Religious affiliation is, at its core, a personal relationship between the individual and God. It is based on freedom of choice and personal faith, and it does not require intermediaries or external authorities. However, once religion enters the public sphere, it can take on a political dimension. This occurs when religious discourse is used to gain legitimacy or mobilize people, or when religious institutions evolve into social forces with political influence. At times, religion is exploited for personal or group interests, becoming a tool of power and domination. On the other hand, religion can serve as a positive source of inspiration when it adheres to ethical values such as justice, honesty, and helping others—without being misused as a cover for narrow interests.

Therefore, the problem does not lie in religion itself, but in those who use it as a veil for their own agendas.

Throughout history, religion has always had a rocky relationship with politics. In a true 100% separation of church and state, one's religious affiliation would still affect politics as we tend to see issues with society through our religious lens. Thus, one's faith informs one's politics.

Unfortunately, we live in societies where the rocky wall separating church and state are crumbling. Certain political parties become associated with certain religions - and in most cases, a certain religious denomination - and a party thus represents those of a particular religious persuasion.

You can tell when this is happening when you hear people say "If you are a true xxxx [member of a particular religion], then you can't vote for yyyy."

The history of religious persecution by government is another consideration where political laws are drafted to limit and/or oppress certain religions. This becomes particularly acute in countries where one religion has a significant dominance over others to the extent that that country is considered a Catholic/Jewish/Muslim/etc. country.

On a personal note, I remember one time in church after the minister was giving a sermon about the crucifixion of Jesus, someone said "that is why I hate politics." I think she was on to something. :)

Thank you, Steve Benkin , for your thoughtful perspective. I agree with you that faith inevitably shapes the way individuals perceive politics, even in systems that claim a full separation between religion and state. Yet I would stress an important distinction: religion itself is not inherently political—it becomes political only through human intervention.

When religious affiliation is exploited by parties, institutions, or governments, it shifts from being a personal compass into a public instrument of legitimacy, control, or exclusion. This is why religion is sometimes invoked to inspire justice and solidarity, and at other times—unfortunately—to justify oppression or sectarian division.

History reminds us that the real problem lies not in religion itself, but in its manipulation by those in power. The challenge, therefore, is to preserve faith as a moral and spiritual source without allowing it to be reduced to a tool for narrow political interests.

Osama,

Interesting comments. All valid points. However, in Islam and early Christianity, I think these religious fathers would have disagreed with you. Religions based on "Divine Law" view life as living out the law. How can one live out the law if the governance of their country is not based on this law? Calvin created communities based on his interpretation of scripture.

I feel it is very difficult not to see these views of religion as being apolitical. At best, religion influences politics and the governance of a country. Where else do we get that murder, adultery, lying under oath, etc. are violations of civil law if not from our scriptures and faith perspective?

Yes, religion has - and continues- to be used/misused/abused by politicians who have questionable belief and adherence to the very religion they are using. Yet to just view religion as a tool in politics is not valid, imho, based on my understanding of history.

Even the ancient view of pharaohs and kings were based on the religions of their time - that these human leaders were either appointed by a deity to rule over humanity or, in some cases, were a deity incarnate. This was also true during medieval Christian times.

Our view of our political leaders, therefore, are rooted in some form or other, in religion.

The treatment of different viewed groups of humanity - by perceived race or through other lenses - and how they should be treated by the government is based on religion. Slavery was supported by most governments because slavery is supported in most scriptures. In America, Blacks were treated as sub-human beings in law based on theological interpretation of certain scriptural passages.

Maybe the best statement is that the political structure of any society is based, or at least strongly influenced, by the prevailing religion of its citizens.

FWIW - I view atheism as a religion with a very fixed dogma, no different than any world religion that I have studied. Countries that are not viewed as "religious" are based, imho, on an atheistic religious view of politics.

This entire subject is far to complex and nuanced to answer in this forum. I hope I have given some food for thought in this matter.

Correction: I meant to say in the above that it is very hard to see these religions as apolitical. I apologize for the typo.

