Only a naive or excessively secularized view would refute the intertwined way in which religiosity and politics mix. Since the 16th century, so as not to go back too far, there are many examples of an intertwined relationship between beliefs and political positions. The history of religious and political freedoms, necessary and founding aspects of a series of rights, is marked by conflicts and conciliations that impact people's decisions.
Every person, even those who do not profess any religion, lives in a social and cultural field marked by foundations systematized by religions and, at the same time, by public debate guided by the political field. If asked to participate in a plebiscite on behavioral issues, for example, people tend to explain the clashes between their lives and private beliefs and the duty of public demonstration.
Faith, more than an individual phenomenon, is manifested collectively and, therefore, is in public life. The separation between Church and State, formally established, was carried out in the wake of religious freedoms and in defense of freedom of worship. In representative democracies, the principle of recognition of all beliefs and religions ensured a field of action in which religions can intervene in civil or political issues. The State, except in those where there is no religious freedom, is not very secular and lives under frequent threats from political-religious forces.
About tolerance in intolerant times
Religious discourse is rarely tolerant. When classifying actions as sinful or heretical, there is an ambiguity about the acceptance of religious freedom that is proclaimed in times of secularization. For the faithful, coexistence with people who act in different ways is not easy. Indifference or contempt is a risk for those who have unshakable convictions.
The challenge for some groups is to establish the limit to incorporate differences and, at the same time, preserve their religious identity. The Catholic reaction in the modern period, with the reinforcement of the Holy Office court, was the demonstration of a militant Church that sought to combat heretics and maintain its doctrine, for example. The greater the demonstration of this force, with exalted rituals, the greater the fear of the institution and the greater the propaganda that was carried out against the Church itself, as in the texts of the 16th century humanists who condemned these practices. The defense of religious freedom increased in debates among intellectuals and contributed to the loss of prestige of the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther's vision, despite its importance for the achievement of individual freedoms and conscience, was not very distant from the Church he fought against. His theory of grace and the notion of sin existing in the world made him defend a double sphere of jurisdiction: the spiritual, in which the just and elect are protected; and the temporal, marked by impiety and the risks of evil spreading throughout the world and, even so, the faithful must also obey the temporal power. The survival of his movement, more than a theological issue, required the approval of monarchs and other earthly authorities.
Religious discourse in the modern period also boosted rebel groups. The existence of a sacred text that would legitimize the action of the faithful and the existence of human and “imperfect” laws gave rise to radical movements inspired by the Bible. In 1912th century England, as historian Christopher Hill (2003-1618) analyzed, the relationship between “the parchment and the fire” played a considerable role in the popular revolts between 1648-XNUMX. Freedom of interpretation of the divine text encouraged rebellious movements against the nobility and clergy. The faith of the common people, subverting the authority of the clerics, was the driving force behind a popular rebellion against the established system, but let us not forget, driven by the belief that their demand was sacred, as they would be the holders of the true faith.
From freedom of belief to fanaticism that threatens freedoms
Modern states have created political mechanisms to ensure individual freedoms, including religious freedom. The principles of tolerance and secularism were achieved at different moments and historical processes.
The autonomy of the private sphere, which marks issues of faith, and, at the same time, the expansion of public actions that, for example, would limit the power of religions in topics such as education, public health or cultural issues, created a history of continuous tensions. At the heart of the modern State is the tension between the autonomy of choices and the guidance of collective destinies.
With the exception of authoritarian states, which deny religious freedom, or theocratic states, which deny the autonomy of political life, there are profound impasses between religion and politics in current societies. In Brazil, one of these areas of dispute is the discussion about gender theory. Philosopher Judith Butler was the target of protests during her recent visit to São Paulo. The mention of inquisitorial bonfires reveals the obscurantism and risks embedded in the supposed freedom of expression of those who defend doctrines that deny the principles of secularism.
Public opinion is formed by complex elements that are even contrary to people's respect and dignity. Plurality and coexistence between groups will always be threatened if any group considers itself above good and evil, if any group asserts itself as a spokesperson for a supreme or enlightened truth, whether religious or political.
Messianisms are a real threat to coexistence within a plural State. When these messianisms become hatred and go beyond the boundaries of legality, the old demons resurface and are ready to burn all who are different. Like women accused of witchcraft, we are vulnerable to the foolishness of those who, in the name of resentful morality, want to put an end to coexistence between people with different habits, practices, beliefs and world views.
The tension between politics and religion can only be dissipated if the limits and respect between their fields of action are firmly respected.
