POLITICS AND RELIGION

by

JOHN ROBERTS

The problem of Politics and its relationship to Religious Belief and Practice is one which is of perennial interest.

When one considers the history of humankind, it becomes evident that whilst many Societies have endeavoured to separate the two fields of human activity, in practice it has proved to be impossible to achieve this ideal.

For the Jews, the religious life of the people was irretrievably bound up with the political activity of the Nation. Moses, the great Lawgiver, was also an astute politician, who led the Jews by the nose for forty years or more. Whilst never formally "High Priest", there is no doubt that he fulfilled this role until appointing Aaron, his brother, to the post, shortly before his own death.

The Greeks, more culturally advanced that the Semites, endeavoured to maintain some sort of division between the worship of the Gods and the administration of the State. Here again, confusion reigned. The trial and official murder of Socrates, for the "crime" of subverting the Youth of Athens, demonstrated the fact that politics and religion were interdependent philosophies.

In Roman times, religion was totally subverted to the political power. Augustus was the first Emperor to declare himself a God: a pretty clear indication that there was a fusion of "Church and State", so far as the Romans were concerned. It seemed, nobody came forward to protest at such an absurd proposition. To do so would have been treasonable. As Emperor, he was also, "Pontifex Maximus": a title later adopted by the Popes of Rome.

The prophe,t Mohamed, had no qualms regarding the fusion of religion and politics. For him, there was no distinction to be drawn between the two. I suppose he took the view that one held certain religious views and that, flowing-on from these opinions, political arrangements followed suit. The latter opinions flowed, as a matter of course, from the religious principles laid down by himself (divinely inspired, of course) and any political principles resulting therefrom must, likewise, be most appropriate for the particular circumstances of the nation. This policy was evidently successful, as the Arabs carved a very large Empire for themselves, which lasted almost a thousand years. It placed the imprimatur of Divine Approval upon all political activity.

It is the fusion of the religious and political philosophies that gives Islam its drive and enthusiasm in today's world. It follows that what is politically correct for Islami’s has the approval of Allah, even if it appears to be barbarous to Western minds. "Death to God's enemies!" This is a bold assumption, indeed.

Of course, the Christian Church, was not slow to see the importance of maintaining political control over the people and, whilst giving lip-service to the principle of the separation of the religious from the secular life of the people, in practice, the Church exercised strict political control over the nations subject to its influence. Nor had the Popes any reservations regarding the assumption of secular powers in addition to the spiritual influence exercised by themselves. During the Middle-Ages, the lands of the Papal States were jealously preserved and extended, by military action, when occasion offered.

Throughout the history of England, there was, essentially, no division between religion and politics. The spiritual controls exercised by the Church were, for Centuries, used as a means of directing and controlling the behaviour of the people. Indeed, throughout the Middle-Ages generally, those who controlled the civil administration of European countries were generally clergymen of one form or another. When Henry V111 of England declared himself Head of the Church of England, he was merely confirming the union of the two branches of Church and State. He, no doubt, took the view that if Kings had a "Divine Right", then it extended and embraced the intellectual and moral life, as well as the physical activity of the people.

During the 17th-Century, Parliamentary Government of Great Britain, The Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, substituted in place of the Monarch. Although never the Head of the, then ascendant, Independent (Congregationalist) Church, Cromwell, (a deeply religious man), acted throughout as he thought his Creator would desire him to act. In this sense, he was a stabilizing political and religious influence. With his death, the Parliamentary Party disintegrated, resulting in the restoration of the degenerate Charles the Second to the Throne.

As for the Anglican Church: it was a notorious fact that, throughout the 19th Century, the parsons supported the squires, in a ferocious opposition towards all attempts to reform the social and economic system in the United Kingdom. As a result, there has been no land reform or other, effectual, change in the feudal system, maintained by those in power in Great Britain during the last two-hundred years. What change has taken place has occurred as a result of the independent thinking of a few intellectuals who, in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century and the early Twentieth Century, devoted much time to the question of the need for reform of the Social System. Sadly, Fabian-Socialism, is a long-dead phenomenon, unlikely to be revived in the foreseeable future. The astonishing aspect of Fabianism, is that it was a product of the progressive thinking of Middle-Class intellectuals, who (one would have expected), would normally have clung to the conservative philosophies of their forefathers.

The plain fact of the matter is that there can never be an honest or effective separation of Church and State. To attempt such a separation is to open the door to limitless vice on the part of those engaged in the political life of the Nation and to restrict, excessively, those whose duty it is, to oversee and control the spiritual and moral life of the people. In the lives of everyone, there has to be an avenue for the expression of one's concept of the spiritual and moral values. If this is lacking, one's life is bereft of an essential element. In the past the role of the Clergy was to fill this void, to encourage the development of a moral sense within the minds of the faithful.

