Religion And Politics

Do religion and politics mix?

“Culture tends to take the place that was once the religion. It is in its name now that we mobilizes, that we preach the Crusades. To her the role of the opium of the people.” Jean Dubuffet 1968.

Religion, the supreme guide, the supreme cause, the supreme justification.

But what is religion? The traditional definition of religion is based on a set of beliefs and dogma that define the relation between human and sacred which come from above, from somewhere we can’t conceptualize and that had been given to humans to enlighten them.

We easily integrate in this concept the millenarian religions as Buddhism, Shintoism, Islam, Christianity and the future religions that may appear in the history of the Human being.

Whether monotheist or animist, based on a single book or on oral tradition, it always propose and maybe impose a way of living, a way of thinking and a way of dying. It is a cultural system which governs your life and your relation to others. A believer is submitted to his religion and buy a system of repression and condemnation that induce fear he has to live respecting the dogma.

History has shown the danger that may represent the interference of religion into political affairs.

After a horrendous war opposing reformists and Catholics in Eastern Europe leaders understood the importance of separating these two powers. Secularism was born and will rule internal and international affairs. But is this separation effective? Is this separation applicable in all countries? Does these country want to apply it?

First we’ll analyze the concept of secularism, then we’ll see to what extent secularism is not applied and respected by states and furthermore used by then.

In 1648 after thirty years of a cruel and devastating war, nations gets to peace.

Religion had been identified as the set off of this mass killing conflict and the will of state leaders was to establish the independence of state power from religious authority. Westphalia signed the emergence of the essential idea of secularism. The sentence “"Whose realm, his religion » was no longer applicable and all believers from all religions were supposed to be considered as equal in rights.

Secularism endorse the idea that religion interests and states interests possibly don’t match and may be opposed. It is evident nowadays when for example French parliament vote a law authorizing marriage between homosexuals. We can easily understand that it would have been impossible if religions had have a role to play. It also implanted the idea that religion is a personal matter and that it shouldn’t interact with social life and social status. Thus we shouldn’t care anymore about our leaders’ religion and considerate that they would act in the interest of their people no matter their religion. By isolating religious matters secularism provoked a side effect that is to equalize religions influence in state matters. Effectively as long as no religion is a state religion, all religions are considerate in the same way.

It is important to notice that this idea was a European idea.

Thanks to this considerations we can see that religion has a strong influence on how believers acts and how they interact with their congener. If we suppose that some believers may have reach some influence positions then have a rule to play in political matters we may stay confident and be sure that their religion wouldn’t interfere.

But, if we accept the idea that for them religion is a sacred matter which therefore stands above human considerations we can easily see the internal conflict that they are living: how can we reasonably imagine that they would act in opposition to their believes and fear the punishment of their God if politic requires it? I have the conviction that for believers politic is a part of religious matters and is subordinated to the supreme cause. God rules believers’ life and nothing is stronger than a God. Religion and politics are so deeply interconnected and interdependent that the answer to the question “do religion and politics mix” can only be affirmative. But is this a real question? Can’t we say that instead of focusing on this question based on the fear to see the return of a chaos legitimated by religion, it is more important to look in the future, accept the evidence that these two terrains interfere and focus on understanding how? As in mathematics I would say that the interference between religion and politics is an axiom and that the consequences of it is what needs to be analyzed. One Religion helped by one politic make a monster that interfere with others monsters and created global politics.

In 1996 Samuel Huntington wrote a book that develops this idea of what I call monsters. For him it is a clash of civilizations that rules the international system and determinates global politics.Clash of civilization. Clash of a multiplicity of civilizations that fight and struggle to protect and develop their interest and their influence. Spykman says it is in the nature of a state to look forward and extend its power, and its influence economically, ideologically, and militarily.

If we

...