Religious Politics And Political Religion
Religion, Politics, America, People, Morality, Ethics, Church, United States
Explicitly, we can conclude that phenomena such as political religion and religious politics, which are based on social religion and thus create common values for their supporters, had a significant impact on the development of the American consciousness, and that they continue to do so today. Due to the fact that it is primarily based on the protection of traditional family and other religious values, people are more likely to put forth their best efforts in order to defend everyone who belongs to their group – from the leaders, secular members of parliament, government, and religious leaders, to other members of the community – it reflects a conservative form of state rule with some collectivist characteristics.
Unexpected circumstances as well as aspects of collaboration with the government are considered to be effective when certain policies are implemented, which must be supported by a number of different groups in order to be successful. Politicians make use of this combination because of the effectiveness and simplicity of the approach.
It is believed that religiosity contributes to better performance of one’s civil responsibilities as well as the proper functioning of civil society as a whole. A great deal of religious doctrine is responsive to the social and political context (Wright p. 1). An answer like this comes from two different levels: the collective and the individual, with each level performing specific functions at its own level. As an example, on a personal level, there could be personal morality and responsibility, which serve as a foundation for the model of the law-abiding citizen who respects the law, because the law, like morality, is a system of norms, and is willing to obey it while also accepting some level of responsibility for his actions, thus emulating the model of the law-abiding citizen (Lecture p.1). The social or collective level, on the other hand, which derives from the personal level, “generalizes everyone’s morality” in such a way that phenomena such as charity, social networking, and social support emerge (Lecture p.2).
Social religion in the context of a state transforms into religious politics because, at times, governmental problems necessitate the participation of citizens in order to be resolved. For example, the existence of the poor and the state’s inability to effectively address this issue leads people to join charitable organizations or other entities that are dedicated to Helping those who are not protected by the law. Religious politics is distinct from political religion, which consists in the “mobilization of religious institutions for political goals,” whereas religious politics is based on people’s willingness to participate in political activities (Lecture p.3). Its central question is how to mobilize religious institutions in order to achieve their objectives, which may include the abolition of abortion, the restriction of immigration, and other initiatives.
There have been numerous examples of such a combination of religion and politics throughout history, such as the Catholic Church and the end of communism in Poland as a result of the church’s instructions and support to the most important movement in Soviet Poland, known as Solidarity (Lecture #3). Using the research conducted by Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, which is reflected in their book “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites the United States,” we will focus on the actions that could be activated with the help of political religion in this essay. When this grace is considered to be harmonious coexistence of believers and atheists, absolute tolerance, it distinguishes the American polarized society from many others in which religion has served as a source of conflict, such as Bosnia and Muslim states. Even though “Half of all Americans say grace almost every day, half of all Americans almost never say grace, and only 10% are in the middle,” according to the Pew Research Center (Putnam p. 152)
With the help of the triad devout-diverse-tolerant” (Putnam p.142), one of the authors, Putnam, explains the consequences of the religiosity or the “grace saying” of Americans, whom he, by the way, describes as “very religious and that religion is a bigger deal in America than in any other advanced nation on the planet,” with the devout element being primarily influenced by the religiosity. The citizens of the United States are the most religious of the advanced democracies in the world (Perry p.3) It is possible to predict the behavior of gracesayers. As for his political beliefs, the author claims that his views on abortion, homosexuality, and premarital sex are well known, as is how he voted in the previous elections (Putnam p.152). They have concluded that “religious people are slightly less tolerant of dissent and supportive of civil liberties, but they are more likely to volunteer their time to help people, give money to charity, and participate in all forms of civil society,” which means that religion is associated with being good and doing good and results in the creation of a more tolerant neighbor and citizen (Putnam p. 174)
It is this understanding of how people will behave and act after receiving a certain signal (which is derived from the behaviorism concept) that is frequently used by politicians, who in turn use this knowledge to create political religion. We should mention Richard Nixon when discussing the application of religious politics. Nixon used religious politics as a part of his 1968 and 1972 presidential campaigns, willing to split the Democrats and form a new conservative majority, uniting the electorate on the basis of a combination of religion, patriotism, and race in order to win the presidency (Hibbard p.16). They were intended to delegitimize liberal norms, minorities, and other issues that were the products of the liberal revolution by portraying them as unpatriotic (Hibbard p.16). All of this demonstrates how politicians exploited the concept of religious politics to influence the voting patterns of the electorate. Republican politicians paved the way for the formation of the religious Right movement, which was concerned with moral values and whose members were also members of religious organizations, thereby facilitating the ability of politicians to govern them (Putnam p.9).
Let us now consider how religion influences the division or unity of the United States of America.
Taken together, Putnam’s book demonstrates how a failure to adhere to moral and ethical standards almost resulted in the collapse of civilization, and how “religion per se is often not the thing that actually divides us” (Wright p.1). The Sixties and their impact on American life are examined in depth by the authors in this work. When it comes to religion, the title of that chapter is “1960s: the Shock: Sex, drugs, rock’n’roll, and “God is Dead,” which highlights the decline of traditional values during the time period in question. They have described that period as one in which “the old foundations of national confidence, patriotic idealism, moral traditionalism, and historic Christian theism were awash” and “the old foundations of national confidence, patriotic idealism, moral traditionalism, and historic Christian theism were awash” (Putnam, Campbell p. 92).
Because of this, the state’s authority was completely insecure, and it was unable to satisfy even the most senior government officials. A number of massive movements emerged during this time period, including gay rights, women’s liberation, and anti-war movements. “The growing controversy over the Vietnam War, racial upheaval, and numerous tragic assassinations were all witnessed during this period,” according to the author (Putnam, Campbell p. 91). In 1966, the cover story of Time magazine asked the question, “Is God still alive?” (Putnam, p.144), which depicts the general situation when all of the old traditions were replaced with new ones in the United States.
