This is the last of the Modern Philosophy series for the time being. I’ve really enjoyed writing about an Epicurean take on modern ideas, but I wanted to end the series for now to make my posts more varied. This is also a follow-up to the last Modern Philosophy post on Christianity, where I discussed Christian theology but not the role Christianity plays in contemporary political life. I must also add that I didn’t mean for post on Christianity to be so acerbic. Most Christians are fundamentally good people, I just take issue with many of their beliefs. 

It should go without saying that freedom of religion is essential to the functioning of any liberal democracy. In order to protect religious freedom, the state must be secular; if the state affiliates with any religious organisation, it will almost certainly enact legislation that discriminates in favour of that religious organisation. But just because the state should be secular, doesn’t mean that politicians have to be non-religious. Famously it was a Christian, William Wilberforce, who led the fight to abolish slavery in Britain(though slavery’s proponents were equally Christian.) Leaders of a wide variety of faiths have made immense contributions to political and social reform, and not just in Britain- Martin Luther King was a pastor.

However, the distinction between the private religious beliefs of an individual and their political outlook is not a straightforward one to make. Religions are amongst other things, systems of morality. They give people an ethical code that influences their views on a variety of policy issues, particularly the ‘hot-button’ issues like abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia. But everything from pacifism to the welfare state has been justified on a religious basis. The Christian socialists that constituted a majority of my teachers at secondary school believed their faith compelled them to oppose war and support the state’s efforts to look after the poor.

So it’s completely reasonable to take into account a candidate’s religious affiliation and beliefs when judging if they are suitable to hold office. During the 2008 Republican primaries, Christopher Hitchens described Mitt Romney’s Mormonism as ‘fair game’, because the Church of Latter-Day Saints did not admit black people during part of Romney’s adult lifetime. More recently, the former leader of the British Liberal Democrat party, Tim Farron, resigned because he believed being the leader of a liberal party was becoming incompatible with being a faithful Evangelical. He said that he remained a liberal as far as policy was concerned, but felt people were judging him for his personal views. Farron is obviously wrong if he is suggesting religious people are unwelcome in politics. Charles Kennedy was a successful Liberal Democrat leader and just as much a Christian as Farron. What people objected to was Farron’s views on the social issues- views that were a direct result of his religious beliefs. Those views may have an impact on how he thinks about those issues politically, despite him professing otherwise. Moreover, holding socially conservative opinions raises wider questions about Farron’s judgement and character.

Much has been made of the hardline Presbyterianism of the Northern Irish DUP, who have just formed a confidence and supply agreement with the Conservatives so the latter can govern. I doubt very much that the DUP will be able to impact social policy in Great Britain, because that would be seen as a foreign imposition. Rather, the DUP may actually push the Conservatives to the Left. On Brexit, the DUP want to continue an open border with the Irish Republic, and a comprehensive deal with the EU that includes a customs arrangement and tariff-free access to the Single Market. This increases the chances of a prolonged transition period to soften the immediate impact of leaving. It also means that May’s mantra, ‘No deal is better than a bad deal,’ will no longer guide the negotiations. Not having a deal is no longer an option. Besides Brexit, the DUP have won a £1 billion block grant to Northern Ireland. This has already shifted economic politics to the left, as Scottish and Welsh leaders are demanding extra funding be also given to them. It raises the question that if there’s no money left and we must tighten our belts, as the Tories repeatedly claim, then why is there enough money to keep them in power? There is a lot to worry about the deal with the DUP, but their religious views remain a secondary concern for the time being.

In defence of Christians, they are not the only people whose religious views should be up for scrutiny. It would be perfectly legitimate to ask questions to the Muslim mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, what his personal views are on the social issues. Now as Mayor of London, Khan is in no position to impact the sensitive issues of conscience. But imagine if he publicly stated that he believes homosexuality is a sin against Allah, even if he supports gay marriage as government policy. Would his left-wing following view him differently? Quite possibly. Christians are right that their religion is subject to public examination more frequently than any other. This is partly because Christianity is by far the most popular religion in the developed world, but the Christians’ critique remains truthful.

Having said that, Christians can hardly claim to be victims of a secular inquisition, at least anywhere in the developed world. In the United States, the right-wing media constantly portrays an image of Christians being attacked by militant Democrats who want to violate Christians’ religious freedom. This is a ludicrous assertion. Christians make up roughly 75% of America’s population. The non-affiliated make up only 20%. How 20% can be persecuting 75% is beyond silly. The reality is that American government and politics is overwhelmingly dominated by Christians, with the non-religious being hopelessly underrepresented. This doesn’t mean that the non-religious are suffering from formalised discrimination. But the reality is that Americans are more likely to vote for a Christian than a non-religious person, because they associate Christianity with decency and morality, and many view religion as a necessary pre-requisite to living a moral life. This is partly a hangover of the Cold War fear of ‘Godless communism.’ But if the Democrats really want representatives to be socially representative of their constituents, they should start pushing for more non-religious Congressmen and women, just as they already believe women and ethnic minorities should be better represented.

Overall, as I’ve said before, I don’t have a problem with people of any religious background who wants to make a difference in government. But that doesn’t mean your social views, which may be a result of your religious beliefs, should be free from proper scrutiny. In Western Europe, where the non-religious and non-practising make up the vast majority of the population, society needs to be kind and sensitive to the religious, and not make them feel as if they are being singled out for disproportionate criticism. Equally, in America, where most people at least say religion is important to them, more needs to be done to ensure the voices of the non-religious are heard in the public realm. The stigma against electing a non-religious representative must end. And the right-wing media must stop lying that Democrats’ support for social liberalism constitutes a violation of Christians’ religious freedom.