Historically politics was religion. Rulers tried to bend religion to their will (think Henry VIII) but ultimately it was the Church, the imams, the rabbis who were in control. Religion was never an ethical politician, countless offences have been committed in its name, but it did have some sense of ethical leadership, however misguided. The trouble today, in my view, is that religion has been displaced from its role as ethical leader, largely through its own shortcomings, or among fundamentalists, its perversions. As you so eloquently put it, it has now become a tool for politicians, rather than a framework guiding their actions.
As usual, you leave the most thoughtful comments. I would agree that religion has been displaced from the role of promoting ethical leadership, but it does seem like we're perhaps also fighting our natural inclinations to use it as a battering ram (as we have for millennia) rather than letting it change the hearts of individuals.
The way both parties interface with religion is a good deal more complicated than that, and neither priests nor kings had the coercive power of a modern nation-state in a world without mass media and miniscule literacy. To take one example, queer male sex was essentially tolerated by Christians (and others) as a form of de facto birth control until the printing press made it possible to put whole populations on notice.
There have also always been clerics who speak truth to power, sometimes with negative consequences, sometimes not. Bishop Ambrose famously barred Church doors to Constantine until the actual Roman emperor crawled on his knees in sackcloth to atone for a massacre.
It's a fine sentiment, but the narrative soars above ground reality a bit overmuch.
Historically politics was religion. Rulers tried to bend religion to their will (think Henry VIII) but ultimately it was the Church, the imams, the rabbis who were in control. Religion was never an ethical politician, countless offences have been committed in its name, but it did have some sense of ethical leadership, however misguided. The trouble today, in my view, is that religion has been displaced from its role as ethical leader, largely through its own shortcomings, or among fundamentalists, its perversions. As you so eloquently put it, it has now become a tool for politicians, rather than a framework guiding their actions.
As usual, you leave the most thoughtful comments. I would agree that religion has been displaced from the role of promoting ethical leadership, but it does seem like we're perhaps also fighting our natural inclinations to use it as a battering ram (as we have for millennia) rather than letting it change the hearts of individuals.
The way both parties interface with religion is a good deal more complicated than that, and neither priests nor kings had the coercive power of a modern nation-state in a world without mass media and miniscule literacy. To take one example, queer male sex was essentially tolerated by Christians (and others) as a form of de facto birth control until the printing press made it possible to put whole populations on notice.
There have also always been clerics who speak truth to power, sometimes with negative consequences, sometimes not. Bishop Ambrose famously barred Church doors to Constantine until the actual Roman emperor crawled on his knees in sackcloth to atone for a massacre.
It's a fine sentiment, but the narrative soars above ground reality a bit overmuch.