I would like add that in America currently, the number one issue facing the nation is how much should politics be based on religion? There is a growing movement where people feel there should be no separation of church and state and that politics and governance of the people should be purely based on a very specific view of one branch of Christianity. One may dismiss this as a political movement using religion for their political ends. However, there are too many people joining this movement from a faith perspective. Whether one feels this is healthy for the nation, or is yet another move to destroy what freedom is left in our nation, is up for debate. I do not think it is debatable, however, that this movement and proposed change to the very foundation of politics and governance does not a strong religious aspect to it.

Steve Benkin Steve, thank you again for your thoughtful points. From an Islamic perspective, I would stress a distinction: divine revelation provides ethical and legal guidance, but the moment it is translated into governance, it passes through huma interpretation. This is why Islamic tradition differentiates between the divine law (Sharia as guidance) and the human effort to apply it (fiqh and political authority).

Yes, many civil laws echo scriptural principles, but the political use of religion always depends on human agency. That is why the same verses that inspire justice can also, when misused, be invoked for domination. For me, the key is this: religion itself is sacred, but politics is a human arena. The challenge is to let faith guide morality without reducing it to an instrument of power.

Osama, first let me say that I agree with all your points. Though I would add from my knowledge of Islam that the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was unique among most (if not all of the) prophets as he was a prophet, warrior and statesman. That last aspect of Mohammed is rarely discussed but I saw it as something that set him apart from other religious leaders. At least, that is from my understanding. :)

I do love your last line, though. "let faith guide morality without reducing it to an instrument of power." Truly an inspiring quote.

Peace,

Steve

Steve Benkin Bethsheba Ashe

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I truly appreciate your kind words and the way you engaged with my points. Allow me to clarify something essential from the perspective of Islam:

In our faith, Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) is regarded as the final prophet and messenger. This carries a special meaning: his message, the Qur’an, is seen as the last divine revelation to humanity. Unlike previous scriptures that were written down and subject to alteration, the Qur’an is believed by Muslims to be the direct word of God, preserved without distortion, and recited in a unique linguistic and rhetorical style that makes it unalterable.

Islam recognizes a long chain of prophets throughout human history—25 are mentioned by name in the Qur’an, though we believe there were many more sent to different peoples and nations. Some were prophets who carried wisdom and guidance, and some were messengers who brought a scripture and a law, like Abraham with the Scrolls, Moses with the Torah, David with the Psalms, and Jesus with the Gospel. Mohammed combined both roles: prophet and messenger, and as the Qur’an describes him—a bringer of glad tidings, a warner, and a witness.

Regarding Jesus (peace be upon him), the Qur’an portrays him not as divine but as a prophet, a messenger, and a servant of God—miraculously born of Mary, just as Adam was created without father or mother. Islam honors him deeply but rejects the idea of him being “the Son of God,” considering this as a theological misstep that turned guidance into misguidance. This is why the Qur’an speaks of Jews as those who incurred God’s anger for rejecting and even killing prophets, and of Christians as those who went astray for elevating Jesus from messenger to divinity.

Another important point is that Islam defends the honor of the prophets. For example, it rejects stories found in Jewish scriptures that accuse David of adultery, Lot’s daughters of incest, or Solomon of practicing sorcery. The Qur’an insists that all prophets were righteous, guided, and chosen by God, serving as moral exemplars for humanity.

So when you noted that Mohammed was a prophet, warrior, and statesman, you are absolutely right—but for us, this was not incidental. His role as statesman was a necessary extension of being the final messenger, entrusted with establishing a just order that would carry his message to all of humanity.

Finally, I was moved that you liked my closing line: “let faith guide morality without reducing it to an instrument of power.” That is, in essence, what the Qur’an urges—faith as a source of justice, compassion, and truth, not as a cloak for exploitation or domination.

Preprint From Rhetoric to Explanatory Power: A 2025 Re-Assessment of ...

Osama,

Whoa! I wasn't trying to get into a complex discussion of Islam. Yes, I am very familiar with Islam and its history. My only point is that for some religions it is more difficult to separate politics and governance of the people from the religion of the people. This is true, imho, of many religions. If we get into the details of any one religion, then this thread will never end!!

