Differing goals of religion, politics

Kudos to David Driedger for modelling a more appropriate and constructive role for religion in politics than the one that has become commonplace today (“Take care of them; there is enough”, Think Tank, July 27).

Resisting the temptation to preach, coerce and control, he has chosen to remind, persuade and challenge. It could hardly more different to what we are witnessing everyday to the south of us. I thank him for his humility, courage and sense of responsibility to humanity.

Our recent experiences with religion’s forays into the political realm, both in the U.S. and parts of Canada have done little to endear us to either one. Religious fundamentalism, in its many forms, has wrought untold havoc on governments across the globe, with some of the most toxic iterations being right on our doorsteps — we might even call it a form of domestic terrorism.

In the U.S., Christian nationalism, represented by MAGA, has contaminated government and ordinary lives like a hazardous toxin escaping containment — corroding and poisoning the presidency, the legislature, the court system and law enforcement, and in the process threatening the very relationships which make a civilized society possible. Simply put, the positive ideal of godliness in the American constitution, which emphasized tolerance for, acceptance of and upheld the equal worth of all peoples is in peril.

Unfortunately, in parts of Canada and Manitoba, the MAGA mentality has also taken root, supported by far-right religious indoctrination. It manifests itself in a variety of forums and forms.

In the not-to-distant past it appeared as the Freedom convoy, anti-vaxxers, residential school denial and climate change rejection. More recently, it has flouted its views even in some public school boards, with attacks on educational materials, gender diverse citizens and immigrants. Any attempt to reason with its proponents falls on their anti-government deaf ears with the claims that they answer only to their own God, and He has no truck nor trade with other authorities.

Nothing could be further from the God of the American constitution, or Jesus Christ of the New Testament, who are depicted as loving, forgiving and inclusive and who “rendered unto Caesar that which was Caesar’s.”

Driedger acknowledges, and appeals to, governmental authorities and he does so obviously from a religious stance. In doing so, he has demonstrated the importance of religious freedom and how it remains an important right in political matters, but he also simultaneously upheld the separation of church and state.

Likewise, I am quite sure that he recognizes the cultural values and norms that accrue from most religions and informed our constitutions and our laws codifying our freedoms and rights. And he would surely celebrate the knowledge that our politicians’ best behaviours and actions are based on traditions which arose from religious beginnings.

Whether people believe in their religion, or adopt a different spirituality, they suggest a recognition that human beings are not the “be all, end all, period.” We are all part of something greater than us, and governments who concede that act humbly and sensitively, showing due regard for everyone including their competition, the opposition.

Using religion as a divisive tool to attack, insult and deny participation in the affairs of government to those who don’t share one’s beliefs is a perversion of religion and politics — it makes both go bad.

Hannah Arendt is instructive in this matter, suggesting that politics involves “wooing the consent” of the public for the sake of the public. There is no authoritarian aspect — no domination — to this romance which implies persuasion through reasoning and justification and worthiness as reasonableness in involvement and consequence. Recognizing human frailty, even with good intentions, she suggests promise making and forgiveness as profound personal and political virtues.

Political consent is different from religious consent, which is a private matter and any attempt to make it public should be simply to inform, not to coerce or indoctrinate.

Religious persuasion implies an individual expression based upon personal convictions — it does not assume the conformity of others. It involves a limited, somewhat exclusive public like a mosque, synagogue or church with co-believers, not like a democratic public which includes everyone of any, and all, beliefs. Not only the results of, but also the methods for, achieving the results of political consent must be as universal as possible.

I believe we need both religion and politics in proper relation to each other: religion as a guide to living morally, and politics as a way of figuring out how to live ethically together.

John R. Wiens is dean emeritus at the faculty of education, University of Manitoba.