7/27/2019 Quakers Report

1/2

KAYZER ALDRIN Z. SABA 2005-21515

SACRED POLITICS

The Clash between Religion and Politics

The clash between religion and politics has been evident in the history of America.

Religious sectors have become detractors of politicians and their implemented policies towardthe state; on the other hand, the state leaders have been criticizing religious practices, and

centered on questioning the frequent involvement of religion in politics. Religion and Politics

differ in perspective, goals, and ways of influencing the people; religion is after the propagationof faith and teachings of the Holy Scriptures, while the state is after the benefit and development

of its citizens and surroundings not centered on spirituality. The common ground for the two

sectors is the promotion of ones interests.

Promotion of ones interest usually results to conflict due to irreconcilable differencesand goals. The proposed solution for the clash is the separation between the church and the

political affairs; in this case the religion is not allowed to intervene in matters concerning politics

in the state and vice-versa. Separation sounds very ideal, but history will prove that the church

has not been detached from the states political matters. Autonomy has been given to the churchyet it has intervened in a lot of political matters, using the religious dogma as justification. The

answer to the question whether there is a possibility that the church will be separated from thestate or not remains indefinite; the two sectors coexist with each other, and detachment may not

be possible if each will continue intervening in the affairs of the other.

In the field of history, narratives will show that many civilizations/countries attempted toseparate the church from the state, and one of the most remembered is the one that occurred in

America during the British occupation. America became a home of Roman Catholics and several

protestant sectors, like Puritans, Separatists, Baptists, and Quakers.1 Each sector had a different

view, but united with the idea of church autonomy from the state government. Theaforementioned religious sectors acted for the granting of separation; petitions were drafted and

trials were heard, until a declaration of church separation from the state was agreed upon.

2

Among the factors that triggered the separation was the lack of toleration of the establishedchurches for the new religions that were then flourishing; for example, the government of

England affiliated with the Anglican Church cruelty over non-Anglicans, which led to the

migration of some protestants to the United States; another example would be the RomanCatholics who hesitated to tolerate those who were not affiliated with the aforementioned

church.3Perhaps if there was more toleration and less intervention in church affairs, there would

be no strong call for separation; however, as aforementioned, it was impossible for the church

and the government not to mingle in the affairs of each, and so separation ideas promulgated.The call for a separation was not easy because of the variations of ideas by the different

religious sectors involved; however, the call for a separation also proved that religion was

powerful. Religion was considered to be a creator of American Nationalism;4 in this sense, it was

1 Jerome Reich, Colonial America (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1994), 53-54.

2George L. Alexander, Separation of Church and State retrieved fromhttp://www.friendsjournal.org/separation-church-and-state, 19 September 2008.3 Reich, 54.4 Henry Steele Commager, The Empire of Reason: How Europe Imagined and America Realized the

Enlightenment (New York: Anchor Press, 1978), 180.

1

http://www.friendsjournal.org/separation-church-and-statehttp://www.friendsjournal.org/separation-church-and-state

7/27/2019 Quakers Report

2/2

shown because of the interests of different religious groups to call for a separation, yet the

members worked together to achieve a common goal, the initiation of the petition.THE ROLE OF THE QUAKERS

Faith in the Inward Light implied equality among men.5 The Quakers believed that

God created men equally, and no one was more special than the other. The Quakers were also

guided by the principles of the Light of Christ and Divine Justice.6

With such principles, theQuakers were molded by the thought that no one should be oppressed and nothing was favored

more by God; human beings were responsible for their fate due to the actions and decisions.

Even in the case of women, only the Quakers [among the early religions of the America]tolerated their rights. Other protestant sectors practiced prejudice against women and hindered

the latter from involvement in church affairs; the Quaker was the sole sect that allowed womens

rights to be practiced and discrimination was not blatant.7 The Quakers were so liberalized and

permitted different practices to be done in their territory. Politics was also penetrated by theQuakers, despite the thought during the era of Charles II in England not to meddle with the

affairs of other people.8 The toleration belief was a reason why the Quakers initially protested

against political interference; however, the creed of the Quakers regarding lightand justice had

pushed political involvement.Initially, back to its English origins, Quakers were born out of radical thoughts; it was

also triggered by the call for social reform and religious crisis caused by political drives. TheQuakers also called for revisions on the existing laws and wanted the eradication of the poor

peoples burden. Despite the perils from the English government, the Quakers pursued their

mission of intervention in politics because of the welfare of the people; the Quakers were guidedby the ideology that God allowed them to participate in various affairs like politics.9 The

Quakers wanted to enliven their creed by engaging in several missions like correcting the

political affairs. The Quakers were always critical in the actions of the government because of

the possibility of violation of religious teachings. On the other hand, because of the observationsby the Quakers, the government also became stricter with the Quakers religious affairs and

practices. Quakers intruded in politics despite the threats from the government; religion was used

as a reason for such intervention using different creeds as justification, yet this interference of theQuaker was a proof that religion would not be estranged from politics; this status almost ceased

when Charles II was restored to power and the Quakers decided to let go of political affairs.

Ironically, religious sects in the America, prior to the arrival of the Quakers, wanted aseparation of church from political matters of the states despite involvement of such sectors in

politics. The instigation of the separation was participated by various groups like the Puritans,

Baptists, and Catholics. The call for the separation was a struggle but was partially successful. A

charter was created declaring the church and state separation after many years of struggle, yetpolitical intrusions of religious sectors did not cease. It would be good to study the factors that

triggered the call for a separation and the initial moves done by each sector; it would be

significant to know about what would be the role of the Quakers in the petitions, the revolts, andthe declarations done [being the focus of this essay]. It was evident that the autonomy of church

was desired, but the autonomy of the government from the church was inevitable.

5 Frederick B. Tolles, Quakers and the Atlantic Culture (New York: MacMillan, 1960), 36.6 David Elton Trueblood, The People Called Quakers (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1966), 75.7 Merle Curti, The Growth of American Thought (New York: Harper and Row Publishers), 189-191.8 Tolles, 42.9 Ibid, 40-42.