In my opinion, there is a need for citizens to pay a keen attention to the opinions of religious individuals and religious politicians as they vocalize them. My take is that not all religious politicians are radical. At least there are some who make sense. There is a need for the state to separate from the church. It is also worth noting that majority of the laws are founded on religious scriptures.
According to Libertarians, how long a free society lasts is dependent on the will of the citizens to remain free. In my opinion, the constitution can be designed to promote termination of societal decay. However, people have to remain dedicated to freedom. My take is that a fair political structure is useful in ensuring a free society. However, a political structure is not the only ingredient (Johnstone 100). It is worth noting that the effectiveness of a political structure is also dependent on the wider cultural and social perspective.
In essence, culture is significant in ensuring a free society. According to Aelfred, religion is a powerful tool in shaping an evil or good culture. According to conservatives, a solid religious society is necessary for adherence to liberty ideals. Particularly, conservatives maintain that religion has two benefits.
First, it is the basis for individual accountability and moral character, which ensures citizens who are self- reliant, disciplined, and straightforward. Such citizens have a concern for their neighbours, and a keen regard for government coercion. Second, religion provides God’s authority in the place of State authority. As such, religion acts as the measure for governmental aggrandizement (Johnstone 83).
I suggest that a government composed of a free society should regularly ensure active measures, that strengthen and enhance religion. However, a society where the nation’s strong-arm power promotes particular religious opinions is never free. Therefore, if religion has to be included in politics, it has to be on a voluntary basis. This is because coercion eliminates the aspect of freedom.
It is worth emphasizing that religion has taken a significant place in politics. For instance, President Obama had to consent to particular religious rules before becoming the president. For example, irrespective of his stand on abortion, he had to consent that federal funds would not be directed towards abortion.
My take is that if true believers are involved intimately in politics, risks are likely to arise. The Americans had to embrace a novel mandate during the presidential election. There has been a historic association between ideology and politics (Johnstone 140). According to me, the Catholic Church has been participating actively in politics. This has persuaded citizens and politicians to comply to ideological platforms, that are more holy. To me, this is a wrong move, since the rights of democracy are eroded.
However, it is worth emphasizing that it is difficult to make a clear distinction between the government and religion. In addition, the church has always had a natural influence and concern in political issues. When America considered amending the Constitution, the Bills of Rights had it that the law will respect religion.
Conservative Christians draw their rules from the Bible, while secular progressives depend on human wisdom. In essence, religion should play a role in politics. In the absence of control from religion, governments and states would become extremely rotten. Religion should act as the control.
Religious Fundamentalism
Religious fundamentalism refers to an opinion or movement, whose main feature is rigid adherence to fundamental principles, strong secularism opposition, and intolerance to alternative views. The movement arose from the United States during the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century, and it is exceptionally organized. The movement strongly opposes secularism and Protestant Liberalism, and emphasizes that the Scripture is inerrant (Johnstone 234).
In the US, the term religious fundamentalism was used to define a Protestant community that practised fundamental values. It is worth noting that these fundamental values were against the modern values. According to the group, it was imperative to go by what the Bible said. The Bible, therefore, was the foundation of their faith. In my opinion, religious fundamentalism has been extremely prevalent in communities.
Today, people who focus on religious fundamentalism regard it as the answer to the present society. My take is that societies have changed greatly, whereby it is extremely difficult to comprehend them. In addition, if the familiar things are transformed, people feel very insecure. Most times, people turn to religion to assess things that never change. In addition, they seek rules on living which remain constant. In essence, most people regard religion as the only thing that never transforms.
In my opinion, when people regard religion in this manner, they also regard religious ideas as complete. As such, it is extremely impossible for them to transform. In my view, when people regard religion as absolute, this turns out as fundamentalism (Johnstone 12). Therefore, fundamentalism can be present in any religion.
It is worth noting that sometimes, religious fundamentalists disregard this name because it has alternative meanings. The name is associated with negative opinions, which makes fundamentalists avoid it. Some of the negative opinions include disrespect for human rights, and that they are uneducated and unclever. Some people use the name Christian fundamentalists, since the name religious fundamentalists also include the Hindus and Muslims.
In my opinion, religious fundamentalists may differ in the things they believe in. However, there are a number of issues in which solid beliefs are shared. It is worth emphasizing that these issues are the same in a wide array of religions. Some of the concerns include science, contraception, fornication, feminism, homosexuality, abortion, teaching students about religion in schools, and religion as the foundation of laws.
All fundamentalists have a keen concern for sexual behaviour, particularly in regard to the opposition and fear of homosexuality. Moreover, they consent that there is a need to control female sexuality (Johnstone 40). A distinct and impassable boundary is necessary between the male and female.
The order in patriarchal families controls sexuality. Women are associated with particular roles. In Christian and Islamic writings, there is a concern that men might be led to become similar to women. Christian fundamentalists believe that authority and law are derived from God.
Therefore, the law of God is greater than the law formulated by man. All religious fundamentalists believe in the Holy book and a single sincere religion, which should be protected from any form of secularism and opposition. Considering that there is a single true way, it is always under constant threat. As such, religious fundamentalists have a keen interest in protecting their way of life.
Works Cited
Johnstone, Ronald. Religion in Society: A Sociology of Religion. New York: Prentice Hall, 2004. Print.