The Distinctions Between Religion and Politics
Religion is one of the defining aspects of human civilization, weaving its way throughout our culture, society, government, and existence in general. Yet, over the last 300 or so years the world has started to secularize, specifically, we have seen a massive decline of the influence of major religions on the government. Where once, organized religions were synonymous with government, the Western world now arguably heralds the separation of church and state, our ability to distinguish between our spiritual worship and our rule of law, as one of the greatest and most important human achievements.
Yet our conceptions of the idea of religion differ widely throughout both history and geography. One of the defining characteristics of a Western country is, among other factors, a secular government and so in these countries, religion is widely viewed as little more than a myth. In his book Sapiens, Yuval Harari attributes the rise of religion to a need for cooperation in societies larger than 150 people, reducing religion to a “common myth”. He argues that in groups under 150, cooperation can be achieved through intimate relations and rumor-mongering leaving no need for formal ranks, titles, or law books. However, past the 150-person threshold, it becomes impossible for an individual to have personal connections to everyone, and therefore, a need arises for a larger mechanism for control which Yuval would describe as religion. By subscribing to common myths like religions, large groups of people can live together successfully. This is quite a common depiction of religion, this idea that it was created as a myth to foster community (Harari 27). From this depiction, the common argument against religion from a Western standpoint is that while these stories or myths might have helped us rationalize our world and provide comfort as we evolved from primitive humans, they have no place in the rational governments of the 21st century or any government in the future.
It is on this reasoning that we maintain that under no circumstance should religion be allowed to interfere with our system of government. In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution is often heralded as a pillar ensuring a clear boundary between religion and government. It forbids Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise thereof, language that has been interpreted as a guarantee of religious freedom and, by extension, a “wall of separation” between church and state. Yet, when we rely on this constitutional principle, we assume we understand what it means for religion and politics to occupy distinct spheres. Is it simply a prohibition on state-sponsored faith, or does it extend to the moral convictions that shape our legislation and policies? The directives of the First Amendment require us to consider the nature and extent of the separation between religion and government. How, then, should we define the boundary that the First Amendment attempts to construct? Satisfying the claim that “religion and politics should be separate” implies a well-defined distinction between the two terms. It implies that we can aptly define the concept of “religion” in a way that then allows us to entirely remove it from our concept of politics.
Unfortunately, this isn't necessarily the case. Historically, the ideas of religion and of governance/politics have been indistinguishable, philosophically a truly secular government can be paradoxical, and broadly, we don't have a universal workable definition of religion suitable enough to make claims about it. For many, the idea and merits of a secular government are self-evident. But what does it mean for a government to be secular? How do we define the distinction between regions of religion and politics?
When examining this distinction, a crucial starting point is to accurately define the term religion. Finding this definition is the first major hurdle toward defining a secular government because there just isn't a universal definition. There are hundreds of definitions of religion ranging from philosophical, legal, psychological, and literary. In What is Religion, Howerth defines it as “the effective desire to be in right relations to the power manifesting itself in the universe.” In A Phycological Definition of Religion, Wright defines religion as “the endeavor to secure the conservation of socially recognized values.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe; A particular integrated system of this expression; The spiritual or emotional attitude of one who recognizes the existence of a superhuman power or powers.” In the SCOTUS case Employment Division v. Smith, the court considered religion not only as traditional doctrines but also as any system of personal beliefs that govern ethical and moral principles. I use these examples to illustrate that not only are there multiple definitions, but that these definitions vary between fields. And that, due to the nature of these fields, religion can’t be defined universally. A philosopher may be able to define regions as “the effective desire to be in right relations to the power manifesting itself in the universe” (Howerth) but that definition is useless for a court trying to determine whether “a state (can) deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes?” (Employment Division v. Smith), the question deliberated by SCOTUS. The issue that this poses for the argument between the separation of religion and government is, what religion are we separating? Are we saying that religious texts should have no influence on our laws or that we shouldn't combine politics with a broad moral framework? Does it mean that politicians can’t appeal to God for a decision or does it mean that they should disregard socially recognized values? When we ask what is the distinction between religion and politics, we can't make any sort of argument if we don't even know what religion is. And if we can't identify any distinction, then how can we lay the claim that the government should be secular? We can’t because without understanding what religion is or how it interacts with the government, how can we even define a secular government?
