This thread is dedicated to Professor Charles Taylor, a Canada's most famous living philosopher, who has just been awarded the Templeton Prize for 2007, a great honour in the study of progress toward research or discoveries about spiritual realities. Source

This award is worth about $1.5 million USD (or rather 800,000 pounds sterling which is the prize as given). Previous winners of this prestigious prize include Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1983) and Reverend Billy Graham (1982). Mother Teresa was the first recipient of the award in 1973.

Charles Taylor is a professor emeritus of philosophy at McGill University in Montreal, a Rhodes Scholar and earned his Doctorate in Philosophy at Oxford under Isaiah Berlin. He holds numerous distinguished academic honours, 'visiting professorships' at a dozen universities around the world, as well as publishing numerous books to his credit.

I had the honour and pleasure of studying under Professor Taylor in a guest lecture series as part of my graduate study program. I've also attended a couple of other speaking engagements by Professor Taylor in Montreal and in Kingston, Ontario. He is truly a great man of letters and I am proud to say that I have long been an admiring student of his. Professor Taylor's teaching is the primary source of my intellectual respect for religion in society - although I am and have always been, an atheist.

Taylor has published many 'scholarly' works, most notably on Hegel (Marx's teacher) as well as several 'popular' works, published for a wider audience. One of which is a wonderful small book called the Malaise of Modernity, (Anansi Press, 1991), which comes from Taylor's address to Canada's Massey Lecture Series and is published in the USA under the title of The Ethics of Authenticity (Harvard University Press, 1992). I have previously posted a discussion thread here in this sub-forum under the title of the "Malaise of Modernity" (probably a couple of years ago now) inspired by the ideas of that book.

Yet another great 'popular' book Taylor has written is called A Catholic Modernity? (Oxford University Press, 1999) which comes from Taylor's giving of the 'Marianist Lecture' at Dayton Ohio where Taylor outlines how "the Catholic Church should relate to the modern world through an understanding of Catholic Christianity as capable of finding a place among all civilizations and cultures without necessarily identifying with them." (quotation copied from website cited above)

* * *

Whither religion in politics?

Or in plain English, what is the place of religion in politics? The purpose of this thread is to address this question.

To make one thing perfectly clear and upfront, I am an avowed and staunch defender of the principle of separation of Church and State. I should think that all of the arguments upon that particular issue still stand and don't need to be addressed here - rather I shall take the fact of separation of church and state to be a given, and would like to just move forward from there. From a liberal perspective, the principle of the separation of church and state is essentially non-negotiable.

That being said, I think there is a place for religion in politics just as certainly as religion fills a place in society and/or in people's own lives. The point of this discussion is to explore the what, why, where and how of dealing with religion in politics.

I will begin by stating that it is a common 'truism' in academic political science departments to this day that religion provides a generally beneficial effect (possibly necessary) to the functional operation of our civil and democratic society. The origin or source of this idea lies with Alex de Tocqueville in his seminal work Democracy in America.

The idea is that religion is a social enterprise that draws people together and (generally) encourages them to work towards goals that may exist beyond their own selfish individual passions. This is understood to act as an important counter-weight to the tendency of our modern capitalist society to (generally) encourage people to act in very selfish and individual ways. The point to keep in mind here is that democracy and civil society are both entirely dependent upon the voluntary 'goodwill' of the citizenry to concern and involve themselves with civic and/or civil affairs. If there is no civic involvement in civil affairs, or less and less of it, this means democracy grows weak and we shall end up being ruled by the tyranny of capitalists and aristocrats (or both).

Religion is not the only 'social enterprise' out there, but it is by far one of the largest and one of the most influential. Thus, in order to strengthen and safeguard our democratic liberties, it behoves us all, religious and non-religious alike, to find a way for the religious interests of society to express themselves in and through politics - in a way that does not violate the liberal principle of the rule of law that requires a fundamental separation of church and state.

So, in the spirit of Professor Charles Taylor, how do we find a way to make this work for all of us?

My first suggestion is to mark a clear 'ethical' distinction between official acts of the State and private acts of State officials. This by its very nature is a 'grey area' but I don't think it is entirely impossible to address in a rational and consistent way.

In this respect, I should welcome a candidate for elected office publicly stating their religious-inspiration in support of their stand on a public issue, or perhaps even in support their character or suitability for office because it is private speech or private expression and does not violate the principle of separation.

Indeed, I would even go further to say that I would accept an elected official or State official offering some religious doctrine as the inspiration for a public policy, or the basis of their support for that policy - so long as that public policy is lawfully adopted and lawfully administered according to the Constitution and according to the principle of separation.

On this basis, I do think there is some grounds for religious people to bring their religion with them into politics, civil society and public policy. It will always be a ballot-box fight, every step of the way, but that is the way it ought to be - because it makes ALL of our democratic liberties that much stronger.

