Compare and contrast the views of any two thinkers on the role of religion in politics - Marx - Hampsher-Monk

For J.S Mill, religion played rather a different role in politics. Influenced not only by his father and Bentham (Famously known for his theory of Utilitarianism), but also realised the need for spiritual growth from the romantic poets such as Goethe. For him Christianity was an example that gave us an ‘ideal representative and guide of humanity’ and that it would be hard ‘to find a better translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete’. Far from encouraging deception it would allow us to fortify humanity and fight against the world’s evil.

Marx in his writings continually uses the analogy of religion to further explain his theory on politics.  He pursues the concept that money is similar to that of God, it is seen as  a measure of value, which in turn takes away the inherent value of other things.  Hampsher-Monk suggests that desires and real experiences cannot be enjoyed or even acknowledged unless they are expressed in currency terms, and there is possession of money.  He suggests that this ‘human worth a function of their wealth’, which is similar to the religious ideal that we are respected according to the properties of our God. The idea that salvation can only be found in God, in economic terms money is the same, as is needed for existence.

‘The abolition of religion as an illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness’.  For Marx this meant that the people will not concurrently find contentment in denouncing religious worship, but instead suggested that by giving it up, they would thereby enable themselves to deal with the real source of their alienation. This idea is again later reiterated in communism e.g. by overcoming the division of labour the need for religion will disappear.  In the writings of Marx it is perhaps better to conclude that religion should be seen as a placebo, rather than a panacea.  Religion’s ethic of submission, not only suits the bourgeoisie, but also acts as a class ideology for the proletariat and retains the status quo.

Mill’s believed that religion could lead to improvement well beyond the short span of a human life, but perhaps run the course of human existence.  Unlike Marx, he deemed it possible to offer ‘the imagination and sympathies a object to satisfy ant reasonable demand for grandeur of aspiration’

During much of Marx’s writings he uses the Prussian state as an example of the importance of religion in politics. Though the state itself was not based on Christianity thus making it a religious state, it supported a form of Protestantism.  He criticised many of his contemporaries, especially Bruno Bauer’s contention that with the abolition of all religion would lead to political emancipation.  Marx’s reasoning lay behind the existence of other states that co-existed with religion, such as those in North America. Ling also indicates that there may be a more sinister use of religion by the state, in encouraging the acknowledgment of such debatable ideas that religion throws up, as the truth and therefore should be accepted without question.  It was this political condition that triggered off the state to require religion to be worshipped that Marx saw as the greater importance.  The reason why the Prussian state bureaucracy encouraged a Protestant doctrine was to protect:

‘it against profane attack because the members of that bureaucracy

recognised the valve of such theological ideas as a means of

justifying the economic inequalities of their contemporary society’.                                                                                                                  

In this discussion of ethnical theory ‘Utilitarianism’ , Mill again discusses religion and its impact on society, and therefore society. Religion argues Mill is responsible for producing external motivations responsible for promoting happiness, one of these is God, and the hope of delighting him or the fear of displeasing him.  Religious feelings create in people a sense of duty, which is an internal motivation for happiness, this duty makes us feel remorse when we act against feelings not promoting happiness.