Free to talk God

ARTICLES OF FAITH II
Owen O'Brien defends religion's right
to be heard in the national debate

Photograph by Islay McLeod

I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, and I believe He has something relevant to say about every area of society and public life.
     In making that statement, I didn't express an extremist opinion. I didn't commit a hate-crime, and I didn't belittle any other religion. However I may have provoked any number of responses in my readers, ranging from scorn to sympathy, pity to outrage. That's because in making this statement, I transgressed an invisible societal barrier – that of liberal secularism.
     Liberal secularism is a worldview which is endemic to 21st century UK culture. It is the belief that individuals are free to hold and practise whatever beliefs they wish as long as they are consistent with the equal rights of others. Under this system religious communities are free to thrive as private associations. However they cannot claim any public voice as this would involve some people having to subsidise the life choices of others. As a society, consciously or not, we have bought into this worldview in a big way. I'd be a rich man if I had a penny for each time I've heard the words: 'You're a Christian are you, well that's great...for you', the unspoken implication being keep it where it belongs – in your private life, away from the realm of the public, including this conversation. Proselytisation, which the dictionary defines as 'inducing someone to join one's own political party or espouse one's own doctrine', has become one of the dirtiest words in our language. Only when those doctrines are of a religious nature though. No one complains at the prime-time airing of party political broadcasts. This point underlines the fact that under liberal secularism religious views are sidelined and separated from the political realm.
     In reality our rich multicultural society contains both 'sacred' and 'secular' viewpoints, people of some faith and those of no faith. Therefore to achieve true democracy the political arena ought to be enriched by contributions from both groups. Currently, however, religious citizens need to justify their faith-based interventions while secular-minded citizens just get on with the job unburdened by such a task. This problem was birthed in the Enlightenment, kindergartened by the Reformation and schooled by scientific rationalism, with adolescent influences of post-modernism thrown in. Now full grown, it is further compounded by the threat of global terrorism, whose guise is radical religious extremism. Its presence breeds fear and suspicion, and nurtures the belief that over-excessive religious convictions may eventually lead to murderous and anarchic tendencies (it is chilling to observe that the 7/7 bombers were previously law abiding citizens with jobs and families). This fear stifles comment and debate, and the intellectual response is widespread retreat to the safe pastures of pluralism, liberal secularism and an associated rejection of religious-based points of view in political debate, which are seen as inferior at best, coercive and dangerous at worst.
     This is a sad state of affairs when in reality faith-based points of view have untapped riches to contribute. History testifies to this (Mandela, Ghandi, Wesley, Bonhoeffer, to list but a few). In July 2008, over 600 placard-carrying Anglican bishops marched through central London to remind the government of its responsibilities in meeting the millennium development goals. 'Unless we address these gulfs between human beings, we cannot expect a future of stability or welfare for any of us', Archbishop Rowan Williams informed the assembled throng. In response Gordon Brown said that he was 'humbled' to be among men and women for whom he had 'the utmost respect, the greatest admiration and the highest affection'.
     Archbishop Desmond Tutu routinely justified his opposition to apartheid by appealing to the status of human beings as 'made in the image of God'. This was a specific confessional position but also one that was eminently public. Yet on this occasion there were no voices objecting to Tutu's theologically-ladened reasoning. This leads us to a further point – that societal acceptance of faith-based viewpoints must include a willingness to engage with the controversial as well as those universally admirable campaigns. Let us re-imagine the scene at Westminster. Six hundred Catholic bishops carrying pro-life banners parade through Parliament Square and they converge outside Westminster Cathedral to call for an end to abortion. Gordon Brown tells them that he has the utmost respect, greatest admiration and highest affection for them. He pledges to do everything in his power to discharge the responsibilities of which they have reminded him. Can you imagine the media response to that?
     On the other side of the debate, religious people need to engage rationally in the debate, resisting the temptation to move from reasoning to ranting, standing in condemnation of godless society. Rather, faith groups need to be a gracious, if prophetic voice to society. Monica Ali, who was herself condemned by community leaders for its portrayal in her novel 'Brick Lane' writes: 'If the best we can say is how we feel about something, we turn reason to emotivism, in which frameworks for moral; and political judgements collapse'. The debate needs to be civilised on both sides, not being intimidated by each other's passions, not being afraid to embrace the controversial.
     I am not advocating that the pendulum swing too far in the other direction. The contemporary British state does not have a duty to preserve its Christian heritage by officially showing partiality for the Christian faith. Neither should it advocate Sharia law. We are not a theocracy. But neither are we a secular state. Whether both sides like it or not, we all live in this country together, faith and non-faith. We are a democracy, somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between the two. The more the pendulum swings towards the centre, the more society and our democracy will benefit. For this to happen legitimacy needs to be given to faith-based convictions in political debate. We need to be free to 'talk God'.

This paper was highly commended at the recent Young Public Sector Programme adjudicated by Kenneth Roy.