If we cannot find a concise modern definition of religion, then we must shift our focus to its historical foundations. Although the existing definitions vary widely, there is arguably enough conceptual overlap to trace religion back to its early origins and see how it operated as a dynamic element of human culture rather than a fixed term. Neither religion, government, nor broader society suddenly appeared fully formed; rather, they gradually evolved along with the human race. By examining the historical trajectory of both religions and governments we can gain insight into how religious authority and doctrines have been reinterpreted across eras.
In the very early stages of the development of human society, religion served two key roles—a mechanism for social control and by extension a way to give meaning/purpose to the lives of people on a widespread societal level. These two aspects usually operated together as often, an individual's purpose could be found in a societal role and the efficacy of one's contribution to society would be correlated to a sense of purpose. But really, “Religion has historically been one of the most powerful tools for maintaining social order by universalizing and making absolute the values and norms of a society. These religious values, which are deeply embedded in the customs of a culture, help to regulate individual behavior for the greater good of the community” (Ellwood). It's critical to understand that these common myths that religion came from, refer not only to religion but to every measure of social structure.
A key characteristic of religion and one of its most important is its connection to supernatural beings or powers, or in other words, God. God was, in essence, humanity's first attempt at rationalizing the world. Early hunter-gatherer communities, faced with unpredictable environments, associated natural phenomena such as storms, floods, abundant harvests, or disease with agency and intentionality, assuming that unseen forces must direct these events. Over time, these forces were personified and given narratives, evolving into complex pantheons or a singular, overarching deity (Guthrie).
Yet as society evolved, God evolved to serve as a source of moral authority and an arbiter of justice, transcending the limited reach of human enforcement. This allowed rulers, elders, or religious specialists to claim divine sanction, effectively reinforcing communal norms and guiding ethical behavior. Such beliefs offered explanations for suffering, success, and misfortune, anchoring people’s experiences in a larger cosmic order. Importantly, this alignment of divine agency with moral and social frameworks not only justified social hierarchies but also fostered cooperation among strangers by promoting shared symbols, rituals, and moral codes (Boyer).
Religion was such an effective control mechanism because “just as the rationalizing processes of the intellect give man a world of universal ideas, so the religious processes give man a world of universal values” (Ellwood). Truly one of the fundamental aspects of religion is its ability to universalize. In the same way that a scientific claim or argument only holds values on a basis of rational deduction which therefore makes it absolute, moral and religious customs only hold value if they can somehow be interpreted as universal. Religion is structured in a way that prohibits it from being subjected to scrutiny and from enacting any meaningful change in its core messaging. Operating from inside of a religious framework and then questioning those values, would be akin to questioning a scientific fact, a feat which would be viewed today by most as one of irrationality.
We see this universality found in practically every religion. In theistic religions like Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, this universal absolute quality is facilitated through God and his supposed teachings. But even nontheistic religions such as Buddhism maintain that same quality. Buddhism, at its core, does not hinge on a creator deity; instead, it focuses on personal enlightenment, ethical self-cultivation, and liberation from the cycle of suffering. Its core teachings, found in the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, encourage meditation and moral living as pathways to transcendence (The Buddhist Society). If one wishes to minimize their suffering, which it seems most people would, then Buddhism, as it claims to lead to a life without suffering, can only be perceived as universal. By contrast, ancient Roman religion revolved around a pantheon of deities, each governing different aspects of life and nature. Public rituals, sacrifices, and the maintenance of proper relations with the gods were central to Rome’s civic life, and intended to secure divine favor for the state (Bird). These two traditions differ profoundly in theology, practice, and ultimate aims—one placing primacy on inner spiritual development and the other on maintaining collective order through divine appeasement. Yet, they are both categorized as a “religion,” arguably because of their shared universality.
