Religion and Government: A Distinction

St. Augustine, in his work City of God, asserted that state was both a product and a remedy of sin. We are bound to commit sins, so we need an authority to guide us towards a good life.  Nevertheless, in our nature as a man who is bound to commit mistakes, how can the state be a good steward, considering that there can be evil leaders like that of Machiavellian Prince?

Thus, this paper will present arguments that will show that it is a must for an authority to be guided by morality, as inflicted by religion, in its every decision but not to the extent that religion should mingle in its authority and functions. 

According to St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica, the king is the one who leads the people towards the common good which is virtuous living to attain the enjoyment of God. Hence, for the king to be able to live virtuously, he has to be guided by the divine law or the written law and interpretation of God’s wisdom. However, what if there are many religions in a place like the Philippines? Should the government just favor one? In that case, it will not be a common good or a general will like what Rousseau argued since it only sides one particular idea. Then what religion should guide the king? 

This problem addresses the need of a religion as only a medium of expressing advice by groups of believers but not necessarily control or manipulate the government.  The government will only listen to these opinions and see the intersection of these ideas or extract the general will but, still, will be the one to decide what should be done.

Thomas Hobbes, in his work The Leviathan, agreed that there was a Christian Commonwealth. It is a group of leaders united under the authority of the leviathan who is the leader of the state. Hobbes’ The Leviathan also says that religion is needed to be controlled so that it would not be a threat to the sovereign power. For instance, in the case of Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines, the Roman Catholic Church goes against it. This is the reason why the government cannot exercise its power in pushing this bill. But, if we will be thinking, the Catholics threat the power of the government who just want the good of the people. 

The Philippine government, meaning to say, is not able to control the Catholics in mingling in its exercise of authority. Their opinion becomes a mandate which is very dangerous to the legitimacy of the government. We also have to be reminded that the Catholics we are talking about here are those who are in position of the Church and therefore, not everyone’s nor the majority’s decision. Moreover, we cannot allow the Catholics to be the sovereign since other beliefs are present too like the Protestants, Muslims, Iglesia Ni Cristo and a lot more.

Additionally, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract says that religion is good for it binds community, institutes morality (no religion teaches bad deeds) and makes one love his duty. It also says that we can tolerate all kinds of religion as long as it is not contrary to the general will. Hence, if all religions are allowed, it follows that nothing of it can command the government since they are many and thus, have various ideas. Religion can only advice one to do good and make one love his duty but not to the extent that it, itself, mandate the general will. 

As a conclusion, every religion is good since no religion teaches bad deeds. Therefore, it is a good medium of teaching morality. But, since everyone has its own religion, it is better to just intersect each ideas to be able to come up with a general will.  Consequently, that general will will be the one to mingle in the affairs of the government in insuring order and unity but not the religion itself.  The affairs of the religion, therefore, cannot mandate the authority and should be separated from those of the government.