Introduction
This paper critically evaluates religious dogma as a
problem for politics. Dogma can be described as byproducts of religious fundamentalism,
which is assumed to significantly influence the politics of government in
making decisions according to Pew research center. The focus, however, will be
narrowed down, particularly on issues encountering the American society at
large. In a broader sense of comprehension, it is important to mention the
following areas, such as, the defining problem and issues of dogma, the
demographics of fundamentalism and its ideologisation, the connectedness
between religion and politics and the conflict of interest endangered by dogma.
More to defining the problem, I little explore the issues of Christian right,
originalism and patriarchism.
Defining the problem
Despite a variety of definitions and meanings,
religion, in my opinion, is all about the sovereignty of God over the
conscience and piety acknowledging the existence of God and, hence, people view
their respective religions, such as Christianity, Muslim, Hinduism and
Buddhism, as a source of spiritual inner strength to address the challenges of
this world. To propose the best ideal of religion from various perspectives, no
religion insofar as I am aware stands for a war of destruction, conflict, but fundamentally
it is, in essence, for peace and harmony and love that connect every fabric of
society. Yet, human being, who hold steadfast the religion and reckon their
religion above all, makes the mess in the name of their religion. That is what indeed
becomes an issue in America as Richarch J. Bernstein (2013) argued that there
has been a growing awareness of the power of religion and how it influences
politics, raising further basic questions about the very meaning and boundaries
of religion, politics and theology. In the case of American society, the impact
of religious orthodoxy on American political behavior is growing over time and
is becoming greater than that of the traditional divisions between Protestants,
Catholics, Jews (C. Layman, Geoffrey 1997). The paramount is that being radical
rather than rational and being extreme rather than moderate in the religion of
Christianity in America are the irony of the focus for the fact that it ejects
detrimental effects not only on the American political sphere, but also broadly
on the social life as a whole. Thus, the narrative that defined ideology of
fundamentalists here is also partly meant as a kind of conservative and heretic
of which constitute into a dogma which negatively infused further negative
impact upon the lifeline of politics in America. In addition, one of the key
aspects of the American challenges that face the leaders of America today in
this regard is the ideology of the Christian right and originalism and patriarchism,
which is the corrupt influence of dogma, appears to attempt to be vocal in
judicial appointment, explained at great length by David A.J, Richards (2010), ADL
(Publication of the Anti-Defamation League) (1994).
Demographics of
fundamentalism and Ideologisation
There are two groups in the American Christian
fundamentalist circle; denominational and doctrinal fundamentalist. The
differences between the groups do not end at demographics, but are reflected in
their ideological self-identification, while 64% of the doctrinal
fundamentalists consider themselves as conservatives, only 47% of
denominational fundamentalists identify themselves in this manner (Wilcox,
Clyde 1986). Although the ideology of fundamentalism is religious, it is not
just a religious movement and the notion is that not all violence is
fundamentalist and not all fundamentalists are violent (Steve Bruce 2008). In defining
what their ideology is, Mannheim (2009) claims that theories, norms, beliefs,
etc.., degenerate into ideology when they prevent a man from adjusting himself
at that historical stage and it is degenerated into an ideology when the Church
tries to maintain the interdiction and use it as a weapon against its opponent,
the bourgeoisie. That is true when religious people in America could not accept
new wisdom, ideas and knowledge, but instead so comfortable with their corrupt
ideology. On a deeper analysis, the central unifying ideology of
fundamentalist social movements is taking dominion over the secular
institutions of the United States in which they seek to gain political power
through the warmongering Republican Party, which they attempted to convert into
a party of theocracy where religion and politics have become inseparable (Hani
Montan 2012). At the extreme, Nicholas Kristof (2014), a New York Times
columnist, further reverberated the binary of the religious extremists during
an interview with Fareed Zakaria on CNN that extremist Muslims and extremist
Christians have in common the willingness to resort to violence and oppression.
It is thus problematic in politics when it comes to the ideology of religious fundamentalism
tending to manipulate over the politics.
