as an institutional structure) to be in control of the state, I have come to believe that this is not on the kingdom's agenda. Our message is the rule of God impacting the lives of people, not taking over something of the earth that will be shaken and pass away (Hebrews 12:27-29).
Thanks Daniel
Great thoughts from both of you guys.
Daniel, here is a quote I recently put on my blog:
"Democrats are quick to attack the religiosity of Republicans, but Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion. Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant? ...But the one fundamental precept that Democrats must stand for is independent thought and speech. When they become baying bloodhounds of rigid dogma, Democrats have committed political suicide."
(Generally its the irreligious liberals who want religion out, while conservatives are more relaxed about faith in politics).
The whole rest of the quote is fascinating commentary from a liberal, pro-choice feminist, critiquing the liberals and pro-choice agenda. I highly recommend checking out her thoughts!
-ACR
Good stuff Daniel - funnily enough I think this was what the Archbishop of Canterbury was getting at when he made his rather controversial comments about Shariah law in the UK last year (if you read his full address, his point was that religion should have a place in the public realm, not about Shariah specifically). Admittedly the Pope seems to have made his point a little better ;o)
Post a Comment