Reflecting on the relationship between Stephen Harper’s religious commitments and his position on climate change, Lawrence Martin sparked a debate online on iPolitics and in other media. In his July 31 column, Martin mused that Harper’s association with the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church may have something to do with his government’s “muzzling of the science community, its low regard for statistics, [and] its hard line against environmentalists.”
It is an odd assertion that Harper’s attendance at a church that has no official policy against science, statistics, or environmentalism would have this effect. I’ve occasionally attended services at Christian and Missionary Alliance churches and rarely heard any mention of these topics to my recollection. And my (admittedly unscientific) impression is that church members would differ more on these issues in a way that has much more to do with geography than doctrine, Albertans more likely to share views with Mr. Harper than non-Albertans.
However, in asserting that religious impulses are relevant when they have an impact on government policies and priorities, Lawrence Martin has a point. The difficulty is that he seems certain that there is a clean and neat dividing line between those who have a clearly religious set of policy preferences and those who do not. The implication is that religious believers are only welcome when they lay aside their particular beliefs. In so doing, it is not at all surprising that he would stir the ire of believers.
Why? Religious beliefs are just one sort of premise out of which a larger view of the world arises. In politics, this view is also shaped by ideologies, socialization into a particular political culture, one’s social circles and educational background, or (perhaps) the editorial position of the Globe and Mail. True believers wonder why it seems so strange to others when their religious beliefs have something to do with their political preferences. Faith shapes the worldview of the religious subject and has an impact on every part of his or her life. To lay aside those basic beliefs would demonstrate a severe lack of integrity. In the world of theology, ignoring one’s faith while studying the world or discussing public policy is called “dualism”.
Dualism is commonly defended in Western societies where it is assumed that the separation of church and state is a basic constitutional norm. But the separation of church and state was never intended as a means of distancing the individual from the faith that he or she embraces. It was instead aimed at ensuring that ecclesial authorities did not have temporal power. Martin reflects the dualist assumption when he separates faith from reason, asserting that the two are mutually exclusive. To the consternation of fellow Roman Catholics, he also sees little difficulty in claiming to be a Roman Catholic without accepting the doctrine of transubstantiation. This may be because he feels there is something more compelling about his own reasoned objection to such a doctrine – reasons that appear no less religious to people of faith than their own beliefs.
The point is this: it is unfair to expect believers to lay aside their beliefs when they enter public office. Each politician comes to government with a variety of ideas about the world. Some are ideological, some may be cultural, and others may simply be about political expediency. But some are going to be religious.
Mr. Harper (or any politician, for that