THE PLACE OF RELIGION IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE

  

Introduction

The place and the position of religion in public discourse has been discussed and debated for a long time. Questions like, should religion have a public role? Should religion be entertained in the public arena?  Should religion be kept private? These are some of the issues which appear regarding the position of religion in public discourse, especially when there is a Christian politician who runs for election. Before we see the position of religion in a public discourse, this essay will briefly explain the definition of religion and public discourse.

Religion

Religion is the set of beliefs, feelings, dogmas and practices that define the relations between a human being and the sacred or divine. A given religion is defined by specific elements of a community of believers: dogmas, sacred books, rites, worships, sacraments, moral prescriptions and organisations. A religion may be defined with three characteristics: Beliefs and religious practices, religious feelings and faith and unity in the community of those who share the same faith. In other words, religion is not solitary, it is communal.

In real life, religion is a complex phenomenon. It is social and anthropological as well as philosophical and theological. In other words, religion is a human and a superhuman phenomenon. If we only focus on the social anthropological perspective, then we can miss the core or the nature of the religion. On the other hand, if we see it only from a philosophical and theological perspective, then we can neglect its social-contextual construction. Even though social anthropology can study and observe the effects of religion, first of all religion is an experience of the divine which is beyond the scope of social anthropology.^[1]

Public Discourse

Public discourse is one of the most important aspects of a democratic system. It is a term which is used to discuss a variety of different ideas and issues which affect the large portion of a population or a nation. These become part of the public discourse and relate to the interest of the others, especially in pluralistic nations or countries where citizens are made up of various racial, ethical and spiritual backgrounds, all of which influence their beliefs and opinions.

All of these different groups of people want different things for themselves or their groups. It would be a chaos if everyone just lived by their own rule and did whatever they wanted. Therefore, it would seem the best way to go about governing a country and to keep a nation from collapsing is through public discourse where people from different groups can dialogue and the come to some public agreement to will be followed by all different ethnic groups.

Most democratic countries apply this system. This means that only the majority can rule, govern and change laws. The ruling party or group is elected fairly and made accountable to the people through public discourse. Unlike monarchical and totalitarian systems which are directive and sometimes coercive, the democratic-pluralistic country ensures its citizens are able to express their opinions and ideas and at the end through a public election agree to allow the majority to make the rule of law, even when they might be opposed in principle to one or other majority ideas. In other words, compared to other systems, the democratic system seems better able to avoid serious conflict among different parties or groups.

The Public Role of Religion

While religion has often been ignored as an important political factor, it is becoming increasingly clear that it plays an important role in world politics. In regard to the role of religion in public discourse, there are two positions which are in opposition to each other. On one hand, some authors insist that religion is a private matter and therefore it has no place in public discourse. Richard Rorty, for instance, rejects the idea that any transcultural norms of morality are embodied in religious traditions. He claims that such notions as transcendent human dignity cannot be invoked to stand in judgement of a particular historical tradition. Religion is a philosophical matter, therefore should be situated in a private place.^[2]

On the other hand, others believe that religion is interconnected with human life as the bearer of humanity’s deepest conviction about the human good. Authors such as Martha Nussbaum and David Hollenbach believe that religion should be given more public space. They believe that through its beliefs, religion can contribute to the social understanding of the human good.^[3]

In line with the idea of Hollenbach, Michael Perry and Robin Levin hold that religion plays an important role in public discourse and therefore oppose the privatisation of religion in public life. They argue that by rejecting religion in public discourse it will cut off some of the richest resources of human kind. Religions challenge secular discourse with an alternative perspective, enlarging and enriching the visions of society. When religion’s vision of good is identified with common good, it holds the power to unify.^[4]

One of the examples is the 1986 revolution in the Philippines. The sociologists and political strategists in their prior writings did not think that religion would play a crucial role in liberating the Filipino people from the tyrannical regime of Marcos. This is just an example of how religion contributes to society, especially when religion is part of the deeper conviction of the people and therefore it holds a power to unify and to change.^[5]

Mid Perspective

In considering these two positions, John Rawls does not reject the position of religion in public discourse and how it forms one’s point of view. However, instead of holding onto one position, he states that religious concepts should be argued in the public arena, at least to inform other believers.^[6]

Similarly, Ken Greenawalt addresses the fact that citizens are free to influence public policy with their own convictions even when these are religious convictions. However, in a pluralist context, a citizen should not force his convictions on others in a public forum or force someone else to follow his beliefs. These convictions should be shared among those of the same faith and not in the pluralistic public square.^[7]

In this way, all citizens are free to express their ideas and beliefs, even if they relate to religious convictions. They are entitled to hold their own views and they are free to share these views among those of the same beliefs. However, when it comes to the wider pluralistic society, these ideas and beliefs should be argued in a measured way. If society, through public discourse, agrees with the values of a particular religion and wants them to be applied to the country as a whole then this is possible. If not, these ideas and beliefs must be kept private and shared only among those of the same faith.