We see this holistic religion–government societal structure reflected throughout history, a pattern well documented across diverse civilizations. In medieval Europe, for instance, monarchs derived their authority from the “divine right of kings,” a doctrine suggesting their power came directly from God rather than human consent (Figgis). Kings were addressed as “your grace,” symbolically acknowledging divine favor rather than secular selection. Similarly, in ancient China, the legitimacy of emperors rested on the “Mandate of Heaven,” an otherworldly approval that both justified their rule and established moral standards for governance (El Amine). In ancient Jewish society, religious and legal authority fused in the figure of the Rabbi, who not only interpreted spiritual law but also settled communal disputes, serving as a central node of both religious belief and civic regulation (Neusner).
Within Islamic civilization, the Caliph (or Khalif) acted as both a temporal ruler and a religious guide, embodying an office that naturally integrated faith with political legitimacy (Crone & Hinds). Among various Indigenous societies in the Americas, tribal leaders often held spiritual significance, guiding their communities through rituals, oral traditions, and moral codes that served as both social glue and political framework (Johansen).
It is critical to note that terms like “religious” and “political” are modern categories. In historical context, the notion of a “religious” leader influencing “political” matters would have been nonsensical, as both realms were understood as part of a single, holistic order. In all these societies, it's not as though religion was deliberately influencing politics, but that the two could not be separated. A good example of this is when the Japanese government was told by the U.S. and Great Britain that they needed a constitution to be considered a civilized country. At the time, the only countries seen as civilized were protestant Western Europe and North America. So even though the Japanese had maintained a successful civilization for hundreds of years, they decided it was better to draft a constitution and be considered civilized. But they faced an issue. There were no Japanese words for the terms religion or politics. As far as the Japanese were concerned, religion meant Christianity. This is because, up until that point, the Japanese had no reason to develop words for religion or politics, because they were completely indistinguishable (Fitzgerald).
An overlooked aspect of the societal impact of religion historically is the way it was used as a justification for the authority of a government. Religion's ability to operate unchallenged made it the perfect mechanism to justify greater authority, such as a government. Before this distinction between the religious and non-religious, the holistic idea of religion/government/society operated as the utmost device of control. Through laws, moral values, and more broadly stories, religion allowed for rigid, undebatable systems of belief on a massive scale. It regulated not just personal salvation and a relationship with God, but practically everything in society. Laws, customs, traditions, and rituals, all fell under the scope of religion/government. Whereas now, secular nations derive their authority or legitimacy from their constituents, God, through the way of supposed dignitaries like kings, popes, or emperors, was the sole justification for the author of a state and of its rulers (Figgis). If a king, who was anointed by God in the way a priest would be, were to dictate a new law, it was simply a reflection of the will of God. In theory, the will of God would be objective and absolute making it almost irrational to test or disagree with it. This was a problem that was foreseen by Enlightenment philosophers. How do we justify the authority of a government without God? There is a philosophical argument to be made that the authority of a government cannot be justified without a God. It goes as follows: “A government's claim to authority can be justified if and only if there is justification for saying that, simply by issuing decrees on certain matters, a government provides its subjects with adequate reasons to do what it requires of them, reasons which are more over sufficient to justify the government in imposing coercive sanctions on those who refuse to obey. (ii) But it can provide such reasons if and only if it can, by promulgating such regulations, make it wrong for its subjects to do certain things that were not wrong prior to their promulgation. (iii) But no one, not even God, can do that. (iv) Hence, the use of coercive sanctions to back up the law amounts to forcing people to do what it would not be wrong for them not to do. (v) But this is a violation of their freedom, hence unjustifiable. (vi) Hence, there can be no legitimate governmental authority” (Baier).