Once the natural restrictions of relative morality are lifted from the minds of those involved in the executive administration of the Nation, they are free to engage in a boundless plundering of the national wealth. This is what has happened in Socialist Countries, particularly in the Soviet Union, when the Bolsheviks, under Lenin, attempted to destroy the power and influence of the Holy Mother-Church of Russia. Churches were looted, closed and destroyed and monasteries liquidated: the monks scattered far and wide. The devout children of the Church were actively discouraged from pursuing their religious practices. A great deal of anti-clerical propaganda was brought to bear upon the people. All was in vain! Seventy years later, the Orthodox Church was rising from the ashes, as vigorous and active, as ever, in defence of Orthodox values.

If only Marx had not been an Atheistically-minded Jew, perhaps a more enlightened and liberal form of Socialism might have been established in Russia in l917 and a progressive and flourishing Socialist State still be in control of Russia: with a shriven and modernised Orthodox Church guiding the morals of the people. Instead, the legacy of the 20th-Century is that of continuous, brutal bloodshed and destruction. A revived Orthodox Church is still parroting the familiar superstitious falsehoods that have enslaved the minds of Russians for hundreds of years. Like its counterpart in the West, The Catholic Church, it presents a continuous and gorgeous pantomime for the diversion of the people, instead of an honest interpretation of Jesus' teachings.

It is the great tragedy of Socialism, that it failed to recognize the need of the people for spiritual counsel. Indeed, it failed to perceive that Socialism itself, follows a spiritual principle, that of the fundamental equality of mankind. In ridding itself of the Church, the Secular State dealt itself a death blow. Without a spiritual sanction, there was no restraint upon the capacity of the human individual to perform acts of wickedness upon his fellow human beings.

The horrors unleashed in Russia and in Germany by godless and self-sufficient administrations are almost too barbarous to contemplate. Within Soviet Russia, millions of innocent citizens were killed, imprisoned or transported to the Siberian wastelands: often for nominal crimes against the State. In the 30's, three million peasants in the Ukraine were starved to death during the forced collectivisation of the farms. In such a scenario, there has to come a time when the people, with one voice, will cry, "Enough!".

The horrors of the German Concentration and Extermination Camps are too well known to demand recital. What needs to be emphasised, is the fact that such wickedness was perpetrated by administrations unfettered by the moral restraint of spiritual sanctions.

In the case of Hitlerite Germany, a similar, but not identical, situation to that of Russia, prevailed. Himself nominally a Catholic, Hitler was prepared to tolerate religion, provided it did not oppose his brutal and inhuman activities. What is astonishing, is that he managed to deceive most Germans into thinking that he would make a good leader of the Nation. Still smarting from the military reverses of the l914-18 War, the vast majority of Germans followed him blindly and with enthusiasm. Instead of promoting the orderly and continuous progression of the Nation, he managed to bring almost total destruction upon his country and the rest of Europe. As a result, the Germany of the early 21st Century is far different from that of the second World War. If the Flower of Europe was butchered in the l914-18 War, how much further intellectual and physical destruction was inflicted upon Germany in the 1939-45 War? However, a miracle occurred: Germany rose from the ashes, to become a dominant economic power for the second half of the 20th Century.

As we enter the 2lst Century, a very different world picture presents itself. Secular Government prevails, but in the West, that is in the United States and Northern Europe, the influence of the Churches is weaker than it has ever been before. There is, admittedly, a vocal group of conservative Calvinists in the United States, which makes its presence felt in certain ways, but it is increasingly evident to one who lives in another part of the world, that the USA is more and more under the control of secular people, whose concern with the state of their own souls has little influence upon their political activities. It is abundantly clear that there is no overriding spiritual influence behind the scenes in the White House and this leaves one feeling that the security of the whole world is dependent upon the whims and fancies of the men in power: those in charge of vast armies and potent weapons of mass destruction, who control the present and future policies of the USA.

Here again, we have evidence of the perversion of spiritual counsel in the affairs of a great and powerful nation. One could be justified in entertaining the most anxious feelings regarding the future security of the human race. The failing influence of the Churches in the West has been well demonstrated in recent years, by events in both the United States and Europe. One need not catalogue the continuing horrors of the unilateral and callous, not to say, murderous activities of the USA, in intruding militarily into so many regions of the world in which it, clearly, has no lawful business. Vietnam was a particularly foul example, in which it had its fingers badly burnt. Its history in South America and the Near East is appallingly hypocritical.

