Religion Within Politics

Thomas Hobbes and john Locke were both enlightment philosophers who use the state of nature as a formula in political philosophy. Both Locke and Hobbes had tried to influence by their sociopolitical background, “to expose the man as he was before the advent of the social life” (). Locke and Hobbes addressed man’s relation to the society around him; however, they came to different conclusions regarding the nature of human government.

Believing in an idea that regulates everyone’s life, will influence all aspects of everyone’s life. One simply cannot live a “Christian life” solely involving religion and divide themselves when they deal with politics. Thus believing in anything shapes each individual as a person: creates their boundaries, defines morality, and what is just and unjust. Therefore, religion will always be tied into politics. Consequently, I am researching the inevitability of the two seemingly separate ideas overlapping and impacting one another.

Locke and Hobbes are both famed political philosophers whose writings have been greatly influential in the development of modern political thought. In addition, the two are similar in that both refer to a “state of nature” in which man exists without government, and both speak of risks in this state. However, while both speak of the dangers of a state of nature, Hobbes is more pessimistic, whereas Locke speaks of the potential benefits. In addition, Hobbes speaks of states of nature theoretically, whereas Locke points out examples where they exist.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are comparable in their basic political ideologies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. The resemblance between Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies are based on a few characteristics of the state of nature and the state of man. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are often viewed as opposites, great philosophers who disagreed vehemently on the nature and power of government, as well as the state of nature from which government sprung. Hobbes’ Leviathan makes the case for absolute monarchy, while Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argues for a more limited, more representative society. However, though they differ on certain key points, the governments envisioned by both philosophers are far more alike than they initially appear. Though Hobbes and Locke disagree as to the duration of the social contract, they largely agree in both the powers it grants to a sovereign and the state of nature that compels its creation.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were two main political philosophers during the seventeenth century. Hobbes is largely known for his writing of the “Leviathan”, and Locke for authoring "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Included in their essays, both men discuss the purpose and structure of government, natural law, and the characteristics of man in and out of the state of nature. The two men's opinion of man vary widely. Hobbes sees man as being evil, whereas Locke views man in a much more optimistic light. While in the state of nature and under natural law, they both agree that man is equal. However, their ideas of natural law differ

The United States of America has the most diverse religious population in the world. In places like Iraq, Syria, Israel, Afghanistan, Yemen, and other countries too numerous to mention, countless lives are lost over religious differences. In America, a Protestant can live happily next door to a Jew, who might live across the street from a Muslim, or a Catholic, or a Sikh, or even a Humanist! This is in no small way attributed to the fact that the US Constitution’s First Amendment includes what is known as the establishment clause, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” effectively separating affairs of religious institutions from secular,

Thomas Hobbes was a divisive figure in his day and remains so up to today. Hobbes’s masterpiece, Leviathan, offended his contemporary thinkers with the implications of his view of human nature and his theology. From this pessimistic view of the natural state of man, Hobbes derives a social contract in order to avoid civil war and violence among men. Hobbes views his work as laying out the moral framework for a stable state. In reality, Hobbes was misconstruing a social contract that greatly benefited the state based on a misunderstanding of civil society and the nature and morality of man.

I started my search based off my long held interest in politics, and the issues that affect the way we govern. So I boiled that down to the entities that decide when and what we govern. Political Parties. After I had my subject I looked at the three things I believe political parties play a role in. The three areas of interest I chose were our political parties role in our history, economics, and religion, and what factors in those areas determine how political parties’ function.

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

While Hobbes’s mechanical treatment of religion illuminates its power as a social force, he has little use for it as a direct path to true salvation in the traditional, spiritual sense. What religion demonstrates to be instead is a delicate ingredient of man’s historical being; an element for the sovereign to recognize and embrace as an ancillary for fostering social harmony. He understands its classical, pragmatic benefit of engendering fearful obedience to the sovereign and reverence for the law, as well as the sense of responsibility it forms within the individual.

What justifies political legitimacy in a society? By comparing the two readings assigned one can discuss the differences in political theories expressed by both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. In, Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, and in, The Second Treatise of Government, by John Locke different theories of political legitimacy and definitions of the state of nature are described. The following paragraphs analyze multiple different points that are imperative to understanding these political theories.

Generalising, all of our physical senses are stored as subconscious memories – the people, objects (even apparitions and the supernatural), etc. which may appear in our dreams are comprised of our knowledge of the external reality. Memory fragments are ubiquitous in all forms of cognitive processing – stored memories enable the brain to construct mental content. As a result, an individual’s perception will vary according to the memories and knowledge accumulated by the physical senses since birth, and consequently, as Stephen Covey asserts: “We see the world, not as it is, but as we are, or, as we are conditioned to see it.”

In this essay, the contrasting ideas of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on liberty will be discussed and critically analyzed.

In this course, I found the connection between religion and politics the most important concept we’ve studied. With engagement and understanding of politics becoming increasingly important, it’s valuable to study the ways people both interact with politics and form their political opinions—and as we’ve seen, religion can play a huge role in both of these aspects. However, the way religious groups engage with politics can perhaps be generalizing when discussing major religions, seeing as these groups are often widely diverse and brimming with unique experiences. Therefore, I believe it is just as important to discuss the political dimension of religion with the social influences of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and the interrelations between them.