In simple terms, the argument states that a government can only justify its authority if it provides its people with good reasons to follow its rules. These reasons also need to justify the use of force against those who don’t obey. The government must be able to make actions wrong (morally) through its laws, even if those actions weren’t wrong before the laws existed. However, there are limits to power. No one can make something objectively wrong just by declaring it so. Therefore, when the government uses force (like punishment) to enforce laws, it’s limiting and punishing people for doing things that weren't necessarily wrong in the first place and is morally unjustifiable. This argument stems from the premise that good/bad are equivalent to lawful/unlawful. Here again, we see how interwoven religion is with our government. We would consider a criminal, meaning someone who breaks the law, as, maybe not necessarily a bad person, but someone who has done bad things. We equate laws set in place by a government, to supposedly universal moral values, values which could only be instated or justified by a being such as God. If we reflect back on the original claim that “religion and politics should be separate”, we can ask ourselves, does this mean we need to remove moral value from laws?
The argument implies that only when something is considered objectively and eternally wrong, can the use of cohesive actions/punishments be justified when attempting to achieve that aim. Yet no human can claim to know any objective truths on which we could create laws, and therefore any attempt from humans to exert authority is unjustifiable. Only through an objective and impartial arbiter, God, can any legitimate legislation be drafted. However, in the same way, we can't be certain any human is in possession of objective truths, we cannot be certain that they are in possession of any of the decrees of a God. If there is a God, rationally, we cannot expect anyone to ever communicate with him. There have been countless who have claimed to have spoken to God, and while they could have, there is no way to be certain. Therefore, there can exist no government that truly operates under the authority of God, as it is impossible to verify God's will.
John Locke proposes his famous Social Contract theory where he reasons that a secular government is a glorified contract, in which people give away certain freedoms in exchange for a better existence. I might have to give up my freedom to drive at any speed I please or build a house anywhere I want, but in exchange, I get to use government infrastructure, and the military will protect me if my country is invaded and generally, my quality of life is much better. However, the counter to the social contract is that one never explicitly enters the contract. After all, it would be impossible to do so, we cannot choose when or where we are born. If we never choose to enter this contract, then how can it be a fair contract? John Stewart Mill argued that if one did not wish to live under the authority of government and was willing to sacrifice the benefits of a government, they could simply move into the wilderness and relieve themselves from society. This may have worked 400 years ago, but now practically all of the land on earth is claimed by some government and those governments insist that when living on that land and forfeiting the benefits of government, one must still pay taxes. It is practically impossible for people in the 21st century to remove themselves from society in a way that allows them to operate free from the authority of some government.
The most common distinction made in the attempt to separate religion from politics is by classifying all things political—laws, governance, the economy, basic human interaction—as “worldly affairs” and all things in regards to religion as “other” or “non” worldly affairs. Essentially, “the whole machinery of social control-government” consists of the “law on the side of the external acts of the individual (and) religion and morality on the side of the internal motives and beliefs” (Ellwood).
We can trace this distinction back to Enlightenment philosophers, specifically John Locke and William Penn. What these thinkers did that was so revolutionary was they created these two terms of religion and politics. They defined religion as an inner, private, personal question for salvation, something that only happened between an individual and God. They then severed this idea from what they would have referred to as “the magistracy” but what we would more commonly call “politics”. This term referred to “the order of human relations in society as distinct from religion.” They were able to take what had previously been an entirely holistic concept and remove religion from it. They didn't just separate religion but fully created the idea of the “non-religious” (Fitzgerald). Before this distinction, there wasn't this concept of the “non-religious.” Christianity wasn’t a religion but just the plain truth, at least to Christians. If you didn't believe in Christianity you weren't seen as non-religious but rather as a heretic or barbaric, meaning you were either insane or uncivilized.
