RELIGIOUS & POLITICAL BLOG |
Politics and
Religion: Two distinct Institutions
Often time people complain lack of religious intervention in
politics. They believe that since political leaders are part or submissive to
one religion, hence, religion should intervene when these political figures
strews from orientated policy.
The problem with this assumption is that most countries
practice more than one form of religion. Should religion be allowed to
influence politics, determining the religious group that controls governmental affairs
will pose a bigger problem, thus, war of religious supremacy will be
inevitable: silently the war is going on as seen in the Asia where Buddhist
fight Christianity (e.g. Vietnam war); Muslim against Christians in the Middle
East; Christian denomination against others some sees others as the said
antichrist proclaimed in the bible, etc. Nigeria is a typical example of a
country with heterogeneous culture, political orientation, religion etc. yet
some expect religious intervention.
Religion as a concept deals with abstract world (making
heaven), more concerned with metaphysical world: whereas, politics is
interested in the physical world. The nitty-gritty of politics is to organize
the physical world, while religion tends to prepare the soul for the world
beyond. Hence, the two are distinct in its orientation and ideology. Historically,
monarchy and theocracy where the first form of government witnessed; theocracy
(religious government) failed; as they tend to rob people freewill, freedom to
think outside stipulated norms and autocratic in the sense that one must follow
its stipulated dogma or face execution (the dark ages). Power corrupts,
capitalizing on its hold on humanity, some religious leaders took astute and
subject mankind to semi-slave – totally precluded freewill, at worst, relegated
mankind robot statuesque (Do whatever the dogma programmes).
Politics originates from the Greek word: “city state”, is
after having an organized state, patterned life style that will limit man’s
brutality on a fellow. Politics is subjected to changes, whereas, Religion is
not. The static nature of religion forms the bulk of its advantage and
disadvantages when bend to serve as governing apparatus. For instance, before a
law is passed in normal political setting (Democracy), the bill will pass usage
at the House (Parliament, Senate, Congress etc.), where amendments would be
done. And even after its passage, it can still be reviewed or overridden when
discovered it no longer serve the masses. Take this process to religion, one gets
serious backlash, as it is more concerned with obeying directives from supreme
being (supernatural being) which the masses are not aware when it was made.
They don’t even take part in process of enacting such dogma or laws; by
implication, it is not people oriented.
Politics has always been a game, and a game of interest.
Therefore, if at all religion can influence political gladiator, it must be in
areas outside of his interest. Since, Religious leaders cannot allow
politicians/political leaders to adjust their norms and dogma, one naturally
should not expect politicians to avail their backs for religious leader to
ride.
“for one to effect a
change on an already existing institution, he must be open to change himself”.