Curious Christian

Reflections on culture, nature, and spirituality from a Christian perspective

Separating Politics from Irreligion

Published by

Matt Stone

2009-05-20

It occurred to me just now, with Atheists insisting we separate politics from religion, maybe we should be insisting they separate politics from irreligion!

I am being a bit facetious I know, but there is a serious point lurking beneath. What we are really talking about here is worldview. As a Christian I have a religious worldview, as an Atheist they have an irreligious worldview, and I can no more separate myself from my worldview than they can from theirs. Our worldviews guide our goals, they shape our decisions, they inform our ethics. Politics involves ethical decisions, how can I possibly disentagle my religious ethics from political decisions? This is the problem.

Now, to follow my line of arguement its important to understand that I regard the separation of politics and religion as a very different issue to the separation of church and state. Church and state is a much narrower topic, it has much more to do with institutional relationships, and on that topic I completely agree that there should be separation. In fact I would remind any Atheists reading this that anabaptists and baptists, in who’s shadow I stand, have championed separation of church and state for centuries. So, no, I am not talking about that, I am talking about the broader issues.

So this leads me back to my original statement. If Atheists can’t separate their understanding of the world from their action in the world, why should they expect us to do any different? It is a rediculous expectation. What we should respect is democracy and freedom of speach. In a democracy, you’re free to try and convince the community, I am free to try and convince the community, and the community decides. If you reject that system you’re rejecting democracy. If that’s the case, come out and honestly admit it.

Tags Atheist, Politics

2 responses to “Separating Politics from Irreligion”

Kalessin

2009-05-22

If you think your belief system is good in itself, and think it should be obvious to everyone, then you assume it should be the basis of government.
Christians disagree amongst themselves on that, as do atheists; there are cultural versions of each that have sophisticated political views; also there are the simplists who don’t know, or don’t respect, any other view than their own, or stereotype those who disagree. Again, that’s unilateral.
If you further draw no distinction between being a good person and a good citizen of that society, your will assume dissent is pernicious, in fact treasonable against the state and thus humanity. This used to be the norm in Christendom, and will become so again whenever any one ideology takes political power.
I’m with John Locke (1689) on the solution to these questions, and think his synthesis largely gave us the modern toleration as an rather Anglican legacy.
“In vain, therefore, do princes compel their subjects to come into their Church communion, under pretence of saving their souls. If they believe, they will come of their own accord, if they believe not, their coming will nothing avail them. How great soever, in fine, may be the pretence of good-will and charity, and concern for the salvation of men’s souls, men cannot be forced to be saved whether they will or no. And therefore, when all is done, they must be left to their own consciences.”
Letter Concerning Toleration
http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2009-05-22

I suppose the unexamined issue underlying all this is the principle of recipricosity. Is it universal? Should it be universal? What do Atheists say? What are the implications if it is?

LikeLike

Reply