God's Political Agenda

Richard Ostrofsky
(June, 2010)

Most religions teach that killing is wrong. Yet most religions also carry a
political subtext that people will kill and die for – that make wars and
inquisitions and democides all but inevitable. At the outset this subtext is
utopian, aiming at spiritual transcendence, moral reform, and a better life
to come. Later on, it is often imperial, aiming to legitimize the state, the
regime, and the current ruler. Almost invariably, religions (including
secular ideologies as well) become banners that people wave and swear
allegiance to, defining an Us against an alien Them. Groupiness is a trait
of human nature, and not of religion per se. Yet the religious impulse plays
to this trait and plays into it, and makes it that much more virulent and
lethal than it would otherwise be. Attitudes of compromise, tolerance and
live-and-let-live become that much more difficult when people feel that
their gods and their immortal souls are in the reckoning, along with their
material interests.
An important distinction can be drawn here between the political
agendas of religious leaders and institutions, and those of the religion
itself. Religious organizations and their incumbents have much the same
interests as secular ones in maintaining – or extending where possible –
their revenues and power and privilege. But the religion (its gods
themselves, so to speak) will typically have political agendas of their own,
even before they get properly organized, and enter into whatever alliance
with the state and its secular powers. The character of Christianity
changed when Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman
Empire – much as the character of Buddhism changed when Asoka took it
up as the official religion of Maurya India. But even before Constantine,
Pauline Christianity had pursued the distinctly political goal of
amalgamating Greek ideas with Jewish myths and values into a system
intended for world-wide proselytizing, while Jesus and his followers had
already preached a love-centred version of Judaism, and made themselves
a political nuisance to the the Jewish and Roman authorities. Before
Asoka, Buddhists had organized a monastic order and preached the Noble
Eightfold Path as a way of life and basis for society.
What I want to say here is that no study of comparative of religion can
be complete without a study and comparison of their various political
subtexts, and that no personal spiritual quest is truly conscious and
responsible without recognition and appraisal of the political agenda one is
buying into. Beyond that, I want to say that both history and current events
become much more intelligible when these political agendas are kept in
mind. Of course, there is no space here to do them justice, and I am not
enough of a scholar to attempt that project any case. All I can offer here
are a few impressions of some key subtexts and agendas that seem
important today:
Various 'pagan' religions served to bind agricultural peoples to a given
patch of soil, and to the rhythms of the seasons. They also served to
reconcile their peoples to the tedium of agricultural work – teaching them
to see themselves as slaves of the gods and not as the free hunters and
gatherers that they had been earlier.
Judaic monotheism seems to have begun partly as an attempt to sustain
the collective identity first of a nomadic people, and then of a people in
diaspora. Of necessity, it had to be a portable religion – a religion of 'The
Book' – and not of graven images and statues. Its political subtext evolved
(and seems almost designed) to block assimilation and assert a collective
superiority against the sedentary neighbors amongst whom its followers
travelled and often settled down.
Christianity began as a reforming Jewish sect, in resistance to the
legalisms of rabbinic Judaism. Later, it developed as the official religion
of imperial Rome – aspiring to be a universal ideology for the entire
Mediterranean world. And why stop there?
Islam developed first as an Arabian resistance movement and then as a
counter-imperialism to the Roman and Persian imperial projects on whose
fringes it began. It thrives today in much the same capacity against the
American, Russian and Chinese imperial projects of our own time.
I don't know enough about the history of south east Asia to have a
clear sense of the political agendas of Hinduism and Buddhism. My guess
is that Hindu polytheism played a major role in assimilating successive
waves of invasion of the subcontinent, while its caste system served to
stabilize a bewilderingly fragmented society. Buddhism may have begun
as an essentially agnostic, rationalizing and universalizing response to that
existing situation.
Confucianism, which might be seen as a religion of social order got its
start in the Warring States period as a response to the prevailing chaos. It
was taken up and sponsored by successive Chinese dynasties as a means
of legitmizing the empire and maintaining social order. In this same role, it
seems to be making a come-back in modern China, even now.
In general, the political agendas of the world's religions can be traced
to three main sources: the dreams of their founders, the customs,
aspirations and self-serving distortions of their followers, and the
ideological needs and preferences of their elite patrons. Dreams as such
are private, but they become very powerful when (with whatever
modification) they mobilize the enthusiasm and devotion of others.
Religious leaders are such only because and to the extent that their dreams
are able to do this. But compromises with human nature and the ambient
culture must get made even in the original preaching as very few, really,
are prepared to lead the life of a mystic or a saint. The Master has to gauge
his message carefully, and pitch it skillfully to attract the followers he
wants.
At some point, a thriving belief system will attract the attention of the
leaders of secular society – the wealthy and the powerful. These may seek
to crush it if it is a nuisance, or even as something that they cannot fully
control. (The Falun Gong in China today would be a case in point.) Or, on
the other hand, they may seek to domesticate the movement, and co-opt it
for political purposes. With varying degrees of sincerity, they may even
'convert' and join the movement themselves. We need not think of
Constantine or Charlemagne or Asoka as cynics or hypocrites. The human
mind is quite capable of believing things just because they are convenient
or pleasant to believe – and quite capable of believing in the political and
social advantages of belief itself.