Politics and Religion
Dr. Troy Gibson
I. Course Introduction
A. Why study religion and politics?
•
Relevance in Political History (Western Civilization)
•
Relevance in American History
•
Relevance in Political Philosophy
•
Relevance in Political Debate
•
Relevance in Political Outcomes (parties, policy, voting, elections,
groups, etc.)
•
Applies to us all? The political question, then, is not, How does
religion relate to non-religious politics? but rather, What kind of
politics—what stances, arguments, policies, and principles—flow
from different religions or ways of understanding the world and
life, whether they are older (traditional) or newer ‘religions’? We
will not understand the political dynamics of the contemporary
world until we recognize the religiousness of all peoples and
cultures and the differences among their basic assumptions
about human flourishing and their diverse impacts on political
and economic development.
*Someone may argue that religion ought not be relevant, but it would
be mistaken or naïve to say that it is not relevant.
B. Religion IN Politics in America (comparatively speaking).
Neither Iran, England, France, or Germany. No homework
on Wednesday nights; government offices closed on
Sundays; out on Easter and Christmas. Peter Berger: “If
India is the most religious country on our planet, and
Sweden is the least religious, America is a land of Indians
ruled by Swedes.” Instead, we have a sort of “permissive
establishment” of religion here, where the major religion is
accommodated in public life (not oppressive, not
prescriptive, not entirely secular). The Concept of
Separation of Church and state exists in virtually every
western democracy; but vastly different meanings and
applications.
C. How will we study R&P? Where do we limit the study?
Course will focus mostly on most dominant religious groups
in America, movements, events, trends, in American
political history and behavior.
II. But What about the Secularization thesis?
A. Definition: Religious belief and practice is (and ought to be)
decreasing in relevance & acceptance as human progress is
advanced through modernization and globalization.
B. Evidence – Religion is ‘safe’ and irrelevant
•
Decline of religiosity (in Europe, at least)
•
Rise of dualism (division of all things into sacred/secular airtight
categories) and the privatization/secularization of Christianity
(America); paradigm shift; Christian and religious categories, once
taken for granted, no longer welcome as lenses through which we
must interpret the world; from 1950-today America moved from
dualism towards postmodernism. (Example: Bible-theft).
–
How pervasive? Can you imagine a research program or
department who’s whole mission was to examine the
phenomenon of secularism?
•
Responses to naturalism by Christians, a new protestantism:
growth in subjective faith, growth in experiential faith; growth in
relative faith; growth in spiritualism; decline of traditionalism and
growth in secular marketing strategies (p. 15 Wald).
C. Causes of Secularization
1. Dualism in Theology (Aquinas division of Nature and Grace)
2. Dualism in Philosophy - Especially articulated in the thought of
Immanuel Kant, we divide knowledge, truth, and all activity into
revelation vs reason, science vs faith, fact vs value, etc. This, we say, is
the nature of knowledge and we add that matters of faith, values, and
revelation (religion) are of private use only while matters of fact,
science, and reason are of public use.
3. Great Awakening’s identification of Christian life with individual
experience, not testable truth claims and corporate confessions of
faith.
4. Surrender of the fundamentalists (1900-1970)
5. Rise of the secular left (1850-1950) - This group eventually gained
control of the public/social institutions and successfully argued that
anyone who wants to play with them must use their ball (secular or
naturalistic assumptions about the world). Successfully changed basic
understandings of science, education at all levels, public philosophy,
church-state doctrine, model of personhood (from the soul to the
psychologized self), and journalism. Notice: interest was not a neutral
public space, but a new moral order (and toppling of the old
Protestant one). Next generation gave us the 1960s revolutions and
postmodernism.
6. Growth of Modern Government – Government was once
limited to “commerce and civil order” and the church focused
on charity and inculcation of virtue and truth. But when gov’t
expanded its role (welfare-regulatory state), it pushed religion
to those areas not important enough to have received the
help/control of government (margins of public life). Effect –
gov’t expansion tended to crowd out religion.
7. Public Education – For secular elites, the goal was to create
universal centers of intellectual reconstruction, where
successive generations are trained exclusively in secular
methods and eventually secular perspectives only. For
protestants, it was to help the poor and (and in some cases,
undermine catholic education). Result: secular thinking and
secular viewpoints training over 90% of the last few
generations. The 1960s was no accident. (Read p. 133 of
Baker)
D. Challenges to secularization (in addition to the U.S. itself) – (1) birth,
marriage, immigration patterns in U.S. and especially Europe (2)
stable beliefs and practice of evangelicals despite economic incline;
regular church attendance in U.S. well over 50% (3) growth of Islam
and Christianity worldwide (4) return of theology in American
evangelicalism (SBC 30% ministers Reformed) (5) Argument that
secularization is not non-religious; Some religions are traditional,
some are new, and among the new religions are those guided by a
secular faith, a belief system held by communities whose gods-which they do not acknowledge as gods—are the idols of human
autonomy, scientific rationality, technological progress, the nation,
economic growth, a communist future, or sheer power in itself (6)
argument that religion persists because it, and not science, satisfies
a basic human need, the desire to explain and existence/life as
meaningful (7) resurgence of religion in public life in the name of
government neutrality (result of postmodernism)
