Religion & Democracy: Interactions, Tensions, Possibilities

Field: Social Sciences (Social Sciences)

Much of the world is seeing conflict between people whose views permit basing political actions and lawmaking on religious convictions and people whose democratic values oppose this. Democratic societies are in principle open to the free exercise of religion and, in constitution, they are characteristically pluralistic in both culture and religion. Religions are highly variable in their stance toward government, but many of the world's most populous religions, including Christianity and Islam, are commonly taken to embody standards of conduct, such as certain prohibitions, that cannot be endorsed by democratic governments committed to preserving liberty for the religious and the nonreligious alike. The present age is seeing much discussion of just how far religious liberty should extend in democratic societies and just what role religion should play in the conduct of citizens.The most prominent range of problems concerning the tensions between religion – or certain religions or interpretations thereof – and democracy are institutional. They concern the relations that do or should obtain between "church" and state: between religious institutions or organized religious groups and government or its agencies. Institutional matters, however, are not the only ones important for understanding the relation between religion and democracy. Ethics and political theory also extend to standards appropriate to the conduct of individual citizens. Here the ethics of citizenship, as it is now sometimes called, focuses on how individual citizens should understand the role, in civic affairs, of religious convictions, especially their own convictions about how human life should be lived. This concerns not only deciding what to support by one's votes and public advocacy, but also how to conduct civic discourse. The essays in this issue of Dædalus – most of them based on contributions to a seminar sponsored by the Australian Catholic University in March of 2019 – address both institutional questions concerning religion and democracy and the ethics of citizenship as bearing on how individuals, religious or not, may best regard their role in the political system in which they live.An entire book could be devoted to conceptual exploration of either democracy or religion. None of the essays in this issue undertakes that task, but all of them implicitly conceive religion in a way that avoids narrowness. For instance, none of the authors assumes that a religion must be theistic or that a democracy must use a particular system for selecting government officials. This is appropriate, and here the explorations of religion in relation to democracy apply to all the commonly accepted instances of both religion and democracy. One minimal assumption about democracy shared by the authors is that the term properly applies only where political offices are held on the basis of free elections. It is more difficult to identify a minimal assumption about religion that is comparably shared. But an important assumption for the question of how a given religion is related to democracy is that it has an ethic: a set of standards indicating how one is to live. This assumption holds for the religions that have been and continue to be central in discussions concerning democratic governance. It holds for all the various religions referred to in the essays included here, and its importance is evident throughout the volume.Stating the ethic of a religion is often very difficult. Even if it seems explicitly stated in scripture, the relevant texts are likely to exhibit ineliminable vagueness. It has often been noted, to be sure, that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" has equivalent or roughly equivalent forms in many religions; but it is highly vague. So is "Love your neighbor as yourself," which appears in (among other religious sources) both the Hebrew and the Christian testaments of the Bible. It is also true that there is no sharp distinction between ethical and religious directives, such as those prescribing certain rituals. Even where their content is overtly religious, however, directives enshrined in a religion have normative authority for its practitioners. For at least the orthodox practitioners of certain kinds of religion, it is wrong to act otherwise and to do so is criticizable or even punishable. Some religious directives – arguably all those that are genuinely moral – are meant to apply to everyone, including people outside the religion. This holds for the prohibitions of killing, lying, and theft that are prominent in many religions.Inevitably, there will be conflicts between what, for some religions, is obligatory or impermissible and what, for some democratic governments, may not be enforced or prohibited. Prohibitions of divorce and abortion are examples, since both are considered morally wrong in some religions and a legal right in some democracies. These conflicts raise two important kinds of questions: first, institutional questions about what laws and practices should bind government and, second, individual questions about what we, as citizens not holding public office, should support, either through persuading dissenters to join us or through voting for laws requiring their conformity to the standard.So far, one might think that the relation between religion and democracy is important only because conflicts are inevitable. That is not so. But is religion of special concern for democratic societies for any similarly important reasons? There are at least three kinds of consideration indicating that it is.Suppose we take seriously the idea that democracy is a form of government that is, as Abraham Lincoln put it in the Gettysburg address, "of the people, by the people, for the people." Surely the "for" here is normative: in any sound democratic theory, government must serve the people in a sense that entails caring about their good. This is distinct from, though it entails, caring about their rights. It also concerns their well-being. No specific view of the "common good" is required by the minimal conception of the good of the people in question here, but support of material well-being, at least minimal