In the survey, the participants were asked about premarital sex, which is one of the most well-known religious norms in existence, and thus they were aware of it. The comparison of the data relating to the issue of whether premarital sex is wrong or not demonstrates the shift in attitude toward religion and the church as an institution. These attitudes include sexual morality, pornography, homosexuality, and other issues of concern to the general population (Putnam, Campbell p. 93).
It increased from 24 percent to 47 percent in just four years between 1969 and 1973, and then reached 62 percent in 1982, when the baby boomers (the generation born in the 1960s) accounted for 80 percent of those who supported premarital sexual relations (Putnam, Campbell p. 93).
All of the transformation has also resulted in a reduction in the importance of religion. It is true that religious observance has declined, with the number of Americans who say that religion is important to them personally dropping from 75 percent in the 1950s to 52 percent in 1978, and the question of whether religion can provide solutions to today’s problems dropping to almost half of those who believe that religion plays a vital role (Putnam, Campbell p. 98).
The number of people who attend church was also among the statistics that showed a decline in the importance of religion in personal life. By the way, at the time of the discussion, there was a so-called generational gap, or even a generational war, because the boomers were completely different from the previous generation and post-boomer generations, who were more conservative than the boomers on many political, religious, and social topics than the boomers were (Putnam, Campbell p. 93).
Four general responses were given to the question of why political religion did not work and why people stopped following certain moral norms: young people were losing interest in formal religion, which was thought to be irrelevant because it did not support people who changed greatly; the increase in immorality, crime, and violence could be dealt with within the church’s jurisdiction; materialistic distractions were common; and the church was not keeping up with times, being at the same time as the state (Pitnam, Campbell p.99).
What is the reaction of political religion, and particularly religious institutions, to such shifts in the political landscape? They each saw things differently, but they all realized that it was impossible to remain silent during such a time (Putnam, Campbell p.94). Among the centralized governance churches, such as the Catholics and the Protestants (Lecture p.5), there were such well-known individuals as William Sloane Coffin and Fathers Berrigans, who rose to prominence in the movements of the era (Putnam, Campbell p.94).
The evangelical branch, on the other hand, made significant efforts to gain popularity during that period, transitioning from a highly conservative stream to a more liberal one, which resulted in its rise during the following two decades. However, in general, the church had the ability to influence the direction of development during that period. Putnam (p. 145), for example, claims that the Catholic Church is collapsing because many people who declared themselves to be Catholics have stopped attending Mass; nearly two-thirds of the previous Catholics are no longer practicing Catholics, according to Putnam.
However, after a period of total liberalization and negative polarization of society, the majority of Americans found themselves dissatisfied with the results. The religious beliefs of the people of the United States played a role in influencing the subsequent political decision. This resulted in the formation of the religious Right movement, which used to advocate for the preservation of tradition. They decided on their own position of condemning abortion and homosexuality, implying that they were opposed to the concepts that emerged in the 1960s and divided the political parties at that time.
The goal of such a religious vector was achieved: in 1976, 44 percent of Americans claimed that religion’s importance and influence had returned to a high level, and the religious landscape was beginning to shift once more (Putnam, Campbell p. 100). The structure of religious politics was altered as a result, and the movement experienced a rebirth. The majority of America’s presidents, particularly those who were elected at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first, placed a strong emphasis on their religious beliefs (Putnam, Campbell p.100). A new secular movement, which emerged in the early 2000s in response to the rise of religious right influence on political terms and issues, was also a subject of discussion during this time period ( Putnam p. 148).
Even with differing attitudes toward religion in general and the existence of a large group of people who do not share these values, the Grace movement in America created a field for debates during which both points of view were appreciated, according to the authors’ minds. It is not possible to say statistically that representatives of one group are completely intolerant of representatives of the other, because even attitudes toward issues such as civil liberties, which were thought to divide people, have shown that “religious people are a little less tolerant of dissent and supportive of civil liberties, especially for people who disagree with them, than secular Americans” (Putnam p.174).
As a result, we can conclude that those pursuing contemporary political goals, as well as traditional moral values, frequently rely on traditional moral values; they aim to activate religious groups, thereby creating a state of political religion, with the Helpance of which they achieve their objectives. That is exactly what was done during Nixon’s presidency, as well as by religious conservatives on the right.
Of course, we can talk about the hypocrisy of politicians; however, from the perspective of statehood, such policies can produce positive outcomes, such as citizen cooperation and active participation in civil society, which are the foundations of governmental stability and security.
Work that has been cited
Scott W. Hibbard’s Religious Politics and Secular States is a book that he wrote. The Johns Hopkins University Press, in Baltimore, published a book in 2010. PrintsLectures
Perry, Michael J., Religion in Politics: Constitutional and Moral Perspectives (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). The Oxford University Press, New York, published this book in 1997. Print
Bartelink, B. (2022). Religion, gender and international development: Searching for game changers in the midst of polarization. In The Routledge Handbook of Religion, Gender and Society (pp. 351-364). Routledge.
Robert D. Putnam’s American Grace: The Tanner Lectures on Human Values was published by Princeton University Press in 2010. It can be found at: http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/ documents/a-to-z/p/Putnam 10.pdf.
Putnam, Robert D., and Campbell, David E., “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us,” New York: Putnam & Campbell, 2003. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc. 2010. Print.
Robert Wright’s Religious Persuasion is a book that he wrote. The New York Times published an article in 2010 entitled It can be accessed at: Yilmaz, I. and Albayrak, I., 2022. Populist and Pro-Violence State Religion: The Diyanet’s Construction of Erdoganist Islam in Turkey. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
