The world economy is in shambles. And yet, despite countless examples of government’s general inability to deal with any reasonably nuanced situation, legislators and officials around the world want to take on a new duty: spreading the word of God.
In the face of an emerging global political discourse of religion, governments should stay vigilant in maintaining the distinction between matters of spirituality and legislation.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy traveled to the Vatican last year and said, “A person who believes is a person who hopes, and it’s in the interests of the republic that there be many women and men who nourish hope.”
This year, it was the Pope Benedict’s turn in France. He preached on a variety of topics, from “healthy secularism” to a damnation of euthanasia.
The Agence France-Presse reported that 51 percent of the French consider themselves Catholic, France’s largest religious population by far. That number is down from 80 percent in the early 1990s.
But the answers proposed by Sarkozy and Benedict should be seen as reactionary and, ultimately, dangerous.
Though it may seem hyperbole, many of today’s most radical political and theological regimes started as mere suggestions of increased “morality” vis-Ã -vis religion.
In fact, most “fanatical” regimes were once secular monarchies or republics. Iran, now deemed a dangerous haven of Islamic, state-sponsored militants, was not an “Islamic republic” until the 1979 revolution.
In other words, it was not an archenemy of America until its leaders adopted a discourse of religion.
The concern is not that France will soon become the Catholic Republic of France but that politicians who turn their public to religions in the place of facing difficult times with political action fail their citizens.
This is especially true in nations such as France and the United States, which operate on a healthy separation of church and state. In France, a history of religious strife resulted in a century-old law that deems religion as a fiercely private matter.
This is not, however, to say that religion should be ignored. There is little point in or benefit to pretending it does not exist.
In his 2006 “Call to Renewal” speech on religion and politics, Barack Obama spoke of the importance of engaging religious factions of society in political discourse. He reasoned that if the mainstream, religious or secular, does not reach out to these communities of believers, then the wrong people will: “If we don’t reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.”
So while it is clear that religious people should never be disenfranchised or discounted as politically viable individuals and groups, it does not follow that the government should encourage religion as a means of solving economic or diplomatic problems.
Why? Simply put, there are already institutions that advocate religion, and do so quite effectively.
From Southern Baptism to Hinduism to Catholicism to Taoism, there is no shortage of religions. They should enjoy the protections already afforded (so long as they do not become money-grubbing businesses).
And religious people should be included in the political process, but their relationship with legislators and politicians should be a one-way dynamic. They should be able to try and influence politicians as any other political interest group does, but politicians should not seek to draw the nonreligious into churches.
Conor Moore, a third-year international development studies student, summed it up with this sentiment: “Let the church and individual consciences call people to God.”
These issues are also intrinsically tied to American politics. Presidential candidates this season have been grilled for their religion ““ be they too religious or not religious enough. After all, it is this nation that spews rumors in a most bipartisan manner: Sarah Palin speaks in tongues and performs exorcisms, and Barack Obama is Muslim … right?
Society functions much better when all of its parts operate in their own roles and places. It is time to let sermons stay in their church halls and prayers stay in the minds of the faithful.
After all, shouldn’t politicians already have enough to worry about?
Wary of politicians confusing legislation with missals? E-mail Makarechi at kmakarechi@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.