The distinction these thinkers were trying to make was between the worldly and the other worldly. They argued that politics concerns itself with worldly affairs – the economy, basic human interaction, infrastructure, etc. Religion on the other hand only concerned itself with the otherworldly – prayer, salvation, morality, etc. And this seems like a fair distinction. It's reasonable to separate the way we pray and the way we regulate our economy. The issue with this separation is the assumption that the worldly (politics) can operate in complete disregard of the otherworldly (religion). If we give both equal values, it's inevitable that they will encroach on each other. For example, France's recent ban on women under 18 wearing burkas. The rationale was that kids who are impressionable shouldn't be forced into religious customs at a young age but rather should be old enough to make the decision consciously. Here the religious custom of wearing a burka is clashing with France's values of personal freedom. Both of these supposedly separable values are unable to operate in proximity. However, one could argue that wearing the burqa doesn't actually interfere with any worldly affairs. It's not disrupting the economy, basic laws, or normal human interaction and France's values of freedom are themselves otherworldly. A pillar of modern secular governments is freedom of religion, but through the burqa ban, we see a secular government actually limiting religion in a personal setting because it conflicts with the otherworldly values of that government. The argument for the ban, which 70 percent of France's population voted in favor of, says that “it's not right (that) people (are) coming to school with religious symbols, Their faith is their business, it's nothing to do with the rest of us" (France unveils new school 'secularism charter). Essentially, they say that religious symbols should be banned in public settings like schools because it does not reflect the beliefs of most people. But the reality is, that the universality and absoluteness of a religion like Islam means that
This illustrates an even more important argument. A worldly/political government cannot operate without another worldly/religious component. Any metaphysical value held by a government— a belief in personal liberties for example—is otherworldly and therefore, falls under the category of religion.
The second major shortfall with the Worldly vs Other Wordly distinction is how it relates to morality. Fundamentally, every government is predicated on otherworldly/metaphysical beliefs. While secularism attempts to establish a framework where religion holds no authority over political life, it assumes that governance can operate independently of metaphysical or moral values. However, these values inevitably shape laws, norms, and cultural practices, whether or not they are explicitly religious. Even the most secular governments still embed moral assumptions within their laws and institutions. Moral assumptions that are unprovable. These assumptions often reflect ethical frameworks originating in religious traditions, repackaged in secular language (Asad). For instance, concepts like human rights, freedom, and equality, the foundation of most democratic societies, can trace their lineage to religious ideas about the inherent worth of individuals. In many Western democracies, the concept of universal human rights—regarded as inherently valuable and unassailable—reflects the Christian moral tradition that each individual soul possesses intrinsic worth. For instance, the widely accepted premise that all persons deserve dignity and respect resonates with historical Christian doctrines that emphasize the sacredness of human life. While such principles are now articulated in secular terms, they did not emerge in a vacuum; rather, they have been adapted and reframed from older religious moral codes. In this way, even purportedly neutral legal standards carry echoes of religious thought, recast into a modern, non-theological vocabulary.
Furthermore, the laws that guide “secular” governments often regulate behaviors in ways that echo moral codes seen in religious doctrines, suggesting that secular societies may not fully escape religious influence but rather reframe it. In this way, the claim of a purely secular society becomes paradoxical; while rejecting religious governance, secular states unwittingly perpetuate values rooted in religious or metaphysical traditions. “The secular should not be thought of as the space in which real human life gradually emancipates itself from the controlling power of “religion” and thus achieves the latter's relocation. It is this assumption that allows us to think of religion as 'infecting' the secular domain or as replicating within it the structure of theological concepts. …. Secularism doesn't simply insist that religious practice and belief be confined to a space where they cannot threaten political stability or the liberties of 'free-thinking' citizens. Secularism builds on a particular conception of the world” (Asad). In other words, Asad argues that rather than representing a neutral or liberated zone free from religious entanglements, the so-called secular domain actively defines and conditions both the religious and the political. By characterizing religion as something that must be contained, managed, or confined to the private sphere, the secular perspective imposes its own worldview—one that inevitably draws on underlying conceptions of morality and authority that were once reinforced by religious traditions. Consequently, the aspiration toward a society free from religious influence might be as much a myth as the religious doctrines themselves.
To further illustrate the similarities between so-called religious motives and political ones, let's examine arguably the most important and destructive terror attack of all time, 9/11. Widely recognized as religiously motivated, al-Qaeda’s objectives were to provoke the United States on the global stage, weaken its influence, symbolize the destruction of Western ideologies, and push the U.S. out of the Middle East. These are all political objectives. If you were to replace this example with say, Iran bombing Israel for those reasons, we would consider it a politically motivated act. Here we circle back to the problem of an ill-defined idea of religion.
