Political Science

For quite a long time, political philosophers have concerned themselves with the question of religion in politics and vice versa. One thing that seems very certain however is that, most of them agree there should be a clear demarcation between the two. In the past, religion and politics seemed to interfere with each other when either seemed to claim authority over the other. Religion derives its authority from a source totally different from politics, and the two should not be confused. It is quite true however, that religion affects the way politics is conducted, to a large extent. Both Plato and Locke dealt with this issue in a very broad way. In The Republic, Platos Socrates addresses this issue in book II and III in his critique of Homeric gods and heroes, while Locke on the other hand provides an extensive ground for toleration among the various Christian groups as well as the separation of religion and politics in his famous Letter on Toleration. Socrates noted that there was a tendency by the poets, particularly Homer, to impose things upon the gods, such that the gods were capable of both evil and good. This was a major reason for Socrates attack on Homer. Locke on the other hand condemned the hypocrisy of the various Christian groups in their attempt to force people to accept their position. His letter was an attempt to state the importance of tolerating each other amid the differences. This study has as its main focus the comparison of these two thinkers, and the establishment of what each as religions greatest challenge to political life. Furthermore, it seeks to discuss what each considers as the appropriate way of dealing with these challenges.

Plato and Locke
One of the major issues that Socrates dealt with in Book II and III of The Republic was the critique of the poets representation of falsities as though they were representations of reality. Homer is one such poet who seems to have irritated Socrates most. During his time, poems played a very important role in as far as the education of the young people was concerned. The poets also had a lot of political issues addressed in their pieces of work. According to Socrates, at stake were the young people whom he saw as having been of prime significance in the establishment of an ideal state. He contended that in order to properly discern the good, these young people needed to be instructed in the ways of the good. Homer was one of those whose teachings tended to mislead the young people. He felt that it was important to represent in accurate way, all matters pertaining the gods. The contention in Socrates was that religion was used to advance evil deeds and thoughts. He felt that the poets worsened the situation by their writings. Homer for instance was quoted as having claimed that it was possible to move the gods by prayer. This meant that people could do all sorts of evils in the knowledge that they can always go to the gods in prayers and sacrifice (Plato 390a). In other words, Socrates was arguing that the teachings of the poets in as far as religion is concerned were misleading. Noteworthy is the fact that the discourse in this case was aimed at the establishment of an ideal republic. He remarked that it was difficult to attain this when the poets were teaching that justice and moderation were the fair things to do, while on the other hand claiming that it was easier to do the opposite. He notes that the poets made it clear that injustice was sweeter and easier to acquire. In so doing, Socrates felt that Homer was giving strength to the vicious side of live at the expense of the virtuous (Plato 364d). If a digression is not made from the original goal of the discourse, one realizes that such claims were very damaging if the ideals of the new state are anything to go by. At the same time, the poets also tended to identify with those who were well to do, regardless of their evil nature. Furthermore, they tended to look down upon the poor and the just. Socrates further reckoned that these poets recognized these lowly ones as being better than the wealthy and evil, yet they are not willing to identify with them, a fact does a lot of damage to the importance of justice. This placed a lot of emphasis on the goodness of injustice. In other words, although the poets acknowledged the importance of justice, they were not ready to accept it as the way to go, because inwardly they were weak and unwilling to stand by it.

Socrates asserted that these people were guilty of misrepresenting the gods, because they argued that the gods were responsible for the misfortunes and ill fates of the good as well as the bad people. Furthermore, they argued that the gods were also responsible for the success and good fortunes of the bad that also happened to be rich and mighty. Homer had claimed that there were two jars that stood on the threshold of Zeus. One of these was filled with good and the other with evil. The gods could give a mixture of the evil and the good to some, to others either of them (Plato 379d). Socrates argued that such doctrines must not be taught to the young people if the vision of an ideal republic was to be realized. The claim that the divine was the cause of all things was accordingly dismantled. It was not possible for the gods to author evil things, because it would contradict their nature.

The poets had further claimed that the gods had been occasionally involved in fights among themselves, and that such fights had their effect on human beings. Socrates saw this as having been totally misleading. Furthermore, the gods are depicted in Book III as easily altering their forms in order to appear in disguise to the human persons. These gods are capable of deceptive tricks, as well as having been responsible of sending messages in dreams to mortals (Plato 382c). This led Socrates into a serious onslaught of the poets. The danger that Socrates saw in this argument was that if such teaching was propagated, it would bring about discord and be a ground for conflict among the young people

The religious men of the time also assured the rich that it was the gods who made it possible for them to enjoy whatever riches they had. This meant that the gods were at the service of these rich people. It was possible, according to the heroes, to obtain purification and deliverance, both in life and in death, through sacrifices and rites. This was seen as a gross understatement of the reality of the gods, which made it possible for the people to further their unjust practices. For this reason, Socrates saw the need to correct the errors caused by Homer and other poets. He argued that these were responsible for grossly misleading the young people. He further proposed that all such teachings would be eliminated from the education system in the republic, especially with regard to the young people.

In Book III, Socrates took offense with Homer for the unfair representation of Achilles. Homer had considered him as a person who loved money, one who was seen in bad light by the gods. Homer further said that Achilles was distraught and was filled with lamentation in Hades. Socrates was very angry with this reference to a person who had been considered such a noble individual. He noted that this was one of the heroes of the city and as such, it was important to set him as a role model to the young. Representing him as Homer did was surely not going to allow such a possibility (Plato 391c). The danger with this Homeric representation was that it was very likely to lead the young people, who were being groomed in order to assume protective roles, into cowardly attitudes.

The poets had further advanced that those that suffered punishment were wretched and that as such this was an act of the gods. He felt that it was necessary to see this kind of punishment as a beneficial thing to the ones undergoing it (Plato 380a). Socrates further argues that all poetry must be at the service of virtue. In other words, it must not encourage fear or cowardice. This meant that poetry that presented the heroes wailing and lamenting over what had befallen them was out of place in the ideal state.

It was also wrong, according to Socrates, for these poets to imitate the heroes or the gods suffering any of the extremities of emotions, because these were incapable of emotional excesses of any kind. At the same time, they do not suffer conflict in the spiritual realm. In this case, Socrates is simply saying that the world of tragedy is not acceptable and no further representation of the same should be allowed, because it is both false and misleading. Socrates and others were involved in a discourse regarding the ideal state. In order to effectively achieve this, they young people would need to be strongly motivated, because only could take up roles in this ideal state. It was important therefore that the heroes that are presented to them be presented as having been positively so. The images of the gods also need be positive, because that was their true nature.

It would be wrong in the ideal republic therefore, for a poet to say that great majorities of the happy people are unjust, or that majority of the wretched are unjust. It would be further unacceptable that people argue for injustice on account of getting away with it. Homer was simply unaccepted by Socrates because he imitated all things, that is, both good and bad. Only those who imitated the good could be accepted into the ideal state.

Like Socrates, Locke understood that there was the possibility of the religious being forced into the political. In his letter, Locke noted that the prime role of religion was the direction of human persons towards the attainment of piety and virtue. In order to sufficiently do this, Locke asserted that it was necessary for Christians to have more than a surface conviction of what they believed in. During his time, Locke had noted that Christians were acting in cruel manner towards other Christians, under the pretence that it was the will of God. The zealots for instance, punished others with greater brutality than they did their own. Therefore, there was need for a uniform application of the rules governing the various belief systems. He saw that since there were a number of churches, it was necessary to exercise tolerance, rather than assuming that one was better than the other. Everyone has a right to join whatever religious group they will, and no one should be judge over the other. This is important because these judgments were responsible for the cruelties that were advanced in the name of God.
A major concern for him was that there was a contradiction of some sorts especially with regard to the use of force while at the same time claiming to be under the guidance of charity and love. Locke noted that those who did not subscribe to a similar line of thought were stripped of their estates and other rights. These things are considered out of the place in as far as the glory of God was concerned. It was also apparent that the people suffered greatly at the hands of particular groups, which negatively affected the pure image of the church, as well as the end which is salvation of the individual souls. People were during Lockes time compelled, with a sword and fire in one hand and with the scripture on the other, to follow the dictates of religion. This he felt constituted a grave error because unlike the civil authority which has the capacity to invoke punishment for civil offenses, religious authorities lacked in this. Furthermore, it was not possible to force a belief to someone, because it would be meaningless for their salvation.

Locke saw that some Christians tended to pretentiously cover their unchristian cruelty as well as their spirits of persecution under the blanket of obedience to the laws. He further asserted that it was proper to remind oneself that Christ demanded persecution as a cost of discipleship, but did not declare that the church should be the administrator of this persecution. Furthermore, Locke saw a lot of interference by the religion on matters of the state. This was brought about by the religious conviction that each was the right religion, which prompted each to force the other to adopt its doctrines, even at the political level.

To this extent, there is some convergence with Socrates thought in that both saw that the religious authorities tended to misrepresent the divine. Both seemed to attack the claim that the divine was capable of evil things. Both of them seem to oppose the claim that material things are acquired as a reward from the gods, because as such, the implication would be that the gods are capable of atrocities and evil. It is not possible according to both Socrates and Locke, for evil and good to persist in God, because as such, this goes not only against the principle of non contradiction, but also the nature of God.

