The interplay of religion and politics stood at the center of the Foreign Affairs Symposium's (FAS) event last Friday night. FAS played host to John Micklethwaite, the editor-in-chief of The Economist, and his colleague Adrian Wooldridge, the magazine's Washington bureau chief.
The men discussed their recently published book, God is Back. The book's topic, the re-emergence of religion as a driving factor in geopolitics, served as the main subject of their presentation.
Micklethwaite began the night by giving background on the role that religion has played in a variety of historic political events, from the English Civil War to the Iranian Revolution.
While he acknowledged that religion could sometimes play a positive role in society, he focused more on the ways that it had divided society and led to conflicts that he referred to as "culture wars."
"The last great war of religion caused more deaths than the Black Plague," he said, referring to the English Civil War, which divided the population between Catholics and Protestants.
He also commented on the somewhat provocative title of his book.
"When you say God is back, you imply that he went away," he said, going on to explain that God had, in fact, faded into the background of geopolitics for a time.
"We're dealing with a world that many of us thought was never supposed to exist," he said. "Intellectuals have assumed for a very long time that modernity was going to marginalize religion."
According to Micklethwaite, The Economist held the same view for a long time: Several years ago, they published an obituary for religion.
However, he argued that instead of fading away or edging towards moderate interpretations, harder, more extreme forms of religion have begun to grow and take hold.
At this point, Micklethwaite began to take something of an economic approach to considering the resurgence of religion.
He referenced Adam Smith in stating that the separation of church and state "was license to breed the sort of competition that religion needed . . . I think it comes down to supply and demand."
He also described religion as "a huge industry," citing examples of megachurches, and ultimately termed it a "consumer-driven affair."
He added that many of the people turning to religion were not the poor or desperate, but rather the rich and powerful, or at least the prosperous middle class. He explained that this trend once again contradicted previous expectations about the followers of religion and showed why the religious were gaining ground in politics.
His final statement before turning the lectern over to Wooldridge summarized his belief of why religion was becoming such a key factor in politics.
"People now are more likely to describe their religion as a choice . . . and if they choose their faith, they're going to take it with them into public life, and that is where the problems begin."
Wooldridge began his segment of the event with the comment that Micklethwaite was "behaving much better since his exorcism."
He then turned to a more serious discussion about the "battle for souls" occurring between world religions and the future of religion and politics.
"I think the people who will do best in this battle for souls are the Christians, and Islam will be marginalized," Wooldridge said.
He noted that this might seem counterintuitive but explained his reasoning.
"Christianity has been through the acids of modernity," he said, citing the Reformation and the Enlightenment Period.
"Islam still hasn't done that, and it might be fatal."
According to Wooldridge, the source of Christianity's claim to the future is that "all the forces of commercial capitalism have been used to spread Christianity."
However, while conflicts due to religion are on the rise, Wooldridge felt that there was also room for religion to play a positive role in politics.
"In problems created by religion, religion must be part of the solution," he said. "We must use religion to try to bring people together."
He also praised the American model of dealing with religion and government, specifically referring to the First Amendment.
"It [the first amendment] introduced toleration at the heart of the constitution."
He concluded with his hope that the American model would serve as an example to the world.
After their speeches, the two fielded questions about various world affairs, including Turkish media coverage, democracy and the European Union's response to the global financial crisis.
While some students were impressed by the speakers, others wished that they had discussed topics like the global economy in greater depth.
"They were pretty good about providing a realistic view about religion, but I was not so satisfied about not touching on other topics," sophomore James Zhe said.
Another sophomore, Michael Brooks, agreed. "It wasn't what I expected, but it was interesting."
Senior Nick Pamucci was more enthusiastic.
"I thought it was fantastic," he said.
"Compared to American speakers, they talked about a broader range of topics. And it's always valuable to get an outside perspective."
Sophomore Jonathan Jacobs, one of the FAS co-chairs, was also pleased with the event, especially since the two speakers had been finalized at the last minute.
"We had about 150 to 200 people, I think. We're happy with that for a Friday night, especially considering that we just found out it would happen," he said.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.