The conflict of interest between religion and politics
During the second World War—specifically the struggle
between the rise of big government and the decline of religion in America,
soldiers, sailors, and marines as well as civilian back home depended on divine
protection and guidance through prayer and worship. But eventually the
Americans, with the success of science, turned to the belief that science could
solve all sorts of problems that became the paradoxical point for social
changes that faced American religion—threatening to silence the voice of
religion in the national political discourse (Frank Lambert 2008). This does
not mean that religion has lost the grounds and no longer relevant in the American
society. Yet, people are increasingly embedded in a thought that scientific
exploration and technological advances are the real means to their social
salvation. With that scientological advance in the most developed country in
the world, the United States have been so strong ever in religion as America is
a Christian nation that automatically defines Christianity as the national
religion according to Richard T. Hughes (2009, pp. 17-19). Methodologically
solving this issue of politics and religion, it is good to synthesize the
argument of Hassan Rachik (2009) that where political or religious conceptions
were in conflict, one of them had to win out because the fact that the
ideologisation of religion requires a pluralistic society where political conflicts
are the result of a more complex social structure. That is what accounts in a
democracy where the majority becomes a winner whether or not it is ideologically
contested, but so far Christian ideology is the dominant matters in America.
Binary Compromise: Toward Synthesis of Fundamentalist Dogma
With hypothetically following along the religious
line, religion is also playing an important role in the American political
life—by which power is procured and it can, in return, be lost. This is
undoubtedly enhanced by the evidence of an election campaign that underpins a clear
clue that religion and politics go hand-in-hand. When carefully assembling his
portfolio of issues for the 2008 presidential campaign, Mr Barack Obama chose,
prudently, to embrace religion, not disparage it, contended Wilfred M. MaClay
(2012). In addition, probables from the Old Testament of Christian Bible, Noah,
Abraham, Joseph, who were regarded as men of God show so much so that they did
fail to make their religion problematic with politics, yet, rather, at times
they used to intervene in public affairs—meaning that they were involved in politics
for the purpose of societal order to be restored. So, true to this principle,
the Christian religion in America as to its function in a shared public life
does not discriminate the black and white, Hispanic, Latinos and Asian no
matter who they are, where they are from. Nor does the system of Christianity
encourage to do so or never go beyond a good model of life. But there is an
issue inside with people who construe their religion in unusual approaches
because of their obstinate belief, doctrinal faith. Likewise, one of the
grounds for the appeal of this problem in terms of clashing with society and
politics, many fingertip at religious fundamentalists, who are imbued with
misperception or wrongful interpretation of the religion, not as it is, but as
their stubborn thoughts, as they came to clash with those who are dogmatic of
politics. In other hands, they lack critical analysis of what their religion
is, unfalteringly upholding principle or philosophy learnt from others. What
makes me realize in my mind in this regard is the experience of Mahatma Gandhi
on Christianity, saying that “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christian.
Your Christian are so unlike your Christ” by learning that dog and black are
not allowed to enter into the Church in while he was on tour in South America.
A corresponding to make the case against this view is that there are no such
discriminatory teachings in the Bible. This incident that faced Mahatma Gandhi
is not qualified to represent the entire society of Christianity. Rather, it
should better put the blame on the Christian fundamentalist sect, who formed a
community or society from the undiagnosed conviction of what their religion is,
straying far away from adopting the true principle of Christianity. This evil
dogmatism is clearly opposed to the social intercourse, but also destructively
poisons the society.
A dogma that becomes an evil-Satan
The ailing societal cancer is that many people think
they are always right and keeping their flawed ideology at all cost,
politically and religiously, rather than adopting good reasoning and better ideas.