education, maintenance of certain public goods, and preservation of the conditions for free elections are uncontroversially included. If we add to this that many pursuits people deeply feel to be part of their sense of identity deserve protection, then it appears evident that protection of religious liberty may be of special concern for a democracy.1 This is not to say that only religion can have this status. That seems a mistake. But historically, few pervasive, interpersonally significant commitments – at least if institutionally identifiable – have the role in one's sense of identity that religion has for those who are genuinely religious. This is most evident where the religion in question has an ethic and, with it, a well-developed vision of the good life.A second consideration supporting a special place for religion in democracy concerns its potentially positive role, by contrast with its need for protection. Institutional religions are social and indeed often participatory in the sense that they provide social roles and call for their fulfillment by groups of people. Some religions are, to be sure, strongly hierarchical in their authority structure; but even those can encourage or require a measure of partial or local governance. This can involve planning and directing parish activities, maintaining schools, serving the poor in or beyond one's community, and overseas missions with educational or health care purposes. Such activities may be to some degree democratic, and they can provide training in, among other things, civic discourse, leadership, and policy-formation.A third consideration is that religious institutions – and indeed, individuals representing religiously based ideas and ideals – can be a counterpoise to the power of the state. They can also be a source of diverse elements that can bring to civil society ideas and values that might not otherwise be recognized or given due consideration. If religions have sometimes been co-opted by dictatorships, they have also sometimes been powerful counterforces against tyrannical government, institutional oppression, and forced conformity to government-approved social norms. Secular ethics and political leadership can yield many of the same valuable contributions; but particularly where democratic governments are – quite properly – maintaining religious neutrality in their official actions, it is not difficult for government officials to overlook needs, policies, or normative issues that may be well articulated by religious citizens constructively participating in civic life. One issue here is the content of public education; another is the basis and appropriate extent of religious accommodation, from tax exemption to waivers of inoculations to freedom from military conscription.None of these points entails that a special concern with religion is necessary in every democracy. But the points do strongly support a case for that concern in the actual world as we have known it since the birth of democracy and, so far as one can tell, are likely to know it in the foreseeable future. We should be mindful, however, of nonreligious modes of life that may have or gain a similar status in democratic thinking. Certainly, we should bear in mind that protections of liberty and the general benefits of citizenship should be equally extensive for both the religious and the nonreligious. But here, too, as in the case of conscientious objection to military conscription in America, accommodating the religious can be the basis on which the need for broadening liberty rights is realized.Exemption from military conscription is an accommodation of what is often considered a matter of conscience: religiously based pacifism. If democracies should not automatically give more weight to religiously based conscientious objections to what would otherwise be a legally enforced burden, should they give equal weight to all sincere claims of "conscientious" objections? Those who emphasize "freedom of conscience" as a human right can easily give that impression, but we should not conclude, nor should democracy presuppose, that there is a special insightful faculty – whether it is called conscience or something else – that has high moral authority in its own right. A moral judgment may represent genuine insight or deeply felt commitment whether or not it rests on a deliverance of conscience. Democracy respects our right to hold views of our own regardless of whether they come from a moral sense that apparently bespeaks conscience, a coolly reasoned position, a persisting intuition, or a religious view held in deference to authority. Democracy does, however, limit what we may do – or be excused from doing – on the basis of our views. This brings us to the delicate matter of the limits of liberty in democratic societies.No simple formula can tell us exactly what liberties a democracy should protect. In at least the Anglo-American tradition, however, the "harm principle," proposed by J. S. Mill in On Liberty, published in 1859, sketches one of the most influential standards:In relation to religion and democracy, a plausible application of this might be called the liberty principle: Government should protect religious liberty to the highest level possible within a reasonable interpretation of the harm principle.3 Liberty in general, and not just religious liberty, is a constitutive standard in any sound democracy, but, for reasons such as the need to protect citizens' sense of identity, this religious liberty principle is one deserving a distinct place in framing democratic constitutions or crafting legislation affecting religion.The liberty principle is not the only general standard important for church-state relations in democratic societies. A government that upholds the liberty principle may consistently treat different religions differently, at least in countenancing an established church. This is commonly taken to be undesirable for democracies, if democratically permissible at all, and there is wide acceptance of an equality principle. This principle requires that government must treat different religions equally. The principle thus implies nonestablishment as ordinarily understood: minimally, as prohibiting official state endorsement or favoritism of any religion or