In light of the recent Obergefell v. Hodges supreme court case, it seems that Karl Marx’s work “On the Jewish Question” from his larger work The Marx Engles Reader can help concerned Christians find some clarity and conviction about religious freedom. In Karl Marx’s work, the Marx-Engels Reader, he discusses the idea of political and human emancipation through the case of German Jews and their desire to participate fully in government while maintaining their Jewish identities. In doing so, Marx makes the case that abolishing religion is not only an impossible, but a fruitless task, because religious privileges are undeniably connected to the “species being, (Marx Engels Reader,1)” which is associated with the highest and most necessary form of emancipation.
Because the Jew at the time of Marx had certain religious obligations that would prevent him from participating in government like a Christian German, Marx thought that the Jew could not participate fully in the political state, while remaining a Jew. He defines religion as “The Mortal enemy of the state(Marx,22)” because he believed it was the cause of the differences between the German and the Jew. Because of the obligations that religious people have to their faiths, he believes that religious people have certain “privileges,” which alienate them from each other.
In order to solve this alienation, another political philosopher, Bauer, suggested that the Jew renounce Judaism itself in order to be able to participate fully in the political state. Further, he adds the all people should renounce religion in general, in order to emancipate themselves politically. At this point, this is where Marx steps in with a more logical option, saying that Bauer does not make a complete or solid case against religion. In response to Bower’s claim that “religion is the mortal enemy of the state,” Marx explains the idea that The US is a secular state but religion and its negative implications still exist. He says, “we find that even in the country of complete political emancipation, religion not only exists, but displays a fresh and vigorous vitality, that is proof that the existence of religion is not in contradiction to the perfection of the state. (Marx, 1).” This means that while Marx was certain not a fan of religion, he thought that the perfect state would be one that allowed people of faith to practice freely. In doing so, he thought that religion would therefore eliminate itself (because he thought that religion was simply a response to imperfection in the state. As a Christian, I would have to disagree here).
The final point that Marx, which involve “The General Rights of Man” connect his entire argument for religious freedom. He says that the political emancipation is actually the emancipation of the state from religion, and not the reverse, as Bauer claimed. Further, religious emancipation is not a part of political emancipation, “because political emancipation is not a form of human emancipation (Marx,25).” Marx was not of the opinion that man had to sacrifice the privilege of faith in order to acquire the general rights of man he viewed the rights of man as separate from rights of the citizen. One of these rights being, “the right to practice a chosen religion” which come from the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen 1971, Article 10, which state, “No one is to be disturbed on account of his opinions even religious opinions (Marx, 32), meaning that man should be granted his respective religious privileges and still be able to participate fully in government.
Karl Marx’s, On The Jewish Question is a dense work that ultimately proves that abolishing religion is not only absurd, but actually would have negative consequences on government, because religious privileges are necessary to allow for human emancipation. In light of the Obergefell v. Hodges supreme court case decision, it seems we can gather two things from Karl Marx, a man who was certainly not a proponent of religion. The first is that the state cannot abolish religion. The second is that the state actually needs to give religious people certain privileges, like freedom of conscience so that they can participate in politics, business, etc. without compromising their religious beliefs. My prediction is that now that the Obergefell v. Hodges decision has been made, many people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman will be asked to compromise their religious convictions in the areas of politics, business, etc. In these cases, the importance of protecting religious freedom needs to be recalled so that Christians can participate fully in public life without violating their deeply held convictions.
About The Contributor
