Politics and Religion: The Challenge of Religious Diversity Essay

Lewis begins by quoting Thomas Jefferson on the separation of the church and the state, then makes the statement that the problem and its solutions arose "from Christian, not universal, principles and experience." "There are other religious traditions," he continues, "in which religion and politics are differently perceived, and in which, therefore, the problems and the possible solutions are radically different from those we know in the West."/2/

The only power the secular government should have are matters of “actions only, & not opinions.” These words echo that of Luther who believed that “... need no ruler ought to prevent anyone from teaching or believing what he pleases, whether Gospel or lies. It is enough if he prevents the teaching of sedition and rebellion (Luther, 22).” Two hundred years later, the influence of Luther’s theology and concept of the separation of Church and state influenced those who founded of the United States of America. This would then lead them to make the separation of Church and state the cornerstone of modern

Today’s world is all about decisions. Should we get that new television? What about that new iPhone? Maybe the new Apple Watch? Notice how none of those questions had to deal with anything transcendent or in relation to God. Rather these questions focused on the material items that are available practically at the snap of one’s fingers. There is a lack of religious authority in cultural and social organizations in the modern society that we live in. Charles Taylor, in A Secular Age, focuses on showing that God is still present in our secular society, even when it seems as if He is removed. Taylor gives three separate understandings of secularization: separation between state and church with the movement of corporate practices without God, more

Obama attempts to handle this problem by separating the role of religion in one's personal life from that of one's public, political life. He differentiates between basing one's life and basing one's policy-making on the “uncompromising commitments” (7) of religion, calling the former “sublime” and the latter “dangerous”. In his view, religion should be central in private, but cannot be the deciding factor in choices that affect the public. Unfortunately, this

Kramnick and Moore write their book to establish an understanding of were God should be in society and government. They use interpretations of men from the history of the United States to gather knowledge on how to regard religion in our government. They give a timeless solution to an understanding of what our government is trying to establish. They propose

America is full and rich with diverse people, religions and values; they make America great. Just look at Riverside, California, there are over fifty churches of different denominations of Christianity, three synagogues, two temples, and one mosque; all coinciding peacefully in the city (Yellow Pages). Because Riverside is so diverse, religious pluralism and religious tolerance are two steps in making Riverside more connected. The first step is tolerance, a reflex that acknowledges a person will come across people of a different faith. The second step is pluralism, which is a better understanding of a person’s religion as well as the other religions around them. Many believe pluralism is the better of the two, because of the interaction

The act of defining religion has been a contentious issue in a wide variety of situations, particularly in the United States. The US is a nation that prides itself on religious inclusivity and freedom. There are consequences to this belief and tenant. Through the social, legal and moral structures of the United States, defining religion has become imperative. In The Impossibility of Religious Freedom, Winifred Sullivan outlines the legal implications of defining religion in the United States. In order for religious freedom to be protected by the American state, religion must be clearly defined. As a result, religious theory must be used to maintain some semblance of religious freedom in the United States. Likewise, Josh Dubler’s Down in

Because the state is the enactor of policies and proposals that affect its constituents’ lives, it also must define the secular and the religious, which ultimately leads to a privileging of some forms of religiosity over others. For instance, in reference to the Turkish government’s policy proposals elevating the Alevi minority’s status, Hurd concludes that “these [legal] designations marginalize multiform and dissenting forms of religiosity, occluding a broader field of human activity, investments, and practices that may or may not be captured in the set of human goings-on identified as religion” (107). Here the state attempts to craft particular religious groups in order to gain some sort of special legitimacy within the public sphere; however, by doing this, the state not only molds a particular religious subjectivity but also rejects the one’s which cannot be framed within the model of the public sphere. Unlike Charles Taylor’s emphasis that the public sphere is “a locus in which rational views [that the governed consent] are elaborated which guide the government,” it is the modern state government that ultimately creates the governed, who will participate within the public sphere

“American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us,” by Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, and “America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity,” by Robert Wuthnow, give different thoughts to religion and politics in the United States. Putnam and Campbell utilize the concepts of shocks and aftershocks to highlight religious changes in the United States. On the other hand, Wuthnow uses observations to focus on the encounters of religious diversity in the United States. Wuthnow compares American Christianity with other popular religions in America and how Christianity has affected the perception of religion. Putnam and Campbell’s “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us” is a more persuasive assessment of American religion and politics.

The choice to separate church and state is a contemporary issue that drives votes and is the exact opposite of taboo. If one does a simple web search of the word religion, a countless number of results from countless nations and journals (including the most popular press) shows that most nations are in current negotiations to separate their schools from their

In European times also known as the “Middle Ages” there was a strong leaning for religious people to dislike human affairs and to learn about the afterlife with God. As a response to this medieval learning, secularism showed itself in the growth of humanism. When people began to show more interest in human cultural triumphs and the possibilities of their satisfaction in this world. “The movement toward secularism has been in evolution during the entire course of modern history and has often been viewed as being anti-Christian,” (Shakespeare). Secularism has played a big part in government and religion too throughout the years. For instance, “If I were a dictator, religion and state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody's personal concern!” (Gandhi). In our own democracy there is a separation of church and state with Gandhi’s belief system. The government should look out for mankind in all

Religion and Politics have played a loud and at some times discordant counterpoint in the United States for many years. There has always been a correlation between conservative politics and fundamentalist religion in American History. As American’s we’ve always had had the constitutional right to chose our religion. Yet our country’s leaders, that sit in the highest political seats have traditionally been evangelistic Protestants. Which have dominated religion in politics during the final decade or two in the twentieth century, and if the past is any indication, they will most likely continue to dominate the arenas, with some exceptions, at least through the early

The United States is full of religious diversity. The foreign population has greatly increased, and the “proportion from Latin America (54%) and Asia (28%) greatly surpassed the proportion from Europe (13%)” (Fasciano). Many

On July 12, 2007, for the first time in American history the Senate session that day was opened by a prayer; unlike any other prayer, it was given by a Hindu priest. At first sight, it would seem as though the ideals designed by the framers of the Constitution were alive and well; the pluralization of the United States of America, the land of freedom of religion, and the right to worship without persecution. However, the Christian right wing religious group Operation Save America entered the Senate floor and began to heckle Rajan Zed, the Hindu priest, perpetuating that Hinduism is an “abomination”, as Hindus do not worship “The lord Jesus Christ”. This leads us to ask the question: Is America a land of religious pluralism, or is it a

We need to pay close attention to the effects of secularism: confining the role of religion to the private domain of the individual and creating a dichotomy between "religious" and "worldly," between "private" and "public." It denies religion and its mediating institutions any public function and influence in shaping matters of public policy.