While the “Other Worldly” argument is a crucial starting point, it still falls short of effectively separating religion from the government. The idea of religion is broad to the point where it blends seamlessly into the fabric of our society, especially our government. But while the terms are broad and ill-defined, the ideas behind them are not. The argument that the terms religion and politics are not distinct does not necessarily entail that the two are inseparable. If we can clarify our definitions, it is certainly possible to construct arguments for the separation of the two or for why they should be kept together. But here we encounter the original problem—what definitively is religion?
If we want to argue for the separation of religion and government, then what definition should we abide by? It's not entirely obvious. We can use a broad philosophical definition like “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things” but then how do we define sacred? In its most basic form, sacred literally means “not secular” or something with a connection to God or religion and therefore deserving of veneration (Oxford). This means our philosophical definition is circular. It's basically defined religion as a unified system of beliefs relative to something not secular, or, religion is not secular. But “not secular” just means religious.
Let us ask ourselves, barring the definition of the terms, what is the argument against the religious influence in government? Religion has been so prone to extreme acts because it has taken subjective human claims and given them objective validity. Traditional religious doctrines, which are viewed as having the absolute backing of God, were actually written by people and can be used to justify anything, including atrocities and acts that are, in theory, contrary to the values of the religion. Colonization and the atrocities that came with it perpetrated by European powers were justified through the spread of Christianity. The taking of Africans as slaves was also justified through Christianity. Christians were once brutally persecuted for their faith by the Romans. Religion can be inherently, extremely destructive, especially when questioned or undermined. When a universal system of belief one is subscribed to is undermined by a contradictory system of belief, the only reasonable explanation would seem to be that the second belief system is utterly false. The alternative would be that your beliefs are false, which is unconscionable for most and goes against the fundamental nature of religion.
The first key distinction between religion and politics is rationality. When we trace major theistic religious and political beliefs to their core, we find that the religions we regard as damaging to our governments, mainly Christianity and Islam, are founded in traditional religious doctrines. Books like the Bible and Quran teach the values and profess the teachings of the prophets of their respective religions. Political beliefs on the other hand are found in written constitutions and more broadly philosophical ideas like the social contract. Here lies a critical difference. Traditional religious doctrines are by modern standards, irrational. They hinge entirely on God as the justification for their teachings and without universal belief in God and irrefutable evidence for his existence, religious beliefs and ideas built on them are irrational. However, one could argue that beliefs created through a written constitution exist on the same metaphysical plane as religious ones. If there is no God to objectively dictate the correct belief systems, then both sets of ideas are fundamentally unprovable. Nowhere in the natural universe can we point to in order to say “The U.S. Constitution is a better rule book than the bible.” But just because they are unprovable doesn't mean that we can't argue that one might be better or more rational.
The Bible makes decrees like, non-virgin women should be stoned to death, or animals with hooves should not be eaten which at the time might have made sense. In theory, if the bible undoubtedly had the backing of God, then these would be completely rational since they would come straight from God. But by modern standards, these would widely be considered insane or barbaric. When we try to transport the moral teachings of a doctrine like the bible across time, we invariably take other more “worldly” teachings too. Creating a law against gay marriage on an appeal to the moral teachings of the bible or Christianity, is like drafting a legislature regulating ox-drawn carts in New York City. It would be outdated and irrational by new standards as it would be unable to effectively address modern problems intended for empirical legislation. Without the authority of God to justify the decrees, we are just governing a modern society that is infinitely more complicated and advanced than one 200 years ago, based on the predictions and beliefs of that society. The issue is that this does not produce an efficient society and undermines the values that we seek to protect. In the pursuit of a government that seeks to effectively protect the personal liberties of its citizens, religious doctrines from the past should be kept entirely separate from policy.
It seems that the true separation is not between religion and politics but between constitutions and doctrines. Laws and governance created in the shadow of a religious doctrine such as the bible but without the absolute authority of God as a backing are by modern standards incompatible with a society or government that seeks to protect individual freedoms. That is because it is impossible to argue against the authority of God. Religious doctrines, supposedly the word of God, candidly were written by humans. And these humans operated and reasoned in the time period where they were from.
