by The Norwegian

For many people, religion has an indispensable place in society. Its exact place in society however has largely remained debatable. For some, politics and religion are simply incompatible. Regarding religion and politics there are two extremes. One view simply seeks to eliminate religion out of politics. This view has several supporters even today; those who believe that politicians should stay away from religious issues, while pastors should stay away from political issues. It has had several supporters for a long time. John Locke was one of those who sought to draw a line between religion and politics. His is one of those positions that this paper will concern itself with. The other position is that seeks to marry religion with politics. This view as already indicated tends to go to another extreme. It nonetheless has been subject of great discussion within the field of rational thinking. Jean Jacques Rousseau is one philosopher who supported this kind of idea. So what is the point that these two are trying to make in their arguments? Why are their positions totally different?

Locke and Rousseau

The most fundamental question that one could ask is; what have these two philosophers to offer regarding the relationship between the state and religion? The greatest achievement that both Locke and Rousseau made was not so much that they offered models of ideal society, but that they brought into light some of the complex issues regarding the two most important elements of human life namely, religion and state. Both brought an exposition of the complexities involving the relationship between state and religion in a way that few have ever done. The fact that these things elicit serious discussions even today attests to their nobility of thought. They in other words ignited a flame of thought which several people today find delight in discussing. Even though both existed at a time when religion was still highly dominant, they were unafraid to express what they saw as the right way to follow. One might say, however, that one was only reacting to the thought system of the other. What seems to have been their most important commonality is in the area of tolerance. For Locke toleration means everyone is able to do what they consider right based on the fact that all are essentially free. For Rousseau toleration is seen in the light of religion and state interests. For him tolerance comes not only in religious matters but in both religion and state. “Wherever theological intolerance is admitted, it must inevitably have some civil effect” (Rousseau 8)

Rousseau considers that religion is totally crucial for the proper functioning of any society. The role of religion for him was to bring unity in the society. For him there are three kinds of religion. There is the religion that is pure and true, which focuses on the moral demands, and which can be rightly called natural divine law.  It lacks the physical elements typical of other religions. It involves the person in his relationship with God. There is also another kind of religion, which is particular to each country. This kind of religion is indicated by the state, and it comes complete with dogmas, and all the rites typical of a religion. The laws and dogmas governing this kind of religion are designed by the law. This is a civil kind of a religion. Rousseau calls this Civil Divine Law. Rousseau considers that governments were free to uphold such beliefs as eternal life. The last one is a bit difficult to follow. This is because it offers dual codes to those who subscribe to it. Christianity falls into this kind of religion. It preaches a life in a different world, thereby reducing this world into a lesser one. This religion is destructive of unity, because it leaves people confused and torn between following diligently the faith they profess and the citizenship that they allege. Any kind of a system that is destructive of the bonds of society is totally unacceptable. It is important therefore that people follow the second kind of religion because this religion brings about the marriage between the law and the divine. “The second is good in that it unites the divine cult with love of the laws, and, making country the object of the citizens’ adoration, teaches them that service done to the State is service done to its tutelary god” (Rousseau 8).

Locke sought to draw a line between the authority concerned with matters of this temporary world, and the world that is expected which is the spiritual. For him, the persons that are charged with the responsibility of guiding people in as far as the goods of this world are concerned should not claim to have the authority to direct people even in matters of non material eschatological world. This for Locke is informed by quite a number of reasons. First, God has apparently not given anyone power to determine the way of salvation for others, and this includes deciding for anyone which religion to follow. This is informed by the awareness that there is an abounding responsibility in every individual to seek after their own salvation. This is done in the freedom that is inherent in nature (Locke 10). He says that no one should give up their right to seeking individual salvation to the determination of the leadership of the country, or the judicial officers. “Now that the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to these civil concernments, and that all civil power, right, and dominion, is bounded and confined to the only care of promoting these things; and that it neither can nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls” (Locke 10). One cannot follow any belief whatsoever without fully being convinced mentally that this is the faith that will likely offer them salvation. Resigning one’s right to the whims of the judicial officers then would reduce the individual to a subject of the politicians. This would already take away the liberty that is at the core of human subsistence. Worth mentioning is the fact that even the judicial officers also have the responsibility of saving their own souls. The heart of any religion is actually deeply rooted in the full conviction of the believer that whatever they hold in their mind is exactly what is required of them by God and that that is what they should do. The power of the political leadership is entirely external.