Where Does Religion End and Politics Begin?

Original article by John Beckett -- Under the Ancient Oaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

It seems that hardly a week goes by without hearing about politicians promoting “religious liberty” when what they really mean is “license to discriminate.” Current US law requires vendors and service providers to treat all customers equally. For example, a Muslim grocer is not required to sell pork, but he cannot refuse to sell his halal beef to a Jew or a polytheist. Racial discrimination is illegal, and real estate agents who “steer” people of color away from predominately white neighborhoods can lose their licenses.

Yet some politicians want to make it legal to refuse service to gay people on the basis of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Churches and clergy are not required to participate in weddings they don’t approve of, but secular service providers such as bakers and florists are not permitted to discriminate.

We see the same thing in health care, with some employers refusing to cover birth control for “religious reasons.” Now, I think the idea of employers paying for health care is an incredibly stupid and inefficient idea, but until we can persuade Congress to create a single payer plan like most civilized first world countries, this is the system we’ve got. There are exceptions, and the specifics of the requirement are still making their way through the courts, but some politicians are trying to make it legal for employers to pick and choose what health care they’ll pay for based on their own religious beliefs.

Where does religion end and politics begin? In the legal sense I think the current law is mostly right. What you do on your own or along with others in a voluntary religious organization is your business, beyond the reach of government (but not beyond the reach of public opinion). But we live in a pluralist society, and when you do business with the public – whether you are buying, selling, or hiring – you do business with all the public, no exceptions.

I don’t trust anything that comes out of the mouths of pandering politicians, but I see no reason not to take most of these bakers and florists at their word: they genuinely believe their religion requires them to avoid all contact with homosexuality and homosexual persons. They insist it’s part of their religion, and while I suspect there’s more gut-level homophobia involved than careful scriptural exegesis, who am I to tell them it’s not? Now, whether we honor that sincerely held religious belief any more than we honor the FLDS insistence that their religion requires them to practice polygamy is another matter. Even in the United States, religion does not automatically supersede secular laws.

We can and should insist that government remain strictly neutral on matters of religion. No religion should ever be favored over any other (that means our government is pluralist, not that it’s atheist). But given that religion motivates people to do things that aren’t obviously religious, can we ever keep religion out of politics? Do we even want to try?



And we still haven’t answered the question of where religion ends and politics begins.

Not that I don’t try to answer it. In part because I’m an engineer and in part because I’m a contemporary Westerner, I like breaking things down into discrete categories. I want clarity in our conversations – defining terms as precisely as possible helps us communicate clearly and avoid misunderstandings.

I when I say “religion” I generally mean theology and devotion… but what about Standing on the Side of Love? When I say “politics” I generally mean laws and public policy… but what about the Rights of Mother Earth?

It’s not just religion and politics. When I say “culture” I generally mean art, food, and clothing… but what about the hijab, or my own geas against eating one particular food (no, I won’t tell you what it is, at least not online)? What about philosophy, ethics, and metaphysics? What about magic? You’ll find Pagans and polytheists talking about all of them in our Pagan and polytheist spaces – are they religion? Are they part of religion? Are they part of a specific religion?

If I can’t clearly define the boundaries of religion in my own mind, what chance do we have to agree on what’s religion and what’s politics in our wider communities?
Many tribal societies have no word for religion.

In all their diversity, people from different Native nations hasten to point out that their respective languages include no word for “religion”, and maintain an emphatic distinction between ways of life in which economy, politics, medicine, art, agriculture, etc., are ideally integrated into a spiritually-informed whole.
As Native communities try to continue their traditions in the context of a modern American society that conceives of these as discrete segments of human thought and activity, it has not been easy for Native communities to accomplish this kind of integration. Nor has it been easy to to persuade others of, for example, the spiritual importance of what could be construed as an economic activity, such as fishing or whaling.

The Pluralism Project – Harvard University, 2005​

There is something natural and pagan (lowercase “p” intentional) about this kind of integration of belief, practice, tradition, and identity. And given our difficulties in sorting our own beliefs and practices into neat little boxes labeled “religion” “politics” “culture” and such, it looks attractive to us. It’s certainly a worthy goal to work toward.

