Religion and Politics: Inherently Intertwined

I found this week’s readings to be particularly interesting, as they expand upon the idea of accepting religion and science to be true. One must also realize that when discussing religion, many other themes are inherently tied to the discussion. These most often are (and as seen in the readings), toleration of other schools of thought, the relationship to government, and how one’s personal beliefs affects their participation as a citizen in the political realm.

John Locke describes how a liberal-democratic society (such as America), must be willing to tolerate and accept opposing views of religion, for if we don’t, then our society becomes one that stunts one’s personal freedom and that could even lead to a tyrannical government. He relates his ideas to that of Christianity, as it was the prevailing religion at the time, and states that the doctrine of Christianity and the toleration of other religions are compatible. His argument is also of the utmost importance as Locke is recognized as one of the earliest philosophers to write on the idea of the separation of church and state within a democratic society.

Locke’s initial writings relate well to some of the other philosophers that we have read this week, such as Voltaire and Jefferson. For example, Voltaire writes “The institution of religion exists only to keep mankind in order, and to make men merit the goodness of God by their virtue” (115). He also writes that this virtue “supposes liberty,” such that if religion is only in place to allow citizens to pursue a certain moral code that in turn keeps them acting virtuously, then all citizens must also have an inherently given ability to live freely from intrusion of government or from other religions.

Jefferson further expands upon this idea, in that this freedom of religion and intrusion from outside sources can only be granted if the citizenry acts reasonably. He states, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others” (160). Thus, he believes that government can only intrude in these matters if one’s religious beliefs cause harm or injury to someone else.

Tolerance is Good

I thought that Voltaire in his “Reflections on Religion” had an interesting take on religious tolerance. In his section entitles “Sect” he discusses how, by definition, no sect of religion contains the truth. In the sciences, there are no sects: “There are no sects in mathematics, in experimental physics.” This is because the truth of things is easily seen and does not need to be argued about. “A man who examines the relations between a cone and a sphere is not of the sect of Archimedes” because that implies that there are people who do not believe the laws set forth by Archimedes relating to cones and spheres. To agree with the ideas of, just to name a few, Newton, Archimedes, and Pythagoras, you are not part of a sect, rather “you merely agree with the truth as demonstrated by them.” Voltaire shows that the very existence of so many sects of religion means that all of the sects are wrong. “This is the character of truth: it is of all time, it is for all men, it has only to show itself to be recognized, and one cannot argue against it. A long dispute means that both parties are wrong.”

After briefly going into how different sects see the beliefs of all other sects as superstitious in his section entitled “Superstition,” Voltaire goes on to discuss religious tolerance. In the very first paragraph of the section entitles “Tolerance,” Voltaire makes it clear that he is an advocate of it. “What is tolerance?” he asks. “It is the natural attribute of humanity.” Drawing on his recent assertions that all religious sects are wrong, he says, “We are all formed of weakness and error: let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly.” Of course, this is not the way that the world often works, as Voltaire shows by giving us countless examples of religious persecution and religious intolerance throughout history. Voltaire’s solution to religious persecution and what he calls fanaticism is simple: “If you have two religions in your land, the two will cut each other’s throats; but if you have thirty religions, they will dwell in peace.” According to Shaftesbury, this was not the ideal that people were striving for at the time, as Shaftesbury tells us with regret how “now uniformity of opinion (a hopeful project!) is looked on as the only expedient against this evil. The saving of souls is now the heroic passion of exalted spirits; and is become in a manner the chief care of the magistrate, and the very end of the government itself.” Voltaire would argue that this is not the proper solution, and tolerating all of the different religious sects would bring a lot more peace to the world that trying to force a single religion on everyone would.

Looking at modern America, I would have to think that Voltaire is right. America is known for having a huge number of different religious groups in it, and for its religious toleration. Of course, there are little arguments all the time between different religious groups, and there are crazy fanatic groups like Westboro Baptist Church, but as a whole they all live harmoniously together. In any case, there aren’t any religious wars going on between American religious groups, which is a win in my books.

Voltaire's Fanaticism in 2011

In “Reflections on Religion” Voltaire explains that “fanaticism is to superstition what delirium is to fever and rage to anger.” He gives an example of Jean Diaz, who was convinced that the Pope was the Antichrist and would bring about the Apocalypse. Jean Diaz did not act on this belief; he simply believed the worst about the Pope from afar and was therefore, not a fanatic. However, Jean Diaz’s brother Bartholomew Diaz believed the opposite of his brother, which led him to come assassinate his brother “out of piety.” Voltaire explains that this action makes Bartholomew a fanatic.

The distinction Voltaire seems to be making with this example is one between belief and action. It is okay, Voltaire implies, to believe in crazy things as long as you do not act on those crazy beliefs. Believing in something crazy makes one an “enthusiast” while acting on those beliefs makes you a “fanatic.”

Voltaire goes on to tie fanaticism closely to religion, saying, “religion, far from being healthy food for infected brains, turns to poison in them.” Virtually all the examples Voltaire provides of violent fanaticism are in some way tied to religion.

250 years later, Voltaire would not find himself at a loss for modern examples of the type of religious fanaticism he bemoaned in the 18^th century. Extremist Islamic Jihadists wage violent war on the “infidels” of the West. The Lord’s Resistance Army commits routine massacres in the name of Jesus in Uganda. Honor killings of women who have committed adultery or been raped still occur throughout the developing world. Murder is used as a “punishment” for homosexuality by religious societies in the Middle East and Africa. Even in our own “developed” country, we are occasionally faced with hate crimes driven by religious differences.

Indeed, cases of religious fanaticism as Voltaire described are still rampant around the world, but it also seems that to limit fanaticism to religious motivations limits our observations, particularly in a modern context. As much of the developed world has grown more secular since the days of Voltaire, we seem to have found new things to be fanatical about. Nationalism, greed, and “security” seem to have replaced religion for the Western world as a motivator for violent acts of fanaticism. While the crazy beliefs may be different, the violent ramifications often feel too familiar to Voltaire’s descriptions.