Catholic politicians

In a democratic pluralistic society, no law prevents citizens from expressing their ideas and opinions. All citizens have the same rights and freedoms before the law. The constitution guarantees that all citizens are free to express their opinions.^[8] However every opinion should be considered by the citizens themselves. They must consider if these convictions are helpful for human dignity and the common good? Do they promote harmony? Do they divide or threaten the pluralism of the community? These are some of the questions that can be brought forward to measure the opinion and ideas of a community.

A value derived from religious belief should not be accepted as part of public morality, unless by consensus it is shared by the community at large. That some values happen to be religious does not deny their acceptability as a part of this consensus. But if the values held by some threaten and divide the community then they need not be accepted. In this case, the community should decide, whether the value produces a good or a bad result for the community’s common good.^[9]

If all citizens are guaranteed the freedom to express their ideas, no matter what their background and their beliefs, the same applies to Christians. A catholic who holds political office in a pluralistic democracy is elected to represent and serve all religious believers whether they are atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Christian, whether they hold the same or different view towards the unborn, towards the equality of man and woman and towards the nature of marriage. By taking an oath of office a politician bears a special responsibility to create systems and conditions which enable all to live with maximum dignity and freedom, even if it is contradictory to Christian faith.^[10]

In doing this, it does not mean that he/she agrees with what others believe but respects their freedom to believe it.  Guaranteeing freedom for all, one’s own freedom is guaranteed and also one’s right as a catholic, to pray and to uphold certain ideals, even to refuse birth control or abortion. It would be chaos if laws changed based on the religious beliefs of the leader or the ruling party there would be no stability in the country.

Furthermore, Catholics as well other religious believers are free to argue for a governmental policy for a nuclear freeze or for the use of contraception, not just to avoid sin or because the Pope demands it, but because the government or the community should regard it as a desirable goal for the good of the whole community. The fight against the legalisation of abortion or euthanasia for example is not only matter of religion ideals but more than that, regardless its religious values, it about promoting human dignity.^[11]

A catholic politician is called to uphold a consistent ethic of life as proposed by Cardinal Bernardin who claims that fighting for life should encompass and safeguard all aspects of human dignity not only from the beginning of life, but also to waging war, capital punishment, healthcare, care and support for the disabled and aged, euthanasia and road safety. In other words, to be consistent, a Christian politician would see to the promotion of social justice in all aspects of life. ^[12]

To make this become reality, a Christian politician who believes in the gospel should apply this morality firstly to his/her own life and then influence political decisions and actions for the betterment of society. Here the question is not about the validity of gospel values but how these values are translated in public discourse and accepted by all citizens. If all these values promote the common good and respect human dignity, then a Christian politician will lead others to the truth.

To avoid conflicts and frictions in society, a Catholic, as well other politicians with faith, is called to be straightforward and not manipulate religion for political gain.^[13] A politician who uses religious arguments and values to gain support will certainly create disorder in a democratic, pluralistic society. Moreover, it is unacceptable to do so because it may create a prejudice where no religious values are acceptable.  It is possible that such concern can cause the separation of religion and state.

                   

Conclusion

Religion and public discourse can be considered as two different ideas. Religion, simply put, is a personal experience of the divine and public discourse is about decision making through dialogue and discussion.  However, religious believers can engage in public discourse as long as they promote and propose values which support the common good of society and are acceptable to other believers. The acceptability of religious values comes through decisions of society brought about through public discourse. If the general society rejects religious values when making decisions, then the religious beliefs should be kept private and should be shared only among those who share the same convictions.

Readings

Christina A. Astorga, “Should Religion Have a Public Role?” in Asian Horizons Vol. 6, No. 4, December 2012 pages 665-675.

Mario Cuomo, “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective,” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 1(1): 13-31, 1984.

Cormac Nagle, “Public Morality,” Compass 38:3(20014) 9-14.

---

^[1] Christina A. Astorga, “Should Religion Have a Public Role?” in Asian Horizons Vol. 6, No. 4, December 2012 pages 665-666.

^[2] Christina A. Astorga, “Should Religion Have a Public Role?” 672.

^[3] Christina A. Astorga, “Should Religion Have a Public Role?” 671-672.

^[4] Christina A. Astorga, “Should Religion Have a Public Role?” 671-672.

^[5] Christina A. Astorga, “Should Religion Have a Public Role?” 673-674.

^[6] Christina A. Astorga, “Should Religion Have a Public Role?” 672.

^[7] Christina A. Astorga, “Should Religion Have a Public Role?” 672.

^[8] Cormac Nagle, “Public Morality,” Compass 38:3(20014) 11-12.

^[9] Mario Cuomo, “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective,” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 1(1), 18.

^[10]  Mario Cuomo, “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective,” 16.

^[11]  Mario Cuomo, “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective,” 17-18.

^[12] Cormac Nagle, “Public Morality,” Compass 38:3(20014) 11.

^[13] Cormac Nagle, “Public Morality,” 11.