But without well-defined traditions and without strong, healthy communities to support us and to hold us accountable to those traditions, we run the risk of our integration being less spiritually-informed and more mainstream-influenced. And we run the very real risk of clinging so tightly to our identities we lose the willingness to make the compromises necessary to form the communities we need for collective action and mutual support.

Where does religion end and politics begin?

This post is not intended to propose a definitive answer, much less an easy answer. It’s intended to point out just how hard a question it is, and to emphasize – first and foremost to myself – the need for clear, precise language when discussing matters of religion and politics. It’s intended to remind all of us – including me – that different people’s religions lead them to take different political positions.

Mind you, I’m still not giving an inch on the so-called “religious liberty” bills. Discrimination in public accomodations is wrong, and I’ll debate that on ethical grounds, political grounds, philosophical grounds, and cultural grounds.

And on religious grounds, no matter how hard they may be to define.

 

This is the paradox of the evangelicals. They believe fervently... too often to the point that they forget "love thy neighbor", and wish to impose their beliefs.

 

A King or Dictator should be first before God. As long as religions dont break the law then I do not see the problem or why different religions cant coexist in the same society. Plenty of societies have had religious tolerance/freedom and it is nothing new. I do not believe many christians really care so much about abortion at this point and trying to force their abortion beliefs on others. Or gay marriage. Arent most christians voting for Hillary Clinton? The American political class are the ones that care about wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage the most. I think it would be best if we made it illegal for politics to be used to push political beliefs. Let christians preach about abortions on street corners if they care about it so much which they really dont.

edit - Most Catholics. Apparently most Catholics support Hillary Clinton and the pro-abortion Democrats. Maybe they care more about manners than abortion. Or maybe they are claim to be christian but arent really - like pretty much all 'christians'.

Catholics are 25% of USA apparently. Are these polls claiming that most Catholics support Hillary scientific? I am not so sure I believe it.

 

Religion is politics. Principalities have to start somewhere, it's the foundation of a nation. One does not use sand as their foundation for their house, they use rock (concrete). This is how strong our principalities should be. you can find such principalities in God.

 

I don't understand at all.

 

I have studied several religions up close including their histories and origins. I've seen how religions change over time. some change more than others and it is usually in response to "persuasive" political influences or financial influences. But here is a common trait that I have found: religions begin with principles relating to the personal nature of the religious practice. They all begin with or soon embrace the principle of upholding the importance of keeping one's path and progress "secret, silent, and sacred". The walk is about one's own unfoldment and spiritual growth. Bringing it out into public reverses this process. The personal connection is diminished. So discussing it, debating it, arguing it, persuading others, and trying to convince anyone of one's beliefs makes it more worldly and gross. So to with thoughts and hopes of getting others to believe or worship as you do. It cheapens the path and the spiritual depth achieved.

So it's all about self and only about self. What others "should" do should be kept out of mind. Let them find their walk or their sin. Stay within. Pray in secret.

Therefore there should be a clear line between religious practice and politics. Keep on your walk and let other worry about themselves. If you run a bakery and someone places an order that conflicts with your beliefs, let yourself see God in them and serve them according to their requests in your line of business. What they believe is not for you to worry about because concerning yourself with such things only cheapens the depth of your spiritual life. Their salvation is not your concern. If your light shines without you fanning the flame, without announcing it, and without advertising it, they will see it more if you let it be kept a secret.

Objecting and refusing to do business with someone because they have different beliefs will undermine your walk and make it worldly. It will kill the spirit in it.

Let your spiritual life not be advertised either in the schools nor in the halls of congress. Reserve your spiritual life for your own growth by keeping it within, -secret, silent, and sacred.

 

That's partly because evangelicals relate to the "Old Testament" more than the "New Testament." The former is a part of the Jewish religion borrowed by early Christians to demonstrate that Jesus was the predicted "Messiah" of Jewish teachings. The New Testament is comprised of some of Jesus actual teachings, and the one that Christians should emphasize, since Jesus' teachings did not always agree with the older Jewish teachings held in the Old Testament. The Jewish Old Testament portrayed God as harsh, judgmental, unforgiving and unpredictable. Jesus taught that God was loving, compassionate, forgiving and dependable. Why do you think the Jewish leaders pushed for his crucifixion? The evangelical concentration on the Old vs New Testament prevents them from emphasizing the more humane aspects of true Christianity.

 

Judge not...