church. Particularly in a democratic society whose citizens do or would approve of such establishment, such a principle needs justification, as indeed it does in democratic theory. The strength of the case for the equality principle heavily depends on the kind and sociopolitical significance of the establishment in question.4The multitude of relevant considerations supporting either the liberty principle or, especially, the equality principle cannot be considered here, but in my view both democracy and religion are better served if the liberty principle is integrated with an equality principle to the effect that (other things equal) government should treat different religions equally. Other things are not equal if a religion practices human sacrifice or violates basic human rights. These rights prominently include not only protection from bodily injury but also liberty rights. This is an indication that the liberty principle is a constraint on the application of the equality principle, as the latter principle may be on the former.Neutrality among religions does not guarantee neutrality toward religion. If democratic societies should treat different religions equally, it does not follow that they endorse governmental neutrality toward religion. Preference for the religious over the secular, for instance, in granting exemptions or determining public school curricula, would still be possible. Nonetheless, there is a strong case for a neutrality principle, to the effect that government should not prefer the religious as such to the secular as such. Such neutrality is commonly understood to rule out public funding for religious institutions but not for comparable secular ones; but it does not rule out tax exemptions for religious institutions qua charitable, so long as secular counterparts receive the same exemption.The broad topic of religion and democracy extends not just to standards for governmental policy in relation to religion but also to normative standards appropriate for religious institutions that aspire to a kind of constructive citizenship in a democratic society. In broad terms, if the state should not interfere with the church, is there a comparable case against the church's interfering in the state? This is a controversial matter. It cannot be supposed that moral instruction and indeed moral leadership and role-modeling are outside the scope of religion – and of childrearing. Indeed, the kinds of rights the liberty principle must respect – rights prohibiting harms and government policies that threaten personal development and free expression – protect churches, parents, and, within limits, educators in public schools from restrictions on (peaceably) expressing and teaching their moral views.Nothing said here is meant to imply that moral views are sharply distinguishable from political views, but, apart from reasonable interpretations of the harm principle, democratic governments should not prejudge citizens' moral views by framing policies that limit the (peaceable) free expression of churches, parents, teachers, and others. Given this commitment to free expression, and given the possibility of moral views having political implications, democratic governments cannot prohibit churches, parents, or, within limits, educators from expressing and arguing for their moral views. Where these become clearly political in the sense illustrated by supporting specific candidates for office, government may withdraw tax exemptions justified by charitable status, but the liberty principle protects free expression even in cases of this kind.This conclusion concerning democracy conceived institutionally does not in the least oppose the idea that ethics constrains churches in relation to government. A major general point here is that not everything unethical should be illegal. If that were not so, the long arm and rough hands of the law could reach into private life to restrict individuals' personal behavior toward one another. Granted, that behavior is far too often marred by perfectly legal conduct that exhibits immorally broken promises or morally reprehensible domination of the weak or vulnerable in marriage and childhood. For much of this, comprehensive legal enforcement of morality is not the remedy.A different example of how ethics may oppose or limit what law must tolerate, this time in the political realm, is assisted suicide. Suppose a church supports the view that it is morally wrong to assist in suicide. Preaching that view does not entail telling people to vote for illegalization, since that adds the threat of legal coercion to the already protected use of forceful public argument that may dissuade people from asking for or supporting assisted suicide as a practice. Preaching that view in moral terms also does not imply that those who accept the view should treat a political position on it as decisive in determining whom to vote for. A political candidate with whom you disagree on this issue may share your positions on other issues of at least equal importance to you. The overall conclusion here is that moral positions come in many forms, differ greatly in political scope, and, especially taken in isolation, may or may not reasonably determine a political stance. The moral right of free expression limits governmental coercion, but it leaves open how citizens should exercise that right in relation to political matters. Here clergy have both liberty as individuals and responsibilities as members of a profession: role obligations that set limits on their official conduct. These two elements can create conflicts, but surely the clerical responsibility to exercise moral leadership can be fulfilled without embodying or communicating political directives to parishioners and others who, in democracies, must exercise their freedom at the ballot box.Even a good account of how religion and democracy should be related institutionally leaves much open regarding the ethics of citizenship: the standards appropriate to guide citizens in their sociopolitical conduct, particularly where their religious convictions favor some specific legislation affecting citizens with opposing views. A central question here is what kinds of reasons citizens in democracies should take as a basis of political decisions and, especially, for