Does religion have a place in politics?

After David Cameron’s belief was called into question, Stacey Warner asks is there any place for religion in modern politics?

Before I get started in trying to tackle an immense question in a few paragraphs, I felt that it was important to start off with this disclaimer. This is not an article that sets out to try and offend anybody or criticise their beliefs. Neither is it an attempt to ridicule religion or anything of the sort. I want to start by telling you a little about my own beliefs, as I am sure that anyone reading this will naturally have that question on their mind. I don’t practice a particular religion. I used to be a frequent churchgoer and practised the Church of England Christian faith.

 

Now, any beliefs that I do have tend to be much more spiritualist. I personally believe that this world exists with a naturally entwined harmony between the spiritual and the scientific (dualistic mysticism this is called). I don’t know if there is a higher power, but I do think that if one does exist it is a higher being and therefore beyond our level of understanding. I also very much believe live and let live – people should follow whatever faith they’re comfortable with. However, I really have a strong dislike of preaching.

 

Now that matter is settled, shall we begin?

As you may or may not have seen, a recent article in the Independent has been trending. The article was about David Cameron stating that the big community idea was something Jesus had started. My immediate response was “what on earth does Jesus have to do with anything?”

 

Well that’s kind of a good question isn’t it? Does religion have a place in politics at all? Theocracy is the word that describes the “government of a state by immediate divine guidance”.

Historically speaking, religion and power have always gone hand in hand. Heck, Henry VIII had enough of his own religion and went and formed his own church, making himself head of it. Even during his reign, who had the most influence at court? Cardinal Wolsey, Archbishop Krammer… men of the cloth. Nowadays there are limited theocratic states. There is the Vatican City, Islamic states and the Central Tibetan Administration. In certain parties in Scotland that in the push for independence would want religious recognition in Scottish constitutions. However, a distance from theocracy is not an entirely modern concept, the American president Jefferson (1801-1809) said there was a need for a “wall of separation between church and state”.

So does religion and power mixing have good or bad consequences? Well, it really depends on the person. Hundreds and hundreds of people over the years have lost their lives for committing heresy. Just think of all the people (somewhere between 250-300 people in 4 years) Queen “Bloody” Mary I put to death for being protestant. Do you know what we’d call someone who killed that many people for following the wrong religion these days? A terrorist. In fact, isn’t oppression caused by Islamic states supposed to be why we’ve had troops in and out of Iraq?

 

It’s not all negative though. For example, the Dalai Llama is the figurehead for the Central Tibetan Administration and yet he is known all over the world as being someone who has spread love and peace. Rev. Martin Luther King, although not a figure head, had a great power in his ability to change not only a nation but the whole world through his own passion and power of word. These are men whose religion was /is a focal point of their existence and yet have made such a positive impact on the world.

Perhaps a common argument against Theocracy is that with a growth in Atheism and mass communication causing more culturally diverse societies, the idea of a Theocracy is irrelevant.

This clearly shows that Christianity is still the furthest spread religion so even in a multicultural world is it still a highly relevant point?

Currently, it is to an extent. According the ONS, the 2011 consensus revealed that over half of the UK considers themselves Christian, a total number of 33.2 million people. The grand total of people practising no religion and any other religion that isn’t Christian totalled 25.6 million. That’s a staggering 8 million more people that identify as Christian over every other belief.

However, statistics do also show that there has been a trend of younger generations converting to atheism. Infact PEW forum believes this could be because young people view religion as outdated and “deeply entangled with conservative politics.” The younger generation are one that is often pro-choice and in favour of same-sex marriage- concepts that are often viewed as being frowned upon in a religious context. Especially with the internet and ease of access to information, young people demand the right to think for themselves and develop their own moral code and not be told how to do this. We are generation that is still seeing the impacts of 2 world wars and more recently terrorist attacks such as 9/11 and 7/7 and as a result we are a far more liberal generation and one that is often fearful and weary of the damage religious extremists cause.

 

Overall, I think there is no problem necessarily with being openly religious whilst involved with politics so long as you don’t try and push your beliefs into law. Sure it might be ok for 33.2 million people, but that still leaves 25.6 million that you are forcing that belief upon. I also think, ethics aside, that it might be a risky strategy if used as an attempt to secure an election as you run the risk of losing the voters from a younger generation.

By all means, be involved with politics and have your own beliefs, but let’s just keep it out of the house of commons ok?