E. These developments feed our current ideological divisions.
Economic
Dimension
Rugged LaissezFaire Individualists
Cultural
Dimension
Traditional
Puritans
Expressive
Individualists
Collectivist
Liberals
Source: Rothman
and Black
Phil of Knowledge Premodernism
Modernism
Postmodernism
Starting Point
Personal-Absolute Man
God
Epistemic
Foundation
Revelation
(aided reason)
Reason (unaided) Relativism
Truth is…
a unified whole
a divided reality
(dualism)
Key Thinkers
St. Paul,
Augustine,
Pascal, Calvin
Descartes, Locke, Derrida, Foucault,
Kant,
Fish,
Schleiermacher
Kierkegaard,
Barth
Major
Historical
Causes
Historical claims
of Christianity
Religious Wars
(1550-1650)
Worldviews
Historic
Deism, Secular Existentialism,
Christianity/Jud Humanism;
New Age;
Positivism
Nihilism
Self (I)
invented as we
go (story-telling)
Totalitarianism;
Scientific wars
(WWI, WWII,
Cold War)
III. Worldview and Presuppositions
A. What is religion? A lot of the confusion about the role of religion
in politics comes from our assumptions about religion, or how
to define it. If religion means traditional rituals or practices of
organized faith communities, then not all are religious
(popular view in the West). If religion means adherence
(wittingly or otherwise) to a philosophical system, basic beliefs
about what is ultimately real, true, right, valuable, and
meaningful, then everyone is religious; i.e., we all have a
worldview.
B. 7 Worldview Questions from James Sire
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What is prime reality?
What is the nature of external reality?
What is a human being?
What happens at death?
Why/how is it possible to know anything at all?
How do know right from wrong?
What is the meaning of human history?
C. If the worldview concept is correct (everyone’s got
one), then one could never divorce religion from
politics. Worldviews do not cloud our judgment,
they determine our judgment. There is no “freethinker,” can’t judge religion except on the basis of
another religion; GK Chesterton and the universal
reality of dogmatism. AND. If politics is about the
authoritative allocation of values (choosing which
values to legislate), then politics necessarily is
informed by worldview convictions about what
values are best for society.
IV. Religious Arguments in Public Discourse (Draw 2 Circles –
Religion/Politics
A.
NO! KEEP RELIGION IN CHURCH!
1. Simple argument
–
Different beliefs about God
–
Differences may lead to violence
–
With no certainty about religion, avoid religion in public space
2.
John Rawls and the doctrine of Public Reason
Problem: How can people committed to different worldviews
live/work 2gether as equals in a fair peaceful society? Answer:
Limit reasons to only those premises held in common by all
(‘overlapping’) and assume all citizens participate from behind
a ‘veil of ignorance’, where no one knows what status they will
hold in life. Result? Just society and possibility of ongoing
conversation in public.
3. Natural Law - In politics, we use science and reason
(accessible to all by God’s natural revelation). In religion,
we use special revelation (word of God). Robert George
agrees that religious reasons must not be used as political
reasons. He only argues that Rawls must not limit
political reasons to only those reasons held in common
by all people. As a natural law philosopher, he insists that
some truths can be ascertained by all through unaided
natural reason and are therefore acceptable in the public
square, even if not all citizens recognize them or even if
these naturally discerned truths are rejected by many. If
Rawls requires ‘overlapping’ reasons, George requires
‘natural’ reasons, but both ultimately reject revealed or
religious reasons.
B. YES! PERMIT THE DIFFERENT VOICES! (some public subject matter,
say justice, overlaps and is relevant in one’s religious concerns;
concentric circles)
1. Critiques of Rawls – Not consistent with liberal democracy, free
speech, or pluralism; discredits men like MLK and movements like
the abolition movement; inconsistent with government neutrality
since secularism/naturalism differ with Christianity, for instance,
only in content not form; conceived using a non-neutral view of
human nature (individual, atomistic, utility maximizing); conceived
towards a desired result, the case of abortion and slavery (original
position vs public reason); self-defeating since Rawls’ assertion that
only reasons held in common are permissible is itself a principle
not held in common by all, so it too should be excluded; conversion
shows that religious or worldview-premised arguments are not
“inaccessible”
2. Nicholas Wolterstorff’s critique of Richard Rorty (FROM THE
READING)