Thatcherism in Great Britain demonstrated the decline of British morality, to the eternal and lasting shame of the Nation, which for all its history of Imperialism still retained a veneer of sincerity and honesty in its dealings with other nations. The Falkland's War, which was wholly unnecessary, resulting in the destruction and maiming of thousands of young men, made a mockery of the British principle of "Fair Play". British hands are bloody! The Labourite, Tony Blair, continues the work begun by Margaret Thatcher. He is resolutely undermining the international image of Great Britain, as the patron of freedom and fair dealing. His vigorous support of Bill Clinton, during the outrageous onslaught upon Serbia, reveals the extent of the degeneration of British Labour Party morality. Blair is a mass-murderer!

It is not sufficient for agnostic moralists to demonstrate the relative benefits undoubtedly resulting from "good works". There has to be a weightier sanction. The average man or woman is unaffected by philosophical propositions as to what is or is not of value to Society. The vast majority of folk are preoccupied with the daily concerns of survival in a highly competitive world. They have little interest-in or time to consider ethical questions. If their personal progress, in a physical sense, demands the rejection of basic human values, so be it: "It is either them or us!" A religious sanction, on the other hand, carries a measure of authority, even if its source is superstitious rather than spiritual. Buried deep within the morass of personal preoccupations, which constitute the life-consciousness of Mr. Average, lies a barely perceptible awareness of his mortality and the fact that this life must one day terminate. If, upon this stem is grafted the idea of judgement and retribution for failure to consider one's group obligations, then the subject is much more likely to respond to the demands of justice and equity. It is in such circumstances that the influence of religion is felt, in dealing with specific situations calling for the exercise of moral judgement. It is here that the necessary link between Politics and Religion is established.

Then there remains the question of whether or not a religious person should withdraw from all consideration of political events and retire, as far as possible from the political scene. It was easy in the Middle Ages, when communication was neither so universal nor immediate, as it is at the present time, to enter a Monastery or Convent and forget what horrors are happening all around. Certainly, if we bury our heads in the sand, we place ourselves beyond all possibility of influencing events in any particular way. It must always remain difficult for the individual concerned-person to remain detached from consideration of political events, particularly when they are seen to affect everyone adversely and usually those who are too weak to help themselves.

It is for this reason that one finds Clergymen of all denominations in the thick of the political arena. In several countries, after the Second World War, the Catholic Church made itself extremely influential in combating the influence of Communism and Socialism throughout the Western World: urging its faithful to participate fully in political life. As a result of this activity, Socialism was subverted and undermined in places like Italy and Australia. In the latter country, the success of the Catholic Church was overwhelming, resulting in the transformation of the Australian Labour Party from a Socialist organization to one reflecting middle-class rightist values. In Italy, it is well known that the triumph of Communism was averted in a closely-fought battle for the minds of the people, with the Priesthood preaching calamitous consequences for the Church, if Communism prevailed.

It is, therefore, clearly evident that Religion and Politics are closely associated, right across the Globe. Whilst one resents any gross intrusion of the Churches into the Political life of the Nation, it remains true that such an influence is, essentially, beneficial to the workings of the Political machine. Without the restraining and guiding influence of "Spiritual" directors, Society would lapse into anarchy and chaos. It is, certainly, preferable that we are subject to the government of politicians who themselves are influenced by their awareness of the existence of a set of spiritual and moral values which are binding upon all people. The alternative is political totalitarianism of a type evident to all the world in the demonstrated environment of modern Communist China, in which all attempts to establish a liberal philosophy of life are still being suppressed. How foolish of the Chinese authorities to imagine that they can control the philosophical aspirations of a nation of twelve-hundred millions of people, whose history covers five-thousand years of human evolution.

It is, perhaps, the evident weakening of the moral consciousness within the political sphere, here in Australia and throughout the Western World, which is leading increasingly to political extremism on the part of conservative "reformers". Now freed from the threat of Socialist influences, the reactionary agents of world capitalism are hard at work, undermining the living-standards of the people, the vast bulk of whom go blithely about their business, unconscious of the looming threat to their, hitherto, entrenched rights and privileges.

“Big Business" is running the world, unhindered by moral or spiritual considerations. The percentage of Profit available for distribution to shareholders is the only matter for discussion. Trans-world Corporations know how to control politicians and have the majority well and truly sewn-up. You will need to look far and wide before you identify any politician, nowadays, who gives a thought to his moral or spiritual responsibilities. In fact, he has never considered the question at all and is incapable of doing so.

And so, at the beginning of the Twenty-first Century, it may be averred that we have finally arrived at the position at which Religion and Politics are going their separate ways.

For the reasons stated above, it is not a healthy outlook for the long-suffering workers of the world.

FINIS

John Roberts. Sydney, 27 Jan 2000

mailto:robertsjno@gmail.com