Philosophy Now Forum

Both, religion and the Republican politics that court it, are seeking positions of power and control -- and that is their primary driver for working together. Neither are doing so honestly, nor are they being true to their principles. Both are being depleted as a result.

https://www.amacad.org/publication/peri ... d-religion

Excerpts from 'The Perils of Politicized Religion':

The connection between religion and the Republican Party has not formed by accident, but is instead the result of deliberate choices by strategic politicians, who saw an opportunity to appeal to white religious voters by emphasizing socially conservative issues like opposition to abortion and LGBT rights.

If voters snubbed politicians who exploit religious faith, those politicians would quickly change their tune.

There has been a stunning change in the percentage of religious believers who, prior to Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy, overwhelmingly objected to immoral private behavior by politicians but now dismiss it as irrelevant to their ability to act ethically in their public role. This viewpoint changes dramatically depending on whether they are speaking of their own political party or another.

The end of politicized religion, and the religionization of politics, will require some consciousness-raising.

Whether consciously or unconsciously -- Americans prioritizing politics over religion is what drives the secular backlash to the rise of the religious right.

From the article you cite:

There is an irony here. The prophetic voice of religious leaders has been compromised by the actions of politicians. But this irony also points to a solution. What if religious leaders refuse to allow themselves to be co-opted by politicians, and speak out against the mixture of God and Caesar? This would mean no clergy appearances at campaign events; no invitations for politicians to speak in their houses of worship; no supportive speeches, articles, posts, or tweets. It would also mean that politicians risk criticism from local clergy–voters’ own priests, pastors, and rabbis–for trying to mix religion with their politics.

The “prophetic voice” referred to locates this man’s perspective exclusively within a Hebrew prophetic and a Christian prophetic context. Effectively, and for the sake of an abbreviation, that means an Isaiah-ian prophetic picture.

Unless prophecy is said to originate somewhere else.

So as it happens, David Campbell has wisely pointed out that religious values, geo-political ambitions, social-control mechanisms are concepts made into “tools” used by power-brokers in our present, but he seems to subscribe nonetheless to a “prophetic religion” even if it is loosely defined or perhaps not defined at all.

What ‘principles’ then are being defined? What principles is he suggesting be defined and held to?

When he does define this, he will then reveal (I assume) more of a concretized social, ethical and political plan.

There is another reason why the politicization of religion should cause alarm for religionists and secularists alike: the weakening of religion’s prophetic voice on matters of public policy, both in the sense of looking ahead and commenting critically on the present day. Historically, religious leaders have often spoken to the better angels of our nature, independent of any association with a political party. Admittedly, this has not always been the case, as we should not romanticize the role of religion in American politics. Sometimes religious leaders have stayed silent in the face of crisis or stood on the wrong side of history. Yet in their finest moments–including the abolition and civil rights movements–religious voices have nudged the nation toward a more perfect union. Even secularists who may not endorse its religious motivations should appreciate such advocacy. Politics, after all, makes strange bedfellows. However, religious leaders can only speak prophetically if religion is not seen as merely an extension of partisanship. Religious leaders must be willing to transcend partisan divisions as they speak to the problems of our day.

I suggest that when this man’s internal suppositions are examined, and brought out into the light, that they will be seen as being essentially of a religious sort — derived if you will from the prophetic fount.

It is not that I am complaining necessarily, or lamenting, but simply noticing.

Religious views tend toward totalizing perspectives.

devotees of Marx act religiously all the time

-Imp

This thread is a non sequitur, since in this Post Truth era, principles don't lead to political policy. Rather policy is written to concentrate power and/or wealth, then priciples are cherry-picked to support the expedient policy.

It's always been like that, L. Whoever owns and controls the means of production controls the production and dissemination of ideas.

Pretty much everything repeats seemingly senselessly throughout human history. Why is that?

And, in the midst of that, we debate which perspective is most valid. For what purpose do we do that, exactly?

I guess there's really no reason to talk about much of anything.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2023 5:32 pm Pretty much everything repeats seemingly senselessly throughout human history. Why is that?

And, in the midst of that, we debate which perspective is most valid. For what purpose do we do that, exactly?

I guess there's really no reason to talk about much of anything.

Why? Because human psychology doesn't change much, whereas external societal trappings change frequently.