NOW that election season has begun, the role of religious groups is once again highlighted. Although election is not primarily about religion, but "the religious" have always been seen as power brokers. This proposition is a declaration of fact and not an ethical preference. I am not approving religious interference in politics. I am simply stating that in this country agents of a secular state have long benefited from sociocultural forces, religion included.
Am I then approving of religion's contribution to divisiveness? Frankly, I also don't think that it is religion that primarily divides us. In fact, cleavages in human relationships are for me pre-religious. Religion simply reinforces our divisions. It can be used to strengthen our defenses in favor of our convictions. When this happens, religion becomes oppressive rather than liberative.
Precisely why I don't think religion can be neutral when it comes to politics. No separation, regardless of how such a legal provision is articulated, can make religion neutral. Religion is not science, and it does not operate within the framework of pure logic. There are many value judgments involved in religion, in fact most statements of religions, if not all, reflect human values. This is not to say that it is inferior to science, it's just that we cannot expect it to speak about things in "absolutely" objective terms.
Because religion is not neutral then one cannot expect it "not to take sides." What should be expected of religion however is to take that side that "humanizes" things, politics to be specific. It is based on this premise that I disagree with what one priest (who belongs to a rather conservative Catholic group) says: "no cleric should be pro or against this or that politician." In principle, this is easier said. This priest may cite the provisions of his Church's Canon Law, but in the end, what is "said" is one thing, but what is being "done" is another.
I dare say that not even John Paul II was completely free from political bias. Even modern-day saints like Escriva de Balaguer were accused of favoring a certain political camp. It is true that religious leaders, a priest or bishop for that matter, are 'primarily' teachers of morality. However, morality cannot remain a pure principle. Precisely morality is morality because there is ultimately an element of application. A priest or a Church that can explain moral principles but cannot side with a politician in a specific or concrete situation where a choice should be made is like a teacher who insists on not giving examples, when asked by a student, because for him the theories are explanations enough.
It is true that the religious sector must work for unity and not division. Here, one may invoke what Jesus prayed for "that they may all be one." But one cannot naively limit or settle with this particular Scriptural quotation and make this as the end all and be all principle for Christian life in politics. Did not the Lord also say that he did not come to bring peace but division?
Under normal circumstances, religion must perform its prophetic role in the spirit of prudence and level headedness. However, this presupposes a political life that operates smoothly in observance of the democratic spirit and a well-functioning bureaucracy. But in countries or localities where corruption and killing are done even in broad daylight, a good pastor cannot but denounce the evils even if this would mean naming a particular politician.