Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Role of religion in politics
Establishment of christianity in rome essay
Conclusion on the rise of Christianity in Rome
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Role of religion in politics
In cultures all over the world, religion has been in existence in many societies and has become intertwined with said societies while maintaining equilibrium between religion and their daily lives. Once religion makes its way into government, the effect and use depends on the person who is in power. As seen in history, especially in Rome, it is important for a society to have a governing power that also incorporates and knows how crucial the part religion plays in order to uphold a successful nation. From Machiavelli’s, Discourses on Livy, the importance of religion is emphasized, but it is noted that Christianity set a precedent in being separate from government causing vulnerabilities in a nation, whereas from St. Augustine’s, City of God, believed that all other religions, other than Christianity, should not be taken into consideration and that passion and unscrupulous ambition are Roman imperfections. These two authors had opposite ideas about how religion should play in the part of government, but only Machiavelli maintained a more realistic point of view ergo religion is vital for the success of a nation, but in Rome’s case, the presence of Christianity led to the downfall of Rome by separating Church and State instead of being one unified body, balancing government and religion.
St. Augustine was a devoted believer of Christianity and could not see any wrong in their principles, but Rome was never the same in strength and unity after Christianity came to power, which means there is some kind of problem. According to St. Augustine there is a City of Man and a City of God, but only the City of God is all mighty because the City of Man is flawed. St. Augustine describes these two cities, “In the one, the princes and the nat...
... middle of paper ...
...ising the idea that religion is required to have success, Christianity could not mesh with government causing religion to fail. Resultantly, religion and the government must be one or else there will always be a barrier that separates the citizens.
Machiavelli had a much more reasonable idea where religion and government can be one unifying element, whereas Augustine seemed to have too much pride in his religion to see their faults. Rome has always been successful with religion since the model that Numa set, but once Christianity came to power it turns into an entirely new story because Christianity and Rome was not able to merge to work together because their ideals were different. This separation between the Church and the State eventually led to the fall of Rome. Rome will never be the same ever again as long as this rift and the struggle about virtues remain.
Religion is a huge part of Rome’s structure. But when conflicts of religions surfaced, failure rose. Religion may not seem like a huge issue, but actually, it is one of the biggest problems known in history. This, along with poor leaders and urban decay, has contributed to the decline of Rome. Without a strong leader, there is no empire.
Between the years 600 CE and 1450 CE in Europe, there was only one thing that stayed constant, and it was the Roman Catholic Church. The church remained a major influence on the people of Europe and the majority of the region continued to believe every single thing that the church preached. The only thing that did not stay constant was who had the power over the church and how the church made sure that everyone was following their rules that they had created. The church had varying teaching over the course of many years. It was also used as a tool for the rulers of that time.
The Church dominated political thought through thinkers such as Augustine and Aquinas. In The Prince and The Discourses, Machiavelli breaks from the early Christian tradition of thinkers such as Augustine in his work City of God. Augustine lays out the characteristics of a good Christian leader while Machiavelli issues a scathing criticism of such characteristics and the Christian faith in general. Augustine takes a moral approach while Machiavelli remains rather pragmatic in his approach.
Samuel Preus’s article “Machiavelli’s Functional Analysis of Religion: Context and Object”, written in 1979, places Machiavelli’s “understanding of religion as typical” in Renaissance Florence. He argues that for Machiavelli, “religion was something that demanded scrupulous attention, but its importance derived from its impact on the causes of men’s actions, not from its truths.” Machiavelli’s “religion” was a broad term embracing all human attitudes and actions occurring with reference to a divine order… “Depending on circumstances, religion could function as social glue or lubricant in others when Machiavelli wished to inaugurate new laws.” Machiavelli argued that religion should not only maintain the status quo, but could also be called upon to authorize major innovations and new institutions. Machiavelli’s attack on the pope in the Discourses places him in close proximity to the Reformers, making Machiavelli almost a pre-Reformer. The religion the Papacy offered, subverted Florentine republicanism and liberty. Preus sums up his article by naming Machiavelli a methodological atheist and his writings on God and religion fall into the ironic trend of Machiavellian
In the end, although they come from two very different ends of the spectrum, free will and the secular state are places of common ground for Machiavelli and Luther, which is supported by their similar views of human nature and the order of how things should be. It is interesting that when each of their viewpoints is applied to the Catholic Church, it reveals a very different view of the Catholic Church; although Machiavelli would view it positively and Luther negatively, the juxtaposition truly emphasizes the success of Machiavelli's strategies. Although Luther's work did have an impact on the Church, it still continues to thrive. It is interesting that for two authors who have many similar views there would be a serious conflict in this area.
With the decline of the Western Roman empire Western Europe was a disjointed land that had no true unifying structure till the rise of Christianity. In Roman antiquity people used the State or empire of Rome to define themselves and give them a sense of unity despite having a diverse group of people within the empire. When Western Rome fell this belief based on a Roman cultural identity disappeared and no longer were people able to identify themselves with any particular group as they once have. The Christian religion was able to fill this vacuum by having the people associate themselves to a religion instead of a given state or cultural group. During Medieval Europe Christianity became the unifying force that would define what it meant to be European. Christianity gave political leaders legitimacy by showing that they have been favored by the gods. The clergyman that recorded the histories surrounding the kings of the Medieval Europe also provided a link to the Roman Empire to give the Kings a link to Roman empire of antiquity. Christianity became the center of the cultural life in western Europe and created a new social elite in Europe which would dominate literacy and knowledge within Europe for centuries. Christianity provided Europe with an escape from the disorder of the Medieval ages and give them a spiritual outlet for their fears and desires for a better life, whether in the physical life or in the spiritual world after death.