While they may be similar on a metaphysical level, there is certainly a fundamental difference between a government that aims to control its citizens and one that aims to protect their natural rights. We need to ask, what is the purpose of a secular country like the U.S. and by extension, a document like the Constitution? More broadly, what is the role of a secular government? The great change created in the discourses between Locke and Penn, when religion was first described as a concept separate from politics, was not to secularize government, but to alter its role. For all of history, the holistic idea of government/religion/morality was used as a way to contextualize existence for the masses and regulate people by placing them into seemingly objective systems of belief.
In Two Treatises of Government, Locke articulates that “Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less Penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defense of the common-wealth from Foreign injury; and all this only for the public good.” (Locke). He states that the role of government, politics, and policies, is that of protecting the public good rather than regulating moral and religious convictions. Arguably, by separating out the personal search for meaning from the rest of this, the role of the government shifted from regulating people to protecting their freedoms. Instead of telling people how to live, the government's job became to protect an individual's ability to choose how to live. Obviously, we don't have complete freedom, there are still laws that everyone is obligated to follow. But as opposed to the controlling and coercive laws of the past, these laws now serve the purpose of ensuring an efficient society. Efficient means a society that facilitates to the best of its ability, the fundamental purpose it serves. By no means does every modern law contribute to an effective society but for the most part, modern laws in secular countries are created with that objective. And in theory, with the use of a baseline objective to achieve, we can use inductive reasoning to create rational means of achieving said objective. The difference between religion and politics is that, due to religion's necessity to be absolute, it does not have the capacity to reason in such a way.
However, the influence of religious doctrines on politics is different from the influence of religion in general. As the role of government becomes increasingly to protect personal freedom, the need for universal belief systems to give people personal meaning is debatable. On one hand, as we have advanced as a society, we have seen a massive shift towards people in secular countries having an individual sense of purpose. Unlike any other time in history, people have the autonomy to (with some restrictions) choose how they want to find meaning in their lives, and how that meaning affects their decisions. But on the other hand, this shift has not been as absolute or universal as it could have been. Not only does most of the world, while living under secular governments, subscribe to some sort of traditional religion, but in many places, even under secular governments, there has been a resurgence in religious belief. Not only does most of the world, while living under secular governments, subscribe to some sort of traditional religion, but in many places there has been a resurgence in religious belief. For example, post-Soviet Russia has witnessed a revival of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose growing influence runs parallel to a state that remains formally secular. Similarly, Turkey, once a model for secularized democracy, has seen a more prominent public role for Islam under the Justice and Development Party, blurring the lines between religious identity and state authority. There are many reasons for this lingering of religion but arguably it comes down to a fundamental truth. The scientific and inductive logic we use to create our laws and government, are perfect for describing how the world works, but cannot describe why. We can use science to ask “How does the sun rise in the morning”, “How does lightning strike” or “How do birds fly.” But science cannot answer questions like “Why do I exist” and “What should I do?” Above all else, religion is comfort for many. It provides a highly personal meaning to the lives of individuals on a massive scale. Our modern secular governments facilitate the utmost personal autonomy, but what use is that freedom if people don't know what to do with it. Religion doesn't just provide comfort through acts of worship or creation myths, but also through its moral framework. The maximization of personal liberties, while allowing for a vast new set of human beliefs, cultures, traditions and worldviews, stands in contrast to the strict moral teachings of doctrines like the bible or quran. People are naturally scared of change and when confronted with the rapid progression of modern secular countries, find it necessary to take refuge in the moral teachings of religion.