Anyway, that's my general view of the topic. I welcome debate and discussion. How do you see religion and/or religious values brought into the publc arena of politics. In what way would you suggest - or accept?

Please keep in mind that any usage of the term 'religious' here must be understood to include a wide variety of religions and religious views.

I'm probably one of the more staunch atheists here, and I'm severly against the use of religion in any state whatsoever. As to religious values - how do we separate these from 'usual' values? What's the difference?

I wouldn't accept any religion in any way in the public. I have enough problems with the state as it is, and throwing nonsense into it, is just making it worse IMO.

I have to stress the principle that no religious or extreme political views shall be even made law - this because the law should IMO never be the tyranny of the few by the many. Already, by refusing me to buy beer after 8.00PM here, christians are doing exactly this. If religious people want to have their doctrines, lay them off my shoulders. I find the thought giving in to religious doctrines just to keep them happy is disgusting. Then again, I'm pretty young and not very pragmatic...

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

Instinctively I want religion kept out of politics but I also know it's not going to happen. In Australia we're pretty secular but also reasonably tolerant in the sense that we don't froth at the mouth if a politician admits their religious convictions sometimes, emphasis on "sometimes", informs their policy decisions.

One of the reasons for this is the very strong party discipline exerted by the parties over their parliamentary representatives. Now and again the leader of a parliamentary party will allow a "conscience vote" on an issue. One such issue is euthanasia, another has been the issue of RU-486 the so-called "morning after" pill. The irony is that some of the best debates in our federal parliament have taken place under the "conscience vote" conditions because individual members of parliament can speak to their core values rather than mouth the party position.

I don't have a problem with a conscience vote such as I've described. I think to deny the conscience vote on rare issues is to somehow remove the humanity from each member of the parliament. They're not automatons. I wouldn't vote for anyone who put up their religion as the rationale for them seeking a seat in parliament though.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

Well I in believe in the concept of seperation of church and state. My religion does influence in some way my politics. despite the fact that I'm a conservative (in the old sense of the word) i support some social welfare programs because of my religion. It is impossible for me to totally seperate my religion and politics because Christianity so completely fills my world view.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Indeed - I'm sure you are not alone in this viewpoint. I don't think it is resonable for anyone to expect you to view political issues in any other way.

Which is why I see a great deal of common ground between pragmatic seculars and pragmatic religious types on this issue. The issue is not black/white, nor is it an unbridgeable gulf. A state of war need not exist between religious and seculars on the issue of separation. There is lots of religious ground that does not violate the principle of separation. Seculars need to learn to see that distinction.

Without a doubt, it is extremists on both ends of the issue that are pushing the issue. I'm suggesting that those in the middle can do a great deal to prevent the extremists from using this issue as a wedge. Seculars and religious people usually have the same goals here - and they are the majority. It is the theocrats and the secular fundamentalists that are the enemy of all.

Almost each religion contains a morality... And politics are about pursuing moral objectives on a community's scale (among other things?).

So I don't see how one could avoid his political views being strongly influenced by his religious views. However I'm sure it is possible for a politician to expose his moral ideas, even if they are inspired by religious belief, in a non-religious way. For example a politician could say "I believe it is good to give to the poor" rather that "Jesus said that one must give to the poor".

The message seems to be the same in both cases, but that in one case the politician is creating communities while in the other he is not. In the first case, the politician is simply stating what he will try to do. In the second case, he is stating what he is going to do as well as "I'm part of the christian community"...excluding those who aren't christians.

I'm not saying that politicians shouldn't be allowed to tell about their religious beliefs - that's freedom of speech and I respect that - but rather that they shouldn't do it, for democracy's sake.

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

I think, in general, I agee with MM's position here.

It seems to me that it doesn't really matter whether politicians are religious people or not, so long as they are freely elected to office.
By the same token, it doesn't really matter whether a proposed piece of legislation was inspired by religious principles or values, provided that it must go through the full legislative process to become law.
If this were not so, wouldn't we end up trying to forbid that certain pieces of legislation even be considered, or certain candidates allowed to run, based on the percieved motivation behind them? Those sound like dangerous waters.

So long as the power, both of the legislation and the legislatures, is derived from the people and not directly from some distinct religious entity, then I think the system is seperating Church and state as it should.

But do you think the people, the democracy should be able to decide everything? What if the democracy votes for banning religion? Would you accept that?

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

Since I hold that the people are, and should be, the ultimate source of national power, I suppose I would have to.

Most democratic countries include checks to slow the people down and keep them from doing anything overly rash. In the case of the US the constitution would have to be ammended before religion could be banned, but naturally the people (via congress) are free to do just that.

So, yes, if the people voted in a congress meant to ammend the constitution and then ban religion, I would have to accept it. I would be very sad, however, and would certainly move to a more religiously tolerent nation.

