Addressing Criticisms of Religion As Government Control
The criticism that religion functions as a tool for government control often arises from observations of historical and contemporary societies where religious and civil authorities are closely intertwined. However, various theological perspectives offer nuanced views on the relationship between religious principles and civil governance, often distinguishing between legitimate moral influence and illegitimate coercive control.
One perspective, articulated by Charles Hodge, suggests that Protestant Christianity has historically formed the basis of common law in certain nations, including England and the United States [1]. This view posits that civil law naturally reflects the moral prohibitions of the dominant religious tradition, such as laws against polygamy or arbitrary divorce [1]. Hodge argues that this is not merely a matter of judicial decision but a reflection of societal facts, asserting that "Protestant Christianity has been, is, and must be the law of the land" within the appropriate sphere of civil authority [1]. From this viewpoint, the influence of religion on law is seen as organic and foundational, rather than an imposition of control.
However, this does not imply a state-enforced religious conformity. Hodge also emphasizes that no individual should be compelled to profess any faith or join any religious association [2]. The demand for a government to operate on the assumption that Christianity is false, or that there is no God, is deemed unreasonable because it is practically impossible for a society to disregard its foundational moral and religious convictions [2]. Governments, according to this view, are inherently bound by a moral law that precedes and transcends their legislative power; they cannot legalize actions like theft or murder, regardless of potential benefits, without deserving universal condemnation [4]. This moral obligation stems from the nature of humanity as moral and religious beings, and governments that violate these convictions risk tyranny [3].
John Calvin, a key figure in Reformed theology, also addressed the role of civil government in relation to religion. He argued that the purpose of civil government is not merely to enable people to live together in peace, but also to ensure that "no idolatry, no blasphemy against the name of God, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offences to religion, break out and be disseminated among the people" [8]. This suggests a role for government in upholding public religious order, which could be interpreted as a form of control, but Calvin also distinguished between spiritual and civil governance, noting that human laws cannot bind the conscience in the same way divine laws do [9].
The idea of a "holy priesthood" and a "righteous ministry" is seen by some as a blessing to the state, as it positively influences public morals, fostering order, sobriety, and industry [5]. Conversely, a profligate clergy or false religious principles are considered detrimental, capable of destabilizing a kingdom and leading to destructive revolutions [5]. This perspective highlights the societal benefits derived from religious institutions that promote virtue, rather than focusing on religion as a mechanism of state coercion.
Concerns about government control often arise when religious observances are enforced by civil laws, especially in societies with diverse religious opinions [6]. For instance, requiring non-Christians to respect the Christian Sabbath can be seen as an infringement of equal rights [6]. However, some argue that if a government were to actively disregard a widely observed religious day, such as the Lord's Day, by conducting public business as usual, it would constitute an act of tyranny that could justify rebellion [7]. This suggests a delicate balance where the state acknowledges prevailing religious customs without necessarily enforcing specific religious doctrines on all citizens.
Sources
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 46: basis of the common law of England, and is therefore of the law of this country; and so our courts have repeatedly decided. It is so not merely because of such decisions. Courts cannot reverse facts. Protestant Christianity has been, is, and must be the law of the land, Whatever Protestant Christianity forbids, the law of the land (within its sphere, i.e ., within the sphere in which civil authority may appropriately act) forbids. Christianity forbids polygamy and arbitrary divorce, Se does the civil law. Romanism forbids divorce even on ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 46: for his religion or for his want of religion. No man is required to profess any form of faiths or to join any religious association. More than this cannot reasonably be demanded. More, however, is demanded. The infidel demands that the government should be conducted on the principle that Christianity is false. The atheist demands that it should be conducted on the assumption that there is no God, and the positivist on the principle that men are not free agents. The sufficient answer to all this is, that it cannot possibly be done. The Dem”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 46: safer for a government to pass an act violating the laws of health, than one violating the religious convictions of its citizens. The one would be unwise, the other would be tyrannical. Men put up with folly, with more patience than they do with injustice. It is vain for the potsherds of the earth to contend with their Maker. They must submit to the laws of their nature not only as sentient, but also as moral and religious beings. And it is time that blatant atheists, whether communists, scientists, or philosophers, should know that they ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 46: between right and wrong. It cannot legalize theft and murder. No matter how much it might enrich itself by rapine or by the extermination of other nations, it would deserve and receive universal condemnation and execration, should it thus set at nought the bonds of moral obligation. This necessity of obedience to the moral law on the part of civil governments, does not arise from the fact that they are instituted for the protection of the lives, rights, and property of the people. Why have our own and other Christian nations pronounced th”
- 1 Kings (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on 1 Kings 13:34: And this thing became sin - These abominations were too glaring, and too insulting to the Divine Majesty, to be permitted to last; therefore his house was cut off, and destroyed from the face of the earth. A Holy priesthood, a righteous ministry, is a blessing to any state, because it has a most powerful effect on the morals of the community; inducing order, sobriety, and habits of industry, among the people: on the contrary, the profligacy of the clergy, and false principles of religion, are the most likely to unsettle a kingdom, and to bring about destructive re”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 46: there is in the United States an entire separation of the Church and State, it is contrary to the genius of our institutions, that the observance of any religious institution should be enforced by civil laws. It is further objected that as all citizens have equal rights irrespective of their religious opinions, it is an infringement of those rights if one class of the people are required to conform their conduct to the religious opinions of another class. Why should Jews, Mohammedans, or infidels be required to respect the Christian Sabba”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 46: that it had nothing to do with religion, disregard that day, and direct that the custom-houses, the courts of law, and the legislative halls should be open on the Lord’s Day, and public business be transacted as on other days, it would be an act of tyranny, which would justify rebellion. It would be tantamount to enacting that no Christian should hold any office under the government, or have any share in making or administering the laws of the country. The nation would be in complete subjection to a handful of imported atheists and infide”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 102: among men being not less than that of bread and water, light and air, while its dignity is much more excellent. Its object is not merely, like 2653 those things, to enable men to breathe, eat, drink, and be warmed (though it certainly includes all these, while it enables them to live together); this, I say, is not its only object, but it is, that no idolatry, no blasphemy against the name of God, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offences to religion, break out and be disseminated among the people; that the public quiet be”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 74: if they can be bound with the chains of laws and constitutions at the pleasure of men. But as the knowledge of this subject is of the greatest importance, so it demands a longer and clearer exposition. For the moment the abolition of human constitutions is mentioned, the greatest disturbances are excited, partly by the seditious, and partly by calumniators, as if obedience of every kind were at the same time abolished and overthrown. 15. Therefore, lest this prove a stumbling-block to any, let us observe that in man government is t”