Unholy alliance: Balancing religion and politics a continuing issue in governance

Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona

Carol Forsloff---Throughout history religious leaders have also been secular leaders, however the consequence of this has been the reduction of personal freedoms in both religion and politics, as well as science. Yet despite the history of failed patterns where religion and politics are intimately related in the rule of countries, states, kingdoms and small community villages people persist in the alliance of two domains that reflect incompatibility on many levels, according to the experts.



In Christendom, the Pope was considered both the secular and religious leader, and initially when democracy began with the Magna Carta in 1215 the King had rights, yet those rights flowed from God's will, which was part of the Papacy's influence. The relationship between religion and politics remained a solid union, until that union was defied by the Reform movement that brought Protestant groups opposing the Papacy that redefined the concept of how the church and the government were to interface. The Church of England allowed the King to prevail over both the church and the state, with King Henry VIII setting the tone for generations to come, following his break from the Catholic Church and his marriage to Anne Boleyn. It was King Henry VIII's reign that set a precedent for the Western world in the separation of church and state.



In Islam religion and politics have also been united, although somewhat differently between the two main branches of Islam. Whereas the Shi'ite community presents the Imam as the central figure for government and faith practice, the Sunni community offers a temporal leader with the religious leaders who function in deference to the secular leaders. The contrast between Iran and Lebanon reflects some of this religious difference in the practice of governance, with Iran's religious leaders, who are Shi'ite having more power than those in Lebanon who are Sunni.



Other religions have also combined temporal and religious functions, to a greater or lesser degree, in both large and small groups. Nevertheless, no matter the size of the alliance the effect on the individual remains the same: more control over one's personal life in all matters. A “sin” against the faith becomes punishable by the government. A sin against the government is upheld by the Church. One only has to look at the long history of torture and death that have occurred with the sanction of both Church and State, when one entity merges with the other and no check is placed on power that becomes absolute in practice.



With a history that continues to raise the question about power and where it is properly placed, comes the ambiguity that arises in the modern world, when the law must consider the balance of religion and government in making the laws that govern the people. In Arizona the legislature passed a bill allowing businesses to refuse to serve individuals or perform certain tasks for individuals or groups on the basis of religious grounds. Gay rights groups claim the bill is specifically to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Those who hope the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, will sign the bill so it becomes law believe the rights of religion must be protected by the government and thus the protection of one's individual rights. But what if the dominant religion of Arizona forbade gay unions of any kind and the fraternization with a lesbian or gay man? The media reports that the whole matter of gay rights in relationship to religious freedom is at issue, with Brewer's decision paramount to the fate of Arizona.



There are also those instances where government so dominates religion, that the freedom of the latter is diminished, as occurred during the Stalin-Lenin-to modern times Russia. Churches were reduced to little more than a functional oddity for the few, with virtually no support from the government that encouraged practice of any kind. It was a hands off policy on the one hand, with a fist in the front to make sure the Church did not deviate from the dominant government themes.



In the modern world there remains the tendency for either the religious groups or the government to complain about power or the lack of it. People protest when government overcomes religious freedom. Conversely there is protest when religion dominates government, and people are limited in their beliefs or not allowed to practice a religion at all. Faith groups, and their followers, protest they need the ultimate in religious freedom, but often that freedom is oriented toward a specific set of beliefs as opposed to the beliefs of a wider community that encompasses all religions. The controversy over how much freedom and for whom is also part of the confusion in the interface of religion and politics. It is common to see individuals asking for the right to practice a set of beliefs that may conflict with the practice of others. When this occurs where the government is weak, there are religious wars.



Joseph Stalin's rule revealed how government dominates religion to the extent it is not only in disfavor but the practice of faith must literally go underground to survive. Stalin encouraged the persecution of Christians when atheism, or the practice of no religion, was considered the state religion. In spite of Stalin's insistence on people having no religion, many people maintained their faith regardless of the government edicts, yet it was a practice that had to be done in secret for fear of torture or even death.



The laws of every country vacillate according to the period of history and the type of government that occurs. The theme, however, of every government is how to strike the balance between religion and government. It is a theme that continues to plague individuals as well; whether it's a bill in Arizona or who shall rule the country as a whole, there is the hope that freedom will prevail. The disagreements come from the decision, however, of who will sacrifice a piece of that freedom so the whole of the group can function fairly. And it is these disagreements that remain a part of the politics of not just one country, but the entire world throughout its history that continues in modern times.