"Love your neighbor" has no fine print. No escape clause. It's all your neighbors, even those your viscera dislike intensely.

So... the "walk" is straight and narrow, indeed! More than hard enough for each of us to worry about!

 

What you say is true, but incomplete. Judaism has moved on, over the last few millennia. The God of Abraham was as you describe Him... but that is no longer the nature of God that modern Jews perceive.

The religion of Abraham, as re-invented by Moses, was great social progress, bringing the notion of law instead of whim. "Follow the law, and God will favor you" was a whole lot better than the random behavior of previous gods. But of course, the God of Abraham and Moses was also a very harsh God.

Jesus told of a different God, a God of love.

Over the last two millennia, great rabbis like Maimonides have shifted Jews' perception of God to something closer to Jesus's God than Abraham's. So... today... only "Old Testament Christians" (as I call them) continue to worship the vindictive God of Abraham... in blatant disobedience to Jesus's single commandment, "Love God and your fellows".

They call themselves "Christians" but are certainly not!

 

Of course you don't! America has become Sodom and Gomorrah. It's falling very fast, because evil has become good, and good has become evil. Prophecy fulfilled.

 

Oh.

OK.

 

Sodom wasn't that bad of a place. It was Jerusalem that was the hive of pure evil. It says so in Ezekiel chapter 16. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel16&version=GNT;CEV;CEB;NKJV;TLB

Sodom was prosperous and enjoyed peace and tranquility. The inhabitants didn't like to share their wealth and goods with the poor and needy. The US does try to feed its hungry and ensure that they have some of the basic necessities. It wasn't always this way but it's getting much better.

 

Do not let this divert you nor derail you since you brought up a lot of points. This point I will address at this instant.

I think we here in CA led the way on laws outlawing race as a disqualifier for homes or loans.

Before the 1964 Civil Rights law, passed by the Feds, we had already that law on our books.

An interesting thing happens with my black clients though. They screen themselves out of black areas. If there would be a number living there, they don't wish to live among them.

 

Sad to see your historical studies are lacking. Are you trying to assert that the wholesale killing and stealing of land of the native American (Indian) was 'good' or the enslavement of blacks was 'good' .. if so I'd say your religious radar needs a serious amount of adjustment.

 

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

You think Indian tribes were innocent? Indians did the same thing over land and resources, you ever heard of the Maya? Very disgusting people, making human sacrifices and so much more. Blacks or Africa sold their own people all over the world. Let me guess, you blame white's for enslaving man, while completely ignorant to the fact that slavery is still alive and well. So where are you, when it comes to those enslaving others today? Do you come out against those, do who they are. No, your a hypocrite.

 

Lol, way to go off on a tangent and launch a red herring at the same time .. where in any part of my response did I say anything about slavery today, or where did I deny that "blacks" sold and enslaved their own people, or where did I say that the Native Indians were any different .. it seems you are attempting to project the ideology of "they did it, so we can as well" .. how very "good" of you.

You attempted to portray the US as a country falling from grace when in reality it was never in grace in the first place.

 

We watch formal definition of "politics":

Thus the religion turns into policy in a broad sense as soon as she begins to operate behavior of people.

In a confined sense the religion turns into policy as soon as it begins to manage people through the state laws.

In both meanings the religion is politics today both in Russia, and in the USA.

 

Sodom and Gomorrah was a place of abomination's. Thus they were destroyed.

A kingdom in which is Heavenly like, will not be destroyed.

America wants to abandoned God, than a nation without God is exactly what they will get.

 

Post #15, which is directly above the one you had questioned here (post #16).

 

You must remember that America is the land of the extremists.

 

God still hates Esau.

 

Ezekiel said that Sodom's sin was that it was stingy toward needy people. The US used to be like that.

 

There's roughly the same time (and cultural / social evolution) between Esau and Jesus as between Jesus and us. That's a serious anachronism!

 

A society must have a mutual agreement on a standard set of principalities. From these principalities laws are enacted. Thus religion, is politics.

Ephesians 6:12King James Version (KJV)
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 

I agree that a society needs concensus on basic principles.... But I don't see why that implies anything about religion. The intellectual basis for the Bill of Rights and its French twin Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen was almost militantly secular.

Churches have been among history's greatest villains. A lot of present-day American "Christian" churches preach... hatred.