Peace,

Steve

Steve Benkin

Dear Steve,

Please take my note as a memory warm-up, not a provocation. If my tone carried the weight of Islamophobia I’ve encountered when trying to build bridges, forgive me. I read your comment carefully, and I appreciate it.

I also saw the title of your piece on “making peace between Muslims and Jews through Jewish–Islamic traditions.” I’ll read it properly—I want to learn from your perspective.

My question is narrower than a grand debate: in some religions (not all), is the driver the faith itself, or people who claim to speak for it? Too often, authorities reinterpret scripture to fit their interests. The Council of Nicaea is a classic example: centuries after Jesus, an emperor convened rival Christian groups, enforced one creed for imperial cohesion, and marginalized dissent. We’ve seen analogous moments in Islamic history, and in many traditions, especially in the medieval period. That doesn’t make the faiths themselves “political”; it shows how power and interpretation can merge.

I’m not trying to litigate doctrines—only to analyze patterns. If we’re aiming for something constructive, we should treat our claims as fallible: personal ijtihad, not absolute truth. Thanks for engaging; I’m reading with goodwill.

Osama,

Oh, I didn't take your comments as provocation at all! I was just trying to keep the thread on topic. :)

Regarding my paper - I do hope it comes across from a perspective of peace and hope. That is how I wrote it. in retrospect, it is based on the concept that theology can impact politics - for the good, I hope, in the case I was exploring.

I am not convinced you can have a society with a dominant religion without it significantly impacting politics. For example, we are seeing the rise of Christian Zionism and Christian Nationalism in the US which has definitely impacted US local and foreign policy. In these cases, government policy is directed tied to theology, though most people do wish to admit that. I see these as a result of government embracing dangerous and poorly thought out theologies, rather than politics using religion for its own means. At least, that is my perspective.

When a society is comprised of multiple religions and/or religious denominations, it gets very complicated. I believe that is why, in the US, some people want the country to be associated with only one religion (and one specific denomination of that religion) - it makes political governance easier and eliminates the challenge of people learning other religions and being tolerant of those who worship differently than them.

Tolerance and understanding is hard. Intolerance and stereotypes are easy. Humanity tends to gravitate, unfortunately, for the easy path.

Osama S Qatrani Osama, one more comment. I really appreciated your observation about what happened in the council of Nicaea. My research has been on the early Christian church in the three hundreds years before that council meeting. Christianity was ten a very different religion than what people think of it today.

Emperor Constantine definitely shaped a unique version of Christianity and claimed it "the one true faith" which has been taught for the last seventeen hundred years. Why he did that is an extremely complicated combination of politics and theological that, unfortunately, I cannot summarize here.

It is nice that others notice that historic perspective.

Religious affiliation is involvement is a specific micro-culture. People will tend to gather in specific religious groups that align with their general political and religious beliefs. Then, within these groups, leaders will emerge, whether formally as in the clergy, or informally from the general community, possibly the lay leadership unit, and thus actively, although possibly unconsciously, lead the community in one political direction or another.

Dear Steve Benkin

Thanks a lot for clarifying — I see your point about the inevitability of a dominant faith shaping politics. I agree that when religion is deeply rooted in society, its influence can hardly be avoided.

My emphasis was slightly different: not on the faith itself, but on who claims the authority to interpret it. History shows that political power often reinforces one interpretation and sidelines others, which can turn a living faith into an instrument of control. That’s why I raised the Council of Nicaea — not to question Christianity itself, but to highlight how authority plus interpretation often merge into politics.

So, in a way, our views complement each other: you stress how dominant belief shapes governance, I stress how contested interpretations shape the belief. Both patterns make religion a political force, for good or ill.

Grateful for the exchange — I’m learning from it.

Osama S Qatrani Thank you. I am grateful for the exchange, too.

Salām, my friend.

Steve

Dear Bello, In Taiwan, some political figures do something in favor of certain religious groups to solicit votes. This is very common.