The only alternative, it seems to me, would be to give a few people of a particular ideology the power to decide what the general population can and cannot vote on. That is an aristocrisy at best and tyranny at worst.

Yes - amongst other things.

But why should this politician be required to do so?

If the politician (or voter) believes that it is good to help the poor because 'Jesus said so', that's their political opinion. Personally, I'd welcome such a politician/voter to be an ally. I don't care what Jesus says about anything, but I do think that it is good to help the poor. That's the public policy in common. I come to it through extensive study of the nature of economic inequality, the other guy comes to it through faith in the bible. Same result - we help the poor.

When it comes to public policy, one shouldn't care what reasons you cite for supporting any given policy - as long as we can agree on a policy.

I hold many views due to my study of political science, economics, history and philosophy. Thus, when I give serious 'policy wonk' style reasons for supporting a policy, am I not 'creating a community' of policy wonks that is exclusionary to non-policy-wonks?

How is this fundamentally different than the Christian politician who draws upon their study of the Bible to supply the reasoning behind support for any given public policy? Looks the same to me.

For democracy's sake? That's absurd. Democracy is strengthened by open discussion that is characterised by honesty and civility. Honest speech cannot harm democracy.

And according to a majority of political scientists, religion is a generally beneficial force in democratic societies that contributes to the overall strength and vitality of our society. So how can honestly speaking about religion be harmful here?

Yes - I share this view.

And indeed, it is a seemingly rising flood of "dangerous waters" that inspires me to want to see this topic discussed more widely.

If the vote be legally and constitutionally valid, yes.

And of course, by the same token, if the democracy votes for making religion mandatory, then I'd accept that too - as long as the vote be legally and constitutionally valid.

Well, I thought I made it clear that I don't want a politician to be required to do so.

Sure, I too would prefer someone who is good for bad reasons/no reason over someone who is bad.

What I'm saying is that the man with the good propositions should not expose those of his justifications which are arbitrary (unless asked, obviously: I'm not saying that such things should be hidden, just not ostensibly shown). By showing these arbitrary reasons, the politician gives away the one thing on which all of his electorate can agree on, that is, reason.

Instead of relying on reason, he relies on the religious groups of his electorate. There is not a big difference between relying on religion as an argument and relying to race as an argument; saying "I believe that we should help the poor because I'm catholic" is, to me, like saying "I believe that we should help New Orleans because I'm black".

Of course, I'm caricaturing things a bit, but that should make obvious what is the core of my argument here.

The fundamental difference is that in one case, the "community" is based on opinions which can at all time be questioned and perhaps rejected.
In the other case, the community is based on a set of beliefs which cannot be questioned (without being very rude); which is why I compared references to religion to references to race. What is happening in Iraq and Lebanon, what happened in other countries shows that creating several separate nations which have difficulties communicating to each other can result in trouble for the state.

We're not talking about being honest or dishonest here... We're talking about campaign propaganda, and it seems clear to me that some of the arguments displayed in some democratic campaigns are dangerous for democracy. It is well known that democracy has had its failures. Which, I repeat, isn't a sufficient reason to outlaw these arguments.

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

You appear to be suggesting that the religious politician ought to self-censor their words through some 'secular filter' for public consumption.

I don't like that at all.

But these people are black and/or catholic and/or whatever and that's how many of them do see it. In many ways, what we call 'society' is rather made up of an infinite web of smaller groups that tend to act in ways that are tribal. It ain't pretty, but it is real. We are humans and we're not perfectly rational beings.

Government in society is all about linking these groups together in various coalitions representing mutual interests. Cold rational logic has never been a particularly effective tool for doing this. All of the most successful praticioners of the art of good government have always used a variety of traditionally non-rational tactics and techniques to achieve such success - even Bismark, the coldest and most rational of all 'successful' modern rulers.

This is why pushing religion out of the public sphere is so dangerous to our society. Forcing it underground is very dangerous - when you do this to religion, it tends to come back twice as strong and with a bloody vengence.

That which does not kill me, makes me stronger. And it is a fundamental principle of liberalism that wide open debate on every topic is the best method of achieving the best result.

Besides, campaign propaganda is just that - advertising. It can be countered by counter campaign propaganda and/or education. Propaganda is not authorative - it is only influential.

As for failures of democracy, suffice it to say that those are never the fault of the democratic process. Take present day Iraq or 1920's Germany or Italy (for easy examples of failures of democracy) and it should be pretty obvious that it wasn't a surfeit of democracy that caused the problem - rather an almost complete lack of democratic laws, democratic institutions and/or experience with democratic liberty at the heart of these failures.

And if a religious majority proclaimed that all non-believers are sinners and that the newly voted, legally and constitutionally valid, Law on Sinning prescribes death by burning on the stake for sinners, you would accept that too ? It's not farfetched, it was more or less like that for most of the era before the enlightenment.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder