In his article “Religion, Politics and Culture” Jonathan Thompson argues that any initiative that bans gay marriage infringes on the rights of homosexuals and that religion does not belong in politics. Thompson explains that the constitutional amendment in Colorado and proposal 8 in California “erode equality and codify bigotry”. These laws have denied US citizens their rights to “freedom from” and “freedom of” religion. Thompson claims, just as Wald and Calhoun-Brown do in their book Religion and Politics in the United States, that religion has permeated politics. Thompson concedes that religion has been used in a positive manner in politics by citing the examples of the civil rights movement and the abolitionist movement but then claims that religion belongs “in the churches and the homes”.
While I agree with his argument about the laws pertaining to gay marriage, I do not agree that religion should not have any part in politics. As Thompson points out, religion has played a positive role in politics and I think there’s a lot of potential for the future. Religion should not be used in politics to deny citizens inalienable rights such as the right of privacy and of freedom from religion (as it does in the gay marriage legislation) but instead used to foster a sense of awareness of other people’s problems and bring about more social change. There are certain concepts that are prevalent in most religions that could be useful in politics. For example, “love thy neighbor” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” are both concepts that encourage tolerance and would be useful in addressing gay marriage. In addition to these universal concepts, religion imbues its followers with a sense of individual responsibility and accountability, which are definitely lacking in politics now.
While Thompson is correct that religion does have the potential to infringe on the rights of citizens who do not follow that specific religious code, he is also naïve to think that religion has no place in politics. True, religion’s role in politics can be flawed but without it would there have been a civil rights movement or the possibility of a tolerant enough constituency to elect the first African American president?
While I agree with his argument about the laws pertaining to gay marriage, I do not agree that religion should not have any part in politics. As Thompson points out, religion has played a positive role in politics and I think there’s a lot of potential for the future. Religion should not be used in politics to deny citizens inalienable rights such as the right of privacy and of freedom from religion (as it does in the gay marriage legislation) but instead used to foster a sense of awareness of other people’s problems and bring about more social change. There are certain concepts that are prevalent in most religions that could be useful in politics. For example, “love thy neighbor” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” are both concepts that encourage tolerance and would be useful in addressing gay marriage. In addition to these universal concepts, religion imbues its followers with a sense of individual responsibility and accountability, which are definitely lacking in politics now.
While Thompson is correct that religion does have the potential to infringe on the rights of citizens who do not follow that specific religious code, he is also naïve to think that religion has no place in politics. True, religion’s role in politics can be flawed but without it would there have been a civil rights movement or the possibility of a tolerant enough constituency to elect the first African American president?
Posts
2 comments:
I think it is important to distinguish between specific government policies that are implemented on the basis of personal religious beliefs and the social and political changes that occur partially due to religious morality. While the second instance qualifies as the separation of church and state, the first does not. With this dichotomy in mind, I would like to assert my opinion that religion should not play any role in politics. The Civil Rights movement does not qualify as an exception to the separation of church and state; although leaders garnered support by appealing to other individuals’ religious codes such as the afore-mentioned “love thy neighbor”, here religion is invoked in the private realm, not by the state. This is very different from the previously discussed anti-gay marriage statutes, in which the premise of separation of church and state is in fact being violated and individuals’ rights are being denied. By reevaluating these past events, it becomes evident that the positive changes of the Civil Rights movement resulted not from the combination of church and state but because of religious beliefs in the private sphere. On the other hand, religious influence in government policies continues to violate people’s individual freedoms. In this way, I think it is dangerous to say that religion should retain a place in American politics, especially as the positive effects cited do not necessarily fit the argument.
I feel that people have a very biased opinion of religion and politics. People tend to believe that any religious infringement in our government would disturb the foundations of our society. I agree that it is deeply unethical to consider specific religious beliefs when making ethical laws that pertain to an entire, diverse population. For example, any law banning gay marriage is immoral because it is rooted within the Bible. However, there is potential for politicians to slightly consider religious morals and beliefs when making decisions for our country.
Post a Comment