Context takes precedence. No universal principle that always applies. The IRGC is an example of why. They may not be communist, but they are undeniable making a difference against imperialism. An example from the other end is the US. Though it has a lot of Christian influence going on, it does technically separate church and state, and enforce a certain amount of “freedom of religious practice.” Meanwhile, it is one of the most murderous entities in history.
But just as it would be foolish to take these examples and say “see, religion is super important for liberation obviously, while atheistic imperialism destroys the world”, it would also be foolish to look at the atheistic nature of China or the USSR and say “see, atheism is the only thing that provides any value toward liberation”, then look at the Jewish relationship to israel and zionism and say “see, religion only ever destroys and genocides.”
Separation of church and state can have its benefits. However, it’s neither a magic fix to problems of religion, nor is religion necessarily a problem intrinsically. To universalize it would be to say that a communal indigenous people practicing a religion based on stewardship of the environment and helping one another is inherently awful, the same as zionists using religion to justify genocide. This makes no sense. We have to struggle against the problems of religion that are immediately real—problems which intersect with other sources of systemic abuse—without slipping into a view that singling out religion will be the pet issue that resolves most problems.
Context takes precedence. No universal principle that always applies. The IRGC is an example of why. They may not be communist, but they are undeniable making a difference against imperialism. An example from the other end is the US. Though it has a lot of Christian influence going on, it does technically separate church and state, and enforce a certain amount of “freedom of religious practice.” Meanwhile, it is one of the most murderous entities in history.
But just as it would be foolish to take these examples and say “see, religion is super important for liberation obviously, while atheistic imperialism destroys the world”, it would also be foolish to look at the atheistic nature of China or the USSR and say “see, atheism is the only thing that provides any value toward liberation”, then look at the Jewish relationship to israel and zionism and say “see, religion only ever destroys and genocides.”
Separation of church and state can have its benefits. However, it’s neither a magic fix to problems of religion, nor is religion necessarily a problem intrinsically. To universalize it would be to say that a communal indigenous people practicing a religion based on stewardship of the environment and helping one another is inherently awful, the same as zionists using religion to justify genocide. This makes no sense. We have to struggle against the problems of religion that are immediately real—problems which intersect with other sources of systemic abuse—without slipping into a view that singling out religion will be the pet issue that resolves most problems.
I like this analysis of things, as it steps away from idealism and opts for a materialist and grounded paradigm!