I believe that it has long been the case that too many people – particularly those who take a left of centre approach to politics – make the mistake of failing to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives? With debate raging about veils, faith schools and social cohesion I wonder if it isn’t time for those who espouse the ‘progressive’ agenda to debate just how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy?
We are not alone in struggling with this issue. In the United States the up and coming Democratic Senator, Barack Obama, has recently argued that his own party has been reluctant to engage in serious debate about the issue of religion and politics. Speaking back in June of this year he said: ‘At best, we [Democrats] may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that – regardless of our personal beliefs – constitutional principles tie our hands.’
The reality of political engagement is that we have to meet people where they are – even if we do not agree with where they are. If, as a progressive movement, we are to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to the lives of others we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.
In his speech, Obama argued that secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into public debate. Indeed, he makes the case that the majority of great reformers in American history – he cites Lincoln, Dorothy Day and Martin Luther King – were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause.
Democratic engagement makes demands of religious believers. It demands that those who are religiously motivated act to turn their concerns into universal, rather than faith-specific, values. Democratic engagement demands that the values espoused by people of faith be subject to argument and debate.
For example, if I am opposed to abortion on religious grounds and would seek to see the time limit for abortions reduced from 24 to say 20 weeks it is not sufficient to simply invoke the teachings of the Catholic Church to support my views. I will also need to explain why abortion violates some strongly held principle or set of values that are accessible to people of all faiths and none.
Politics, and in particular democratic politics, involves the art of compromise, the art of what’s doable, what’s achievable and what’s possible. For some people of faith this is the greatest challenge that living in a democracy raises. For some people having faith is having certainty, what matters is not what can be done given the circumstances, what matters is not pragmatism but principle. Therefore what is needed is a sense of proportion and a willingness to engage openly and fair-mindedly.
During his campaign to become a US Senator Barack Obama received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following: ‘Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you.
The doctor described himself as a committed Christian who understood his own beliefs to be ‘totalizing’. His faith had led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage.
But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for Obama was not simply the would be Senator’s position on abortion. Rather, it was because he had read an entry that Obama’s campaign had posted on his website, which suggested that he (Obama) would fight ‘right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose’. The doctor went on to write: ‘I sense that you have a strong sense of justice … and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason … Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded.’
This had a profound effect on Obama. Re-reading the doctor’s letter he felt a pang of shame. He wrote back to the doctor thanked him for his advice and the next day he changed the language on his website to state in clear but simple terms, his pro-choice position.
According to Obama it is people like the doctor who emailed him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion and politics. The doctor represents many (possibly a majority) who may not change their positions on issues like abortion, the death penalty or gay rights, but are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words.
This then is the challenge for those who describe themselves as progressive politicians. They too must become more ‘fair minded’ more willing to engage with people of faith so that they might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of modern Britain.
It is nice to see someone has the courgae to raise these important issues in to-days politics. It is sad that centre left failed to understand the importance of religion in most of the people. In majority people still religion has most important part of their life. We don’t have to change their religious beliefs but to convince that our ideology has similarities with religion. Just for example, Hindu and Sikhs religion preaches caring, sharing and supporting communities matches labour party philosophy.Many other examples can be given. I think time has come to put this item Religion and Party Politics on agenda and discussed as openly as this is possible in a democratic set up. I, myself is not a religious person but I believe serving the community is only come through my own faith beliefs and i am sure their are millions who also support this beliefs. If any one would like to see progressive political approach then come to Southall and visit faith groups and I will be willing to facilitate any visit. Well done Mike and would like to see a proper debate in the near future.
Mike Ion’s comment is fair and will be endorsed by Humanists among others: beliefs, whether religious or non-religious, need to be treated with respect, but those who espouse them need, if they wish to be taken seriously in the public forum, to speak in a shared vocabulary.
In other words, he is endorsing the secular society – not one opposed to religion, but one where the government and all public authorities maintain a position of deliberate neutrality on the issues of belief that divide us.
Regrettably, this is very far from the present situation, where the government
– has just given in to church pressure on faith school admissions,
– hands over to the churches 1 in 3 of the schools the taxpayer finances,
– requires compulsory worship and religious education in all other schools,
– provides Christian chaplains at public expense in hospitals, prisons, colleges and the armed services,
– has just handed out £12 million to help ‘build the capacity’ of faith groups
– and still defends having 26 seats in Parliament for unelected bishops (and Jack Straw is apparently proposing to maintain 16 of them in perpetuity).
And yet we get complaints from the Archbishop of Canterbury that the government is inclining to the non- and anti-religious! Presumably he has decided that attack is the best form of defence of these anachronistic privileges.
Absolutely agree with Mike’s comments. I am a Christian, a member of the Labour Party and CSM. Within the Party there are a number of people who condemn others for having a faith. My faith fuels my politics and my fight for social justice. I am so glad that I live in a country where I can worship in freedom and not be put to death for doing this. We are the party who fight for human rights for all, please let that include me and others who have a faith as well as those who don’t!
Mike, I think that you make some very good points. I am a secular humanist, but even I can see that the left needs to harness the power of faith, and indeed understand faith better as a phenomenon.
But I do think there has to also be a balance with secular morality; such as breaking down barriers between people. For that reason I think it is a real shame that Alan Johnson has backed out of his schools proposals.
I agree with many of the points made by Mike Ions and I feel that in my experience too many Labour Party members are anti Christian faith schools on what I consider to be largely mistaken grounds. In my discussions with colleagues they have raised objections and attributed failings to faith schools which,as someone who was educated almost entirely in the faith school system, I can honestly say I have never experienced or come across. The schools that I attended in my somewhat distant youth, were never exclusively attended my pupils of my particular religion (RC). At least 25% of my school friends were not Catholics. Today, the school I am a governor of has something like 30% non- catholic pupils. We are not unique in this respect, so I did regard the Government’s initial intention to stipulate minimum standards re numbers as unnecessary and am glad they have not persisted with that approach. I would also point out that the Churches do make a financial contribution to their schools, for instance we have to find 10% of the costs of any capital work from our own resources. A final point is that the Christian message whilst non party political has to me always seemed more compatible with the principles of the Labour Party, which no doubt one of the reasons I joined