Ceasing to carefully examine one’s belief and philosophy is too dangerous. In
fact, not only religion does not get away from dogmatic issues, but also does
politics. Look at issues pertaining to birth control, same-sex marriage and
contraceptives are the most remarkable examples highly contesting in the
American politics in which religious dogmatic people are enormously disrupted
and eventually opposed to the idea in the name of religion. Hitherto, many
states so far have passed legislature allowing those and somehow in resistance
of the religious fundamentalist’s attempt to dominate over the realm of
politics, argued Matthew Holden (1996). To extend his argument more in this respect,
it is so true that dogma is a belief that one is prepared to take
responsibility for deciding not to examine. What is more in other word is that
it is kind of blindly following without proper experiment of what it
is—undermining the reasonableness and the critically analytical assessment. In
summation, the characteristic of fundamentalism is the belief that they are
right and that others are simply wrong, even more they offer claims to
rectitude with a dogmatism that precludes any sort of question and any level of
doubt (T. Hughes, Richard 2009). At last not the least, while dogma can give
the holder a warm and comforting feeling of security in times of great change
and anxiety, it does not allow for growth and risking the old to find new ways
(Matthew Dowd 2013). Consequently, due to being too much religious and
fundamentalist in faith, many American Christians, young and elders are
increasingly suspicious of dogma; they instead seek spiritual experiences
outside of the walls of a house of worship. They are not atheist (Rob Boston
2014). In modern America, politics in fact have become unusually polarized
along religious lines because their idea of religion, which is centrally
attached to Jesus Christ, has changed radically over the centuries (Andrew
Koppelman 2013). Thus, the clash between the line is inevitable when this sort
of dogmatic people approach the works of politics from the unclinical religious
background or perspectives. Thus, the ideological extremism in religion, which
is defined as part of dogma, is a serious problem for the politics.
Concluction
As mentioned above, religious fundamentalism in
America when highly imbued with the dogma, although it is in nature not
problematic in politics, is likely to continue for, perhaps, another generation
not just because of successful penetration in lobbying within the political
hierarchical parachute, it is also because of the fundamentalism-woven culture
in American society. A dogma that blindly follows all the ideology of religious
fundamentalism plus the concepts of Christian rights, originalism and
patriarchism is indeed a problem for politics due to being dogmatic to accept
the reasonable and the changes that the society needs. To sum up, from a phrase
of Mr Steve Jobs during his speech at Stamford University on June, 2005 “Do not
be trapped by dogma—which is living with the results of other people’s thinking
and opinions” is critically important in today-fragile society in order to more
forward and to make a better politics.
Reference
1.
Kohut, Andrew & Stokes, Bruce
2006, “The Problem of American Exeptionalism”, Pew research center, edit May 9.
2.
J. Bernstein, Richard 2013, Is
politics practicable without religion, vol, 80 : no 1 pp 33-53.
3.
C. Layman, Geoffrey 1997, Public
Opinion Quarterly, vol 61, pp 288-316.
4.
A.J. Richard, David 2010,
Fundamentalism in American Religion and Law, Cambridge University press, New
York, pp 1-13.
5.
Wilcox, Clyde 1986, Journal of
politics, vol 48.
6.
Monton, Hani 2012, Death by
choice versus Religious Dogma, CreateSpace, Charleston, pp 138.
7.
Bruce, Steve 2008,
Fundamentalism, polity press, pp 7.
8.
Kristof, Nicholas with Fareed
Zakharia 2014, On GPS: Islamic extremism & women, CNN program, USA, 14 May.
9.
Holden, Matthew 1996, Continuity
and Disruption, University of Pittsburgh press, pp 78.
10. T.Hughes,
Richard 2009, Christian America and the Kingdom of God, University of Illinois
press, pp 17-19, 137.
11. Lambert,
Frank 2008, Religion in American politics, Princeton University press,
Princeton, pp 132-133.
12. Dowd,
Matthew 2013, How to get past political dogma, ABC news, 12 March.
13. Mannheim,
Karl 1985, Ideology and Utopia: An introduction to sociology of knowledge, New
York, Harcourt, brace and world, pp 85, 95-96.
14. Rachik,
Hassan 2009, How religion turn into ideology, The journal of North African
studies, vol. 14: no. 3/4 pp 347-358.
15. M.
McClay, Wilfred 2012, When is religion bad religion?, commentary, September,
vol. 134, Issue 2, pp 62-68.
16. Winston-Salem
Journal (NC) 2012, Gandhi on
Christianity, A Daily , March 20, pp 123.
17. Boston,
Rob 2014, Religion in America: Crisis of faith or crisis in faith?, The
humanist, January-February, pp 34-35.
18. Koppelman,
Andrew 2013, Defending American religious neutrality, Harvard University press,
Massachusetts, pp 175.
No comments:
Post a Comment