The Role of Religion in Politics: Opinion

Forced conversion undermines both faith and social trust. Under democratic theory, there must always be a separation of church and state.

Credit: @JoJoFromJerz on X/Twitter

This past summer, I made the decision to be baptized as a Christian, a choice I had previously been uncertain about.

Over in the “land of the free,” as the Americans call themselves, Protestant Christianity has been mutilated, twisted, and malformed, used to support a corrupt tyrant who was unable to name a single verse despite calling the Bible his “favourite book,” not even the well-known John 3:16 or Psalm 23.

As such, the “main” sect of Christianity I was constantly seeing was one that used the name of Jesus in vain, consistently choosing to deport rather than embrace their neighbours.

I only agreed to be baptized after a drastic reframing; rather than just a declaration, I wanted my baptism to be a challenge, or in other words, an ethical, moral standard to constantly strive toward.

As part of my testimony speech, I quoted Isaiah 1:16-17, which states:

Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.

The Separation of Church and State

Under Western democracy, at least in theory, there is a supposed “separation of church and state.” The Bible (and other religious texts/sacred books), in my view, should be used for personal reflection rather than as firm, state-enforced law as in theocracy.

In many cases, theocracy, if installed, would also be illegitimate. In the case of Christianity, people (i.e., flawed sinners) would be placed in positions of power and “represent” God. Given the wide range of scriptural interpretations, this is an easy road to corruption. Without even considering Orthodoxy and Catholicism, Protestant Christianity has numerous sects, each with their own understanding of the Bible.

This sectarianism was seen in the past with biblical Pharisees, and today, through modern MAGA Christian nationalists and Christian Zionists who seem unable or unwilling to differentiate biblical Israel (and Judah) from the ethno-state founded in 1948.

Further, the idea of forced conversion is unbiblical, unethical, immoral, and reflects colonial practices (e.g., Crusades, Doctrine of Discovery, etc.). Despite this, many Christian nationalists have suggested its use by law. Mikale Olsen, contributor to The Christian Post, wrote the following:

Forcing non-believers into church doesn’t create [worshippers]. It creates rebels. You aren’t building the Body; you’re building a mob against the Body.

Even the “success” of the forced conversion during the Crusades is widely debated. Simha Goldin writes:

[In] many cases, Jews anticipated the onslaught by Christians and killed themselves before the latter succeeded in forcibly converting them or in killing them. In this way, a considerable number of Jews killed themselves and even their families and children.

Under cognitive dissonance theory, the “be Christian or die” ultimatum would likely be considered a high-reward scenario (i.e., continued survival), and as such, this would actually reduce the likelihood of genuine belief change, instead fostering stronger aversion or secret resistance (e.g., crypto-religions).

Finally, I will briefly mention Texas Senate Bill 10 (SB 10), which State Representative James Talarico pointed out the irony of—Republicans had passed SB 10 on the Sabbath, breaking the Fourth Commandment.

History shows that forced conversion undermines both faith and social trust. This is precisely why religion, if it enters politics at all, must do so as a matter of personal conscience, not as a weapon of enforcement. Scripture should be used to guide individuals toward compassion and justice.

---

---