Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Does religious belief have a place in democratic politics?

Should journalists be discussing whether the prime minister believes in a soul, or a divinely designed human nature, or that some sacred text is the revealed word of God?

When Lawrence Martin first rekindled this debate a couple of weeks ago, I had no intention of weighing in. As it progresses, however, the discussion around the separation of church and state seems to be getting muddier, rather than clearer.

Paul Rowe’s recent piece in iPolitics is a case in point. It is nicely written, oozes common sense and is seductively persuasive. It is also dangerously wrong in a way that I think demands a reply.

First, a word of warning: We’re way into political theory here, so I’ve put on my philosopher’s hat and laid out some foundational arguments. This calls for some reflection, but it makes a big difference to how we see the issue.

Rowe thinks the separation of church and state is unfair. He says that “Religious beliefs are just one sort of premise out of which a larger view of the world arises. In politics, this view is also shaped by ideologies, socialization into a particular political culture, one’s social circles and educational background, or (perhaps) the editorial position of the Globe and Mail.”

He concludes that “it is unfair to expect believers to lay aside their beliefs when they enter public office…some [of these beliefs] are going to be religious.”

So Rowe is unhappy with our democracy. He thinks that, because religious belief is one of a number of forces that shape our political views, democracies like our own should be more accepting of religious beliefs as a basis for policy-making. Let me explain why this is wrong.

Modern democracy combines two basic ideas. First, it rests on the fundamental values of personal liberty and equality. These, in turn, give rise to a list of individual rights and principles, such as the freedom of speech and equal treatment before the law.

Second, as far as possible democracies try to resolve political differences through discussion and debate and, when this fails, they turn to voting to reach a fair and final decision.

Unfortunately, with a couple of centuries of hindsight, we now know that liberty and equality don’t fit together very neatly. Indeed, the history of modern democracy can be seen as an ongoing debate over the tensions between them and where the right balance lies.

The Left argues for a stronger interpretation of equality that limits personal freedom to promote equality of opportunity. The Right argues for a stronger version of liberty that limits equality of opportunity.

Now, as Rowe rightly suggests, each person’s political leanings are the result of a range of sociological, cultural, historical and other forces that combine to shape that person’s views of the world and, ultimately, their political leanings. Ideology plays a key role.

Each of us has only a limited knowledge of the society around us. Ideology provides us with a bigger picture by giving us a story about our society as a whole. This story helps us interpret our experience and develop political views. The story may be a left- or right-leaning one.

In neither case, however, is ideology seen as absolute truth. Positions based on it can be refuted by debate and evidence—even if in practice people often let their ideological views become rigid and doctrinaire. This brings us to religious belief.

Rowe is right that religious beliefs also influence our political views. Consider the Christian value of charity. It might lead someone to support anti-poverty programs. From a democratic viewpoint, this is quite acceptable, but not because charity is a Christian value.

It is acceptable because charity enhances democratic equality. The fact that someone happens to see it as a Christian value is incidental and, for policy purposes, irrelevant.

As a matter of fact, throughout modern history religious people of all kinds have aligned their religious views with equality and/or liberty and, as a result, were able to join together with left- or right-leaning secularists to promote causes ranging from the fight against fascism to public education.

This multi-faceted alignment of interests and people is what makes Rowe’s argument sound so sensible and appealing. On first glance, religious belief looks like just one more sociological force that is shaping our political ideas, alongside ideology, culture or the Globe and Mail.

But the view is deceiving. There is a fundamental difference between religious belief and, say, ideology. First and foremost, religious belief is about the willingness to accept some claims as divine or absolute truths. However, absolute truths leave no room for debate. Nor do public policies based on them.

For example, someone who believes that same-sex marriage violates God’s Law as revealed in the Bible or the Koran will not be open to debate on the issue. Nor is there any reliable way to weigh their claims against other ones based on ideology, culture, biology or history.

The lesson is that Rowe’s argument must be rejected. Giving religious beliefs a legitimate place in the public policy process would throw a giant wrench into the machinery of democratic debate.

The separation of church and state is what first allowed western democracies to break free of authoritarian politics. It remains the principal bulwark against a slide back into them. If we really care about democracy, we should resist siren calls to “broaden debate” by weakening this essential principle. It is the integrity of the principle that makes such debate possible.

Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Don Lenihan

No comments:

Post a Comment