Fr Daniel Cardona, Paola
Religion and politics. Do they mix?
The proper relationship of religion and political life in a pluralistic society has always been a very thorny question. And a very delicate and complicated one.
It is a question that many who are interested in this field ask but are never able to reach a consensus on.
We must ask ourselves whether, in a pluralistic society as ours, it is appropriate for citizens to argue on religious grounds for the political positions they favour. Are such grounds for argument compatible with a liberal democratic tradition? Why should citizens who are members of a religious group be required to set their faith aside when entering the political arena?
Certainly they should respect the freedom and integrity of conscience of those who are not their co-religionists.
But are not their own freedom and integrity violated if they think that their faith is of import for political life and they are prevented from acting on that conviction?
One of the basic principles of democracy is that the political process ought to reflect the views of all citizens. Why should the political process not reflect religiously based political views as political views formed on non religious grounds?
Might such reliance, despite the dangers inherent in it, be necessary to the maintenance and development of liberal democratic values? What position should we take with regard to religious political discourse?
The matter of religion and politics is complex, not simple, though it may sometimes appear simple to the simple-minded.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
10 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
B Agius
Aug 21st 2008, 12:32
Marvin Mizzi started with what appears to be comments regarding spirituality - he then moved to religion. They are two vastly different subjects - in Malta it is easy to find many examples of the latter and it is generally cultural religion - churches-festi-over adorned churches and priests etc etc If that's the religion we want to ascribe to - well and good-everyone is entitled to their foibles!
Marvin Mizzi
Aug 21st 2008, 08:10
Religion is part and parcel of a person -- not even an atheist can say that he/she is areligious. Religion is not just be being Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu -- it is the search for for every being to know the supernatural and find the truths. So no one can pretend to remove religion from one's life it is not a matter of being modern or conservative. People have different ways to express their religion and no one cans say to others that his/her way of expression is wrong. A nation is formed by people with their rights of expression so as long as it does not interfere with individuals or groups there is nothing wrong with a state declaring its association. Religion is a way of life and cannot be remove from our lives. We are a Catholic state but every has the right to express his or her religion -- so please even a Roman Catholic can express his/herself no exception and so if the PM and the party in government have their ideals the people voted for all the package they carry. So let everyone express his/her beliviefs in a civilised way no exception.
George Caruana
Aug 20th 2008, 19:13
As long as the state institution/s do not promote any particular religious faith, neither use one as a premise for public policy, nor hinder citizens from worship or convey religious arguments (as long as they do not step upon people's rights), then citizens can think and write whatever they like on any relationship between any entity. This would be a true secular state, with total separation of church and state, and one that would be highly beneficial to the same church.
Andrew Gatt
Aug 20th 2008, 16:30
Well, actually I think politics and religion share a lot of common ground - most of it bad!!
Top heavy institutions, narrow minded beliefs, unwillingness or inability to change, too much secrecy, fanaticism, hypocrisy, protectionism, immunity from various crimes, privileges denied to the common citizen, fossilised mentalities, and so on. Most major religions are too heavily intertwined with politics and vice versa.
Of course they're happy bedfellows in many countries! Each has too much to lose. Each fears loss of authority, power, influence......call it what you will!
Joe Tabone-Adami
Aug 20th 2008, 15:22
Solid ethical reasoning - no matter how it, or its proponents, get scoffed at.
Peter Green
Aug 20th 2008, 14:54
Fr Cardona has every right to demand that in Malta religion and politics are mixed. Malta is one of the few remaining fundamentalist catholic states in the world were its religion is enshrined in the constitution. The church party PN has been running Malta for a quarter of a century. Dr Gonzi is the nephew of the famous bishop that made sure the church rules are imposed on the state and I believe Dr Gonzi used to manage the Azzjoni Kattolika group. People voted for GonziPN thus voted for catholic fundementalism.
So please forget divorce for the next 25 years!
B Agius
Aug 20th 2008, 12:43
Fr Cardona is a member of a religious sect living in a country that still allows it (the sect or church) to enjoy many privileges long dead in other more advanced countries. The change is happening in Malta too albeit slower than in other places. But it will happen there too and then priests and others representing religion will have to concentrate on what their business really is as although some simple minded people will continue to confuse the issue, more of them will forget about the subject as the issue becomes as irrelevant as what the priests themselves think.
j n ebejer
Aug 20th 2008, 12:28
Give to God what it's God's and to Ceaser what is Ceaser's ..... are we not mixing religon with income tax now? and what is God's and what is Ceasers? Or is it about divorce which this quote from the Christian bible been taken ?Now, is not quoting a religious book mixing religion with state?
It seems Fr.Cardona has some point to say it is not that simple.
Well, at least this is a start. We are seekig out whatever quote from the right sources may shed light on the subject.
Hopefully this continues without having us called wanting a totalitarian religious integralist state if such sources are religious books.
What we need is the proper interpretation of those sources. The person needs to be educated to do so, sincere and wanting the better for all not his own personal agenda, wishes or needs.
Edward Zammit
Aug 20th 2008, 12:11
Between 1478 AD and 1834 AD there was no policy but from the Church, and any who opposed it would have felt the iron fist of its great protector, The Spanish Inquisition who for the safekeeping of morals and the holy institution,, we know the rest.
In modern days we have other examples of this mistake, The middle east is one such example were Muslim clerics impose on Governments their religious laws thus preventing the countries from certain degrees of progress and sometimes there is even a yawning gap were human rights are involved.
Let me point out that I have nothing against one's personal beliefs be it what it may, but a personal belief is meant to remain personal, and it is for you only to choose to be on the side of be it God, Ishvara, Allah, or Tetragrammaton.
To me it seems that the way to save one's soul is totally within his own ways in life and it should be kept that way. If a Government wants to legislate something new to its country so be it. There is always one important factor. It's up to you to choose what's good for your soul.
D.Vella
Aug 20th 2008, 11:50
"Give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caeser's".A far simpler man than you or me said that Fr Cardona when questioned about the separation of Religion and the State. Need more be said?.