Be Reasonable

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks: Keep religion and politics separate

I've previously expressed my scepticism about the idea of religion existing within a secular society. Is it really possible for the deeply religious to keep their religion private and not have it interfere with public life? Well in today's Sunday Time Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks (Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth) explains how crucial it is to keep religion and politics separate.

Sacks covers disastrous episodes in history that have resulted from the mixing of religion and politics and is concerned that we may be headed in that direction again:

We are living in an age in which, not just in Britain but throughout the world, many people are disillusioned with secular politics, and are turning to religion instead. In itself that is a blessing. Religious faith is our noblest effort to understand ourselves and our place in the universe. The expansive air of the spirit redeems the narrowness of the material world. But to expect it to solve political problems is to invite disaster. Religion becomes political at its peril, and ours.

Sacks explains what liberal democracy can offer that religion doesn't:

Liberal democracy does what few great religions have ever achieved. It makes space for difference. It honours the person regardless of his or her beliefs. It allows societies to negotiate change without catastrophe. It teaches us the difficult arts of listening to our opponents and - in Isaiah's phrase - 'reasoning together'. These are modest virtues but necessary ones.

And:

Politics knows what religion sometimes forgets, that the imposition of truth by force and the suppression of dissent by power is the end of freedom and a denial of human dignity.

Sacks explains that it's the 'existence of alternatives, the clash of opinions' that keeps democracy alive and that this is where politics and religion differ. Personally I think that these are also the qualities required for contemplating the 'big questions' which Sacks considers to be the domain of dogmatic religion.

Of course, I'd prefer it if religion kept out of both politics and ethics, but I'm very happy to see Sacks speaking out in this way. I guess it's easier for a leader from a minority religion to support the separation of religion and politics, but with the current situations in the US and the Islamic world, it's certainly welcome.

Can we have a chief ethicist, please?

Simon Jenkins has written an excellent article in The Guardian today. He suggests that the government needs a chief ethicist to advise on difficult moral issues.

Jenkins proposes that the chief ethicist would, of course, be a philosopher. Wouldn't that be amazing? Imagine having a coherent ethical basis for issues such as how to address terrorism and how to legislate for advances in biotechnology.

Jenkins describes the role that the chief ethicist would play:

"Before the Iraq war the cabinet sought the view of its chief law officer on whether it was legal. I wonder what view it might have received from a chief ethicist, asked if the war was moral. One day we would have consulted a bishop. Now we need philosophers, and badly, even if they would be sorely overworked."

I think Jenkins is a little optimistic that the days of consulting bishops are completely over, but I do hope they are on the way out. I can't wait for the day when A C Grayling rather than Rowan Williams is routinely involved in government consultations on moral issues.

Is secularism a fallacy?

The term secular society is often used to describe a society in which religion is a private affair and does not have an impact on politics or public life outside of the religious sphere. I've often heard humanists advocating secularism and saying that they have no problem with private religion.

Although this sounds ideal, I struggle to understand how private religion is possible. It seems to misunderstand the meaning of religion. I can't understand how anyone could be serious about their religion and yet not have it strongly inform their opinions. When someone holds a viewpoint because they believe it is based on a revealed truth, there doesn't seem to be any way to explain their opinion in a secular manner. I really can't imagine a society in which religious leaders voluntarily stay out of political and ethical debates or restrict themselves to secular viewpoints. I know there are religious secularists, but I don't understand how this can work in general.

There was an interesting BBC radio programme on this topic as part of the Beyond Belief series. Julian Baggini argues for secularism and doesn't address this issue to my satisfaction. Baggini does seem to acknowledge that you can't keep religion out of the picture completely.

I find myself conflicted in that I completely respect the right of others to be religious unless it has an impact on public life. This seems to be a contradiction. I want a society in which religion has no place in public life, but from what I understand of religion, this means a society in which their is no religion (or in which religion is unwillingly repressed, which is definitely not a good idea).

If I'm honest I have to say that I would like to see humanity achieve a non-religious society. I do respect people's right to have religious beliefs, but I also wish they'd hurry up and work out that their beliefs are daft so we can get on with developing a grown-up society.