The Encyclopedia of World Religions

politics and religion S 345

ists” believe that the Amendment erects an abso lute “wall of separation” between church and state or religion and government. “Accommodationists” believe that it prevents government from favoring one religion over another, but not from encourag ing religion. POLITICS AND RELIGION TODAY The former Soviet Union considered religion dangerous. Until its fall in 1991, it and its Com munist allies tried to eliminate religion entirely and promote ATHEISM among their people. Techni cally, the People’s Republic of C HINA recognizes freedom of religion, but at some times, such as the Cultural Revolution (1967–77), it has tried to eliminate religion, too. Much more common today, however, are efforts to reintroduce reli gion into government and to strengthen its role in government. Among Muslims the most famous example of such efforts is the Iranian Revolution. In 1979 Iranians overthrew the Shah, a secular ruler, and established an Islamic Republic, led by the Aya tollah K HOMEINI . In many other Islamic countries people have become frustrated with secular gov ernments, too. They see these governments as too Westernized. They also see them as lacking moral standards, in part because they have been dictato rial and financially corrupt. Many insist that the only proper government is one set up in accor dance with God’s law, S HARIAH . Political parties in states with Muslim majorities that had been very secular have successfully pursued such goals. An example is the Refah Party in Turkey ( see FUNDA MENTALISM , I SLAMIC ). The situation in India is a little different. To outsiders it often looks as if powerful move ments—the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh—are introducing religion into politics ( see FUNDAMENTALISM , H INDU ). Indeed, their policies have received strong support from some but not all sadhus and sadhvis ( see SADHU , SADHVI ). Per haps the most famous such supporter has been Uma Bharati (b. 1959); she has held many high government positions, including the position of

neither he nor other officials of the Roman Repub lic believed in the traditional Roman religion. Nev ertheless, they believed that it was necessary for them to perform the traditional rituals to maintain proper order in the state.

SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT

Starting in the Protestant R EFORMATION (16th cen tury), Europe experienced devastating religious wars. People who favored different kinds of Chris tianity fought and killed one another. As a result, some philosophers began to claim that religion should be a private matter, not a matter for gov ernments. Some Christians advocated this view, too, among them Anabaptists such as M ENNONITES , members of B APTIST CHURCHES , and Q UAKERS . These groups argued that governmental support harmed religion. It meant that people adopted a religion because they had to, not because they were com mitted to it. Like other governments at the time, most British colonies in North America began with official religions. For example, Massachusetts was a Puritan colony. In the early days it exe cuted Quakers and sent Baptists into exile. But both Rhode Island, founded by exiles from Mas sachusetts, and Pennsylvania, chartered to Wil liam Penn (1644–1718), a Quaker, rejected the idea of an official religion. Some but not all of the founders of the United States also rejected the idea of an official religion. For example, Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) and James Madison (1751–1836) did; George Washington (1732–99) and John Adams (1735–1826) did not. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits an “established” or official religion. Originally, how ever, it applied only to the federal government. Massachusetts was the last state to give up its official religion. It did so in 1833. Today many other countries in the world have no official religions. Two notable examples are France and India. But opinions differ on what exactly separation of religion and government means. In the United States people interpret the First Amendment in two main ways. “Separation