Church and State
When I try to think of solutions to world problems in my mind I end up with a headache, in an absolute state of confusion, which brings me right back to the same problem I started out with. It is like a confusing arithmetic problem that I don?t quite understand but all many possible solutions come to my mind, but the light bulb has just not went off yet. I know it would be highly impossible trying to solve world hunger or to have word peace, but there is one world issue that I do feel strongly about, it is advocating the separation of church and state-globally. This is a hard task to undergo so we will start with a country dear to my heart that lacks this certain concept, that country is Egypt. When I was young I saw Egypt as a country with problems but I could never identify the heart of the problem until I was a bit older. I came to a conclusion that Egypt?s government system falls behind in many aspects because of the way the government is set up, being that their church and state is combined. Being that Egypt has an Islamic government there are many Christians that are persecuted for what they believe. In my opinion when church and state are combined whatever religion it may be it will directly prefer the people that follow that particular faith, which will not give people of others faiths a chance to reach their full potential, because they do not believe in the same religion. Also with church and state combined it will eventually corrupt the religion and the state, because in some way or another it will be selective towards people of that faith and not prove correct justice. In this paper I will advocate the separation of church and state, according to Kant?s categorical imperative. Taking in account possible objections to his philosophical concept in regards to religion.
The first rule in the categorical imperative is: ?Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.? (421) When taking in account universal law Kant believes when a person acts they should always stop and think before they do anything, because with whatever action they may take, should they will that to the general public? For example, in a little city in Egypt called Al-Kosheh where numerous Coptic Christians were wounded and twenty were killed, all because the muslims were lead to believe that a Coptic Christian was thought to be poisoning their water. Because of this rumor the government decided to take it in their own hands and ran a massacre through the city. Some people may ask why did the government do that, and all I say in response is because they can. However if Egypt was to take in account the first rule of the categorical imperative, could the government indeed abuse people because of their belief? Kant, says ?no? if the government is allowed to commit crimes towards other religions, and then if the tables were turned how would it feel if that was done to the government? Could the government will their actions as a universal law? I think in a Kantian perspective the government has rules and regulations that the citizens have to abide by, but in Egypt?s case there are more opportunities for muslims than Christians with the type of government that Egypt has. However in the individual perspective muslims should not take advantage of laws given to them in a negative aspect, because if they were to generalize their actions they would be considered unfair. Which now brings us to Kant?s perception of moral law and duty.
Kant explains duty as ?an estimation of a worth that far outweighs any worth of what is recommended by inclination, and that the necessity of acting from pure respect for the practical law is what constitutes duty, to which every other motive must give way because duty is a condition of a will good in itself, whose worth is above all else.? (403)