First, consider that politics and religion have long been joined at the hip. Socrates was condemned by the Athenian aristocracy for turning the youth away from traditional Greek gods—though he argued he did no such thing. It was a Pope who officiated at the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor. In modern Iran, women find themselves caught between their sense of decency and desire for freedom and the theocracy’s sense of morality, with the death of a woman in the custody of “morality police” highlighting their predicament. And in India, numerous Dalits have just abandoned their Hinduism to convert to Buddhism to free themselves from the caste system that they know enslaves them and keeps them from succeeding in most Indian venues.
Second, consider that all religions have a political component. Think choosing a Pope, for example. The College of Cardinals play the same kinds of political games that the U.S. Congress plays in choosing a leader. Think the Anglican Church, founded by a king who named himself its Head. Think shamans who are also high priests with the power to judge and rule.
Third, think blind loyalty. Think of Republicans who would never under any circumstances vote for a Democrat and Democrats who mirror that voting pattern. It isn’t the individual politician who captures such loyalty and, dare I add, reverence or belief, but the Party Itself, the Ideal raised to some ethereal level of overriding existence. Thus, the most flawed and incompetent among us can become elected leaders who retain their posts regardless of their policies.
Each of us might profit from a self-examination of our stands on these three tenets: 1) Politicians reveal their inextricable bond to religions through their policies on moral matters, such as capital punishment, imprisonment, justice, and restrictions on freedom; 2) Religions are political entities; and 3) Political entities can be religions bound together by a group of the Faithful.
Of course, you’ll want me to qualify, right? But before I offer three examples, consider this anecdote: A cousin once asked me how I could vote for So-n-So because “my father would never have voted that way.” And she was correct. He adhered to his voting allegiances in spite of disagreeing with the political stances of individual politicians for which he voted. They were to him, after all, members of his party, and he had long held that members of the other party were somehow responsible for all the ills of society. Thus, consider also, that many coal miners and union officials now out of work voted for the very politicians who promised they would shut down coal mining and coal-fired power plants. Or consider Catholic politicians who vote to support abortion while claiming to adhere to the principles of a religion that condemns the practice as immoral. In other words, people will vote against their self interests or beliefs because faith in Party overrides faith in a Faith. One more example, please: A local western Pennsylvanian newspaper, long a supporter of the Democratic Party, argued during the primaries that Barack Obama had no discernible accomplishments or experience to warrant the Party's choosing him as their candidate over Hillary Clinton; yet, when Obama became the candidate, that same newspaper endorsed him--a person they had specifically rejected as unqualified--for President. Go figure.
I might suggest that the politicization of climate science demonstrates the first tenet. A whole segment of the political class condemns those who rely on fossil fuels and insists that renewable energy sources are the only moral choice. Pope Benedict VI’s resignation and the election of Pope Francis, a Left-leaning semi-socialist from Argentina seem to demonstrate the second tenet, as does the effort among Anglicans and Episcopalians to alter traditional forms of their respective faiths. And the refusal of legislatures to impose term limits ensures the continuation of the third tenet.
Second, consider that all religions have a political component. Think choosing a Pope, for example. The College of Cardinals play the same kinds of political games that the U.S. Congress plays in choosing a leader. Think the Anglican Church, founded by a king who named himself its Head. Think shamans who are also high priests with the power to judge and rule.
Third, think blind loyalty. Think of Republicans who would never under any circumstances vote for a Democrat and Democrats who mirror that voting pattern. It isn’t the individual politician who captures such loyalty and, dare I add, reverence or belief, but the Party Itself, the Ideal raised to some ethereal level of overriding existence. Thus, the most flawed and incompetent among us can become elected leaders who retain their posts regardless of their policies.
Each of us might profit from a self-examination of our stands on these three tenets: 1) Politicians reveal their inextricable bond to religions through their policies on moral matters, such as capital punishment, imprisonment, justice, and restrictions on freedom; 2) Religions are political entities; and 3) Political entities can be religions bound together by a group of the Faithful.
Of course, you’ll want me to qualify, right? But before I offer three examples, consider this anecdote: A cousin once asked me how I could vote for So-n-So because “my father would never have voted that way.” And she was correct. He adhered to his voting allegiances in spite of disagreeing with the political stances of individual politicians for which he voted. They were to him, after all, members of his party, and he had long held that members of the other party were somehow responsible for all the ills of society. Thus, consider also, that many coal miners and union officials now out of work voted for the very politicians who promised they would shut down coal mining and coal-fired power plants. Or consider Catholic politicians who vote to support abortion while claiming to adhere to the principles of a religion that condemns the practice as immoral. In other words, people will vote against their self interests or beliefs because faith in Party overrides faith in a Faith. One more example, please: A local western Pennsylvanian newspaper, long a supporter of the Democratic Party, argued during the primaries that Barack Obama had no discernible accomplishments or experience to warrant the Party's choosing him as their candidate over Hillary Clinton; yet, when Obama became the candidate, that same newspaper endorsed him--a person they had specifically rejected as unqualified--for President. Go figure.
I might suggest that the politicization of climate science demonstrates the first tenet. A whole segment of the political class condemns those who rely on fossil fuels and insists that renewable energy sources are the only moral choice. Pope Benedict VI’s resignation and the election of Pope Francis, a Left-leaning semi-socialist from Argentina seem to demonstrate the second tenet, as does the effort among Anglicans and Episcopalians to alter traditional forms of their respective faiths. And the refusal of legislatures to impose term limits ensures the continuation of the third tenet.
RSS Feed