As the greatest empire in the western world began to crumble one city at a time, the leader of the Roman Empire, Constantine, under pressure from external and internal sources moved the capital of Rome to Constantinople around 330 AD. The movement of the capital was after his conversion to Christianity in 312 AD, a growing religion throughout the empire despite being officially illegal. Constantine was not the devote saint that the church may speak of today, “from 312-320 Constantine was tolerant of paganism, keeping pagan gods on coins and retaining his pagan high priest title "Pontifex Maximus" in order to maintain popularity with his subjects, possibly indicating that he never understood the theology of Christianity” (Ferguson & Grupp, 1998). The first Christian Emperor claimed to have converted after a victorious battle with his brother and there are many that corroborate this story it appears highly suspicious to only promote Christian ideals and worship. Constantine was not even the Emperor that made Christianity the religion of the Roman people, but simply permitted religiou...
Rome was a major power because it always made certain its own military prowess was preeminent. There have been many ideas presented as to the fall of the Roman Empire. Many believe that Rome declined morally and the violence and decadence of the societal norms led to the demise. Gibbons has been credited with the theory of the influence and transference of Christianity over the Roman system of Gods and Goddesses that perpetrated the fall. Another theory lays the blame at the feet of the Emperor, that the happiness of the people and the functioning of the government was directly correlated with the personal merit and management skills of the reigning authority. This 10 page paper argues that the imperialistic tendencies of Rome over time and the pre-eminence of military expansionism in the latter stages, was the deciding feature of the "fall". Bibliography lists 7 sources.
St. Augustine has taken Plato’s notions, and have furthered the implications of living a life that strives towards a common good. In the City of God, the purpose of a citizen’s existence is to pursue an alignment with God, rather than to seek a common good. Through an alignment with God, there is no need for political regimes or any form of governance. This solves the issues that Plato and Aristotle disputes concerning the best regimes.
In the Medieval times, the Roman Catholic Church played a great role in the development of England and had much more power than the Church of today does. In Medieval England, the Roman Catholic Church dominated everyday life and controlled everyone whether it is knights, peasants or kings. The Church was one of the most influential institutions in all of Medieval England and played a large role in education and religion. The Church's power was so great that they could order and control knights and sends them to battle whenever they wished to. The Church also had the power to influence the decision of Kings and could stop or pass laws which benefited them in the long run, adding to this, the Church had most of the wealth in Europe as the Church demanded a Tithe from all the common life which meant that they had to pay 10 percent of their income to the Church. The Church controlled all the of the beliefs and religion of the Church as they were the only ones who could read or write Latin and as such could decipher the Bible and scriptures which gave them all the power to be the mouth of God. The Legacy of the power and the influence of the Church can still be found, even today in modern times.
In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the critical role religion plays in the formation and maintenance of political authority within a system. He further states that religion is a beneficiary in establishing political authority and urges political leaders to endorse and support religion for them to maintain power. Machiavelli says that although the political authority must strive to remain secular, abhorring any form of religious influence, it needs to appear quite the opposite to the perceptions of citizens. The government needs to utilize faith-based organizations to keep the people pious by instilling the fear of God rather than that of the state to prevent the people from despising the leader. In turn, doing all these
Augustine’s contention that man cannot possibly come into truth by reason in his temporal life constitutes his initial departure from the ancients, and results in the need for an entirely new structuring of the relationship between man and the good. In differentiating between the nature of God and man, Augustine argues that man’s nature—unlike God’s—is corruptible, and is thus “deprived of the light of eternal truth” (XI, 22) . This stands the thought of Plato on its head, since now no amount of contemplation and argument will be capable of getting man closer to a truth that exists on a plane that “surpasses the reach of the human mind” (XXI, 5). If reason is an instrument as flawed as man himself, how, then, is man to know the supreme good if he is forced to grope blindly for it in a state of sin without any assistance from the powers of his own mind? It is this question which serves as the premise for Augustine’s division of existence into the City of Man and the City of God and articulation of a system of vice and struggle against vice that keeps man anchored to the City of Man and prevents him from entering the City of God in temporal life.
In several ways, Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages shared in their approach to dealing with the infidels living in their lands, particularly in their proclamation of legal edicts defining the level of toleration and the protection offered those nonbelievers. Yet, however similar the two society's legislative relations were in managing minority faiths, there still existed minor fundamental differences stemming from disparities in their societal structure.
For thousands of years, religion has exerted a great influence over economic and political life. Even today religion is called upon to support rulers, contacts and other legal procedures.
The role of religion in politics is a topic that has long been argued, and has contributed to the start of wars, schisms (both political and religious), and other forms of inter and intra-state conflict. This topic, as a result of its checkered past, has become quite controversial, with many different viewpoints. One argument, put forth by many people throughout history, is that religion and the government should remain separate to avoid any conflicting interests. This view also typically suggests that there is one, or several, large and organized religions like the Roman Catholic Church, which would be able to use their “divine” authority to sway the politics of a given state by promising or threatening some form of godly approval or disapproval. By leveraging their divine power, individual figures within a religion, as well as the religion as a whole, could gain secular power for themselves, or over others. A second view, which was developed by many theologians through history, suggests that that without religion there would be a general lack of morality in the people and leaders of a given state, which would give way to poor political decisions that would not be in the interest of the people and perhaps even God (or the gods). This argument, however, does not address the fact that morality can exist without religion. In sociology, it is commonly accepted that social norms, which include morality, can result from any number of things. Religion, laws, or the basic desire of survival can all create these norms, so it suffices to say that as a society, our morals reflect our desire to live in relative peace through the creation of laws that serve to help us to survive. The argument of whether or not religion and politics should mix...