Further, Locke argued that the claim that the Church should only be considered as such if it existed in a certain apostolic hierarchy was considered unimportant. The reasons for this according to him was that Christ did not, by means of any edict, impose such law as the condition for the foundation of the Church.

Locke noted that there should be no one imposing ecclesiastical sanctions against persons who do not follow their rule. This is because, essentially, everyone enjoyed a certain degree of liberty. However, Locke also noted that due to the fact that people voluntarily subscribed to the membership of various churches, it was within the power of those churches to exercise intolerance to members who did not abide with the laws that they voluntarily subscribed to. However, this intolerance was to be exercised only to the extent of excommunication of those members. There should be no other form of punishment imposed upon that member, because no one has the authority to do that.

He asserted that even when individuals differ in terms of religion, they ought to exercise tolerance among each other. This equally applies to the various churches. This is important in that it allows for peace, friendship and equity among peoples. This seems quite similar with the Socratic argument for a unity among the gods. Since the various Christian groups worshiped the same God, it was unreasonable, in Lockes view, to constantly engage in warfare with each other.

In order to ensure toleration, Locke asserted that the division between the religious and the civil ought to be very clear (Locke 26). In order for harmony to be realized, each ought to stay within their mandate. Worth noting is the fact that Locke lived during a time when a lot of religious persecution was being experienced across the world, especially with the introduction of the reformation theology. He believed that only such a move would ensure peaceful co-existence. Locke offered several reasons why there should be a clear separation of religion and state. Socrates had earlier argued that it was important for each individual to do only what was within their jurisdiction and expertise. This meant that when each did what they were best suited to, there would be a peaceful co-existence among all persons. Lockes argument was aimed at ensuring harmonious co-existence among the Christians and the non Christians. When a particular religion seeks supremacy over another, the danger is that each tends to fight for its own space, leading to unnecessary bloodshed and discord. This was the reason why Locke proposed tolerance among the various religions.

The first argument presented by Locke against the interference of religion by the magistrate is that, there is no single individual with God given authority to force others into their religion. The magistrate himself has a duty to seek after his own salvation. Basically, what Locke is saying is that religion demands mental persuasion otherwise belief would be impossible (Locke 26). He argued that such a worship that is a result of coercion, rather than genuine conviction amounts to a contempt of the divine majesty of God.

Another argument for separation of the two is that, the magistrate has only external force, which is insufficient to internally persuade the people to conversion. Even if he were by means of this force, to confiscate an individuals entire estate, it would not be enough to internally persuade that individual into joining their religion. Conversion as such requires good will of the person, not penalties (Locke 27).

Locke further argues that even if an imposition of penalties were capable of bringing about conversion, it still would be insufficient for the salvation of souls. He further argues that the religion of the court offered no hope for heaven, which is the destiny of religion (Locke 27). If the civil authorities were allowed to use their power to force conversion, it would allow for an individual country taking over the role of converting the world. Locke noted that if such a thing was allowed to happen, the notion of God would be grievously tainted. He concluded thus, that the civil governments enjoyed power only in as far as the civil interest of men was concerned and as such did not enjoy any power over anyone respecting matters of the salvation of souls.

Conclusion
Both Socrates and Locke were concerned with ways of eliminating the misleading information by religious teachers, which in several ways affected society. In Socratic time, this affected the establishment of an ideal state. During Lockes time, it was a major source of religious intolerance further advancing grave cruelty among Christians. A major issues that Socrates dealt with in Book II and III of The Republic was the critique of the poets representation of falsities as though they were representations of reality. This was seen as having been detrimental to the establishment of the considered ideal state. Politics could not be separated from virtue. During Socrates time, poetry was considered as having been extremely important for the education of the young people. A number of issues have been raised, on the basis of which, Socrates found fault with Homer. Although this poet was considered great by his contemporaries and his predecessors, Socrates found him to have misled the people by misrepresenting the gods and the heroes. Socrates saw as having been at stake the young people whom he saw as having been of prime significance in the establishment of an ideal state. If the young people are to understand and appreciate the good, it was necessary for them not to be instructed in contradicting ways, otherwise the ideal state would not have enough people to take care of the varying needs.

Locke saw the need for a separation between the state and religion. It was noted that there was a lot of intolerance among Christians during his time. He argued that it was necessary to tolerate each other, because all religions could rightly claim orthodoxy, and as such there would be no criteria to establish which one was the legitimate religion. This is the reason why religion needed to be very clearly separated from the state. The civil authorities did not enjoy any powers in religious matters, as long as the religious practices were not restricted in secular matters. Likewise, the various religions did not have any civic authority over either their members or other individuals. Therefore, both would agree that if everyone remained within their jurisdictions, there would be a peaceful co-existence among the peoples.