If the personal quest for meaning provided by religion is a necessary part of life for many, how can religion adapt to be more suitable in the future. These are questions that fall within the realm of theology, and more specifically, what might be called “inductive theology” (Watson). Just as inductive reasoning builds general principles from specific observations, inductive theology would reinterpret religious teachings to align with contemporary values and scientific understandings, constructing a purpose-driven framework rooted in personal relevance rather than rigid doctrines. This form of religion would no longer rely on outdated, absolutist mandates but could instead provide individuals with a flexible, personalized ethical compass. The religions of the future should be centered around the idea of natural human rights. In the same way, secular governments have shifted from a system of control to a system that protects individual freedom, so can our religions. Arguably, the reason we see such a violent clash between religious extremists and secular institutions is because the two are irreconcilable on a fundamental level. By supporting personal autonomy and inner exploration, religion could coexist with secular governance, providing meaning without imposing authority. In this way, rather than resisting secularism, religion could offer guidance for those seeking purpose while respecting the freedom to find individual meaning in a diverse and pluralistic world. The notion of a purely secular nation is a myth. There will likely never be a government that does not resemble or at least integrate the fundamental principles of religion. What we call “secularism” might be better understood as yet another evolution of the same forces that have forever shaped human societies: the need for shared meaning, the quest for authority, and the codification of moral truths. But these forces are undoubtedly evolving. Our challenge, then, is not to isolate religion from politics but to understand that both arise from a shared human impulse toward meaning and moral order. It is therefore critical that we maintain an open dialog, not a rigid separation, in regards to the relationship between our systems of belief and governance.
Work Cited:
Asad, Talal. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford University Press, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804783095
Baier, Kurt. “The Justification of Governmental Authority.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 69, no. 20, 1972, pp. 700–16. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2024665. Accessed 16 Aug. 2024.
Bird, Nessa. “Mythology Worldwide.” The Influence of Roman Religion on Civic Life, https://roman.mythologyworldwide.com/the-influence-of-roman-religion-on-civic-life/. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
Boyer, Pascal. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. Basic Books, 2001. http://sackett.net/BoyerReligionExplained.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
Crone, Patricia, and Martin Hinds. God’s Caliph: Religious Authority in the First Centuries of Islam. Cambridge University Press, 1986.
El Amine, Lea. Classical Confucian Political Thought: A New Interpretation. Princeton University Press, 2015.
Ellwood, Charles A. “Religion and Social Control.” The Scientific Monthly, vol. 7, no. 4, 1918, pp. 335–48. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/7045. Accessed 16 Aug. 2024.
"Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1213. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
Figgis, John Neville. The Divine Right of Kings. Cambridge University Press, 1896.
Fitzgerald, Timothy. “On the Religion and the Secular” Part 5, Platform Session RRI 2008, January 21, New Delhi, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHSeoxp0SC4
France 24. “Middle East.” France Médias Monde, https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
Guthrie, Stewart Elliott. Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. Oxford University Press, 1993.
Harari, Yuval Noah. Sapiens. Harper, 2015.
Howerth, Ira W. “What Is Religion?” International Journal of Ethics, vol. 13, no. 2, 1903, pp. 185–206. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2376451. Accessed 16 Aug. 2024.
Johansen, Bruce E. Native American Political Systems and the Evolution of Democracy: An Annotated Bibliography. Greenwood Press, 1996.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Edited by C. B. Macpherson, Hackett Publishing, 1980.
Neusner, Jacob, editor. The Halakhah: An Encyclopaedia of the Law of Judaism. E. J. Brill, 1999.
Pollock, Frederick. “Hobbes and Locke: The Social Contract in English Political Philosophy.” Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, vol. 9, no. 1, 1908, pp. 107–12. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/752187. Accessed 16 Aug. 2024.
“Sacred.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/sacred_adj. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
The American Heritage Dictionary. “Religion.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th ed., Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, ahdictionary.com, https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=religion. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
The Buddhist Society. “Fundamental Teachings.” The Buddhist Society, https://www.thebuddhistsociety.org/page/fundamental-teachings. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
Watson, Arthur Clinton. “The Logic of Religion.” The American Journal of Theology, vol. 20, no. 1, 1916, pp. 81–101. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3155811. Accessed 4 Sept. 2024.
Wright, William K. “A Psychological Definition of Religion.” The American Journal of Theology, vol. 16, no. 3, 1912, pp. 385–409. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3154942. Accessed 4 Sept. 2024.