votes favoring laws or public policies that restrict liberty. Some principles most widely known in recent decades come from John Rawls. Among his many formulations of broad standards constitutive of political liberalism is this judicial principle:Immediately following this he clarifies its scope by proposing a more principle for and may properly vote their more comprehensive views and basic are not at have it difficult to determine what should public but there is no that – both in and in much the term in or political theory more – public a of and does not on either religion or some particular or theory and, is by standards appropriate to and of a view is also in need of not possible but it is to say that it the of such major religions as the of and It need not positions that are comprehensive in scope, in a they do not embody commitments to highly specific standards of conduct, such as standards for and has the standard in many The same to this standard they their comprehensive that the of public as might be illustrated by a ethical texts to of a kind in nonreligious terms, such as restrictions on Indeed, in the to a of the same what he a significant of an that reasonable comprehensive be in public in at least governmental at any time that in due public given by a reasonable political are to support the comprehensive are to plausible and quite different proposed by in some most is how such of are, this principle is quite in sometimes religious convictions to determine law and policy without restrictions on content or The principle does, however, require a reasonable judgment that shared cannot the relevant and it apparently requires that actual legislation justified in terms of secular This overall standard well both with on the need for reasons to be in a way that will the public and with his that public reasons be due for what might be on the basis of other kinds of The question how far – if at all – position would lawmaking that is by religious reasons and not clearly by secular still more position on basing political decisions on religious considerations is view that citizens may reasons they though he three kinds of view that might not have any secular for a law – the of political requires their having some secular as one might reasonably that and respect in the of political discussion and in political as its will rule out much that other would rule out more But he leaves open that there are kinds of religious reasons that might be an appropriate basis for lawmaking with no restrictions beyond those of this it possible to a principle in the ethics of citizenship that is more some formulations by but and different from even if only have proposed a standard that has some with all of those but elements they do not called principle of secular it can also be called principle of to emphasize even if reasons are secular, they need not be in a secular and – on the positive – they represent recognized standards of what has been called It is illustrated both by that are properly to the of the as regarding what is or and and by of the and kinds in both and life. This principle of a kind of civic principle has been widely and should be secular is one that does not for its normative on religion or but it may of with a religious in say in the of and a right of free That and are wrong is among the moral of many religions and of an ethics in here is not to be in terms of as an to have secular that is but need not be The term The standard a genuine to the act in question if there is no of at least equal but a is not and can be Suppose only a to religious considerations could on with people. This could to more point is that the in question is with a right to act There are, however, within it may be wrong to exercise a for no charitable even though one can easily to do so and has no The principle of secular is meant to the range of legal likely in a society that by the principle, and it should be by good reasons from the ethics of citizenship, by The principle a kind of moral responsibility of citizens as but their liberty rights them to the have a normative to their as may have a to but the ethical in question is that of civic and respect for not the of rights we may against others. In religious with a into the terms of if not clearly the of the principle of is that of "Do unto not that of not principle of secular is this for also it for secular to coercion, it in no way out religious or It does not citizens to from expressing nor imply that such reasons can political nor even imply that religious reasons cannot be The is that some set of reasons for a law or public policy be both secular and This is not a on the content of civic It may indeed be an kind of to both one's religious and one's secular the to be about who one is, and the latter to others that one's case does not on standards they do not or may not but on considerations as some shared among all be sure, in reasons for a proposed law or we are not about who we are if we are not by those Suppose one only secular reasons regarding the good but is for instance, a religious or considerations of some would say – for one's reasons for of This point seems but of one's with one's – even lawmaking is at – is to the need for having reasons in the some cases of democratic it is more important that there be reasons for laws that restrict liberty most laws that they be on the basis of appropriate even from that oppose one may in support of a law or policy that is by good reasons that no one has and, with good the may acceptance of the law or But such a is not A law without support by reasons cannot be to be by sound and its may be by the reasons that to its points should clearly that the principle of secular does not restrict freedom of The relation between our reasons for and voting need not be and what we in political is not to much to only secular It is a matter of judgment just how much of one's overall whether religious or not, should be in arguing for laws or public In some religious convictions into public discussion or political would be in other this may be necessary to that secular considerations favoring a policy with a religious position important in the of the of an for a law or public will be but applies to other including that of democracy and