Abstract
Government and religion have a long story of competing for public opinion and influence on society. The main cause of this lies in the issue of every religion having its own set of principles that have to be followed, and the law does not always align with them. In some places where the governmental and religious systems are unified, and perhaps such problems do not occur there. Though there are countries that have a prevalent amount of people who belong to one religion, the government is not considered religious, and those where there are multiple religious groups. In such cases, the possibility of dissonance between religion and law is high, and there are many areas for them to compete and negotiate in. The research question is whether it is possible for religion and law to coexist or not.
The relationship between government and religious institutions
Difference in objectives
Both religion and politics have the same goal: to gain influence on society. Their techniques for achieving this purpose, however, differ. Religion appeals to people’s religious sensibilities in order to gain their support in gaining power. Politics employs intrigue, diplomacy, and attempts to sway public opinion either democratically, if the system permits it, or by usurping power with the support of the military if the society is underdeveloped and backward. If religion has political power, its goal is to use it to carry out a divine mission. It professes to have divine power, and hence its mission is sacred, with the goal of reforming society under spiritual guidance. Politics, on the other hand, devoid of any value, bases its policy on the wants and requirements of society, requiring changes to laws and government systems as a result.
The connection between law and religion
The government should not dedicate itself to a particular philosophy or religion of morality in a multicultural community. That would imply that government authority is legitimated by a superior being. On the other hand, an unbiased exercise of authority in matters of religion, both in content and appearance, does not exclude people. The counterpoint that the state selects an atheistic state by acting in this way is incorrect. A state does not have a belief and is not equivalent to a person who does. In the religious realm, on the other hand, the government plays no significant role. Spiritual well-being is, in the end, a personal or societal matter. Fundamental liberties come at a price: citizens may be offended by other people’s religious beliefs. Government action is only required if preaching turns into intimidation or encouragement to violence or if religion motivates criminal crimes. As a result of political constraints, a variety of denominations may emerge, none of which are sponsored or reviewed by the government.
The possibility of existing together
The compromise
In the societal service sector, a variety of private groups, many of which have religious foundations, may perform responsibilities that would otherwise be the duty of the government. These types of self-governance encourage choice and diversity. As a result, government support on an equal footing with public institutions is warranted. Meeting standards of practice is a requirement for obtaining assistance. This holds true in theory for the education system as well. Subsidies can be justifiable even in cases where private schools teach religious dogmas, fulfilling mandatory education, and parents’ choice to raise their kids according to their own beliefs. However, the curriculum must adhere to professional norms, including the inclusion of significant scientific theories. Furthermore, a degree of openness to democratic governance under the legal framework would be a must.
Existing compatibility
In conclusion, there are various ways of finding a balance between governing and religion in society. It is possible for them to exist together and be compatible, even if they do not share the same values and goals. There are certain compromises that can be reached which will help satisfy people who are the subject of both institutions, and it is their main objective – to comply with what society expects from them. This can be achieved through democratic governance and allowance for religious people to live in accordance with their values, yet not create inconveniences to others by legally impairing their freedom.
References
Batalla, E. V. and Baring, R., ‘Church-state separation and challenging issues concerning religion’, Religions, 10 (2019), 197.
Durham Jr, W. C. and Scharffs, B. G., Law and religion: National, international, and comparative perspectives, (Alphen aan den Rijn, 2019).
Dwyer, J. G., Religious Schools v. Children’s Rights (Ithaca, 2018).
Edge, P. W., Religion and law: An introduction (Oxfordshire, 2017).
Herbert, D., Religion and civil society: Rethinking public religion in the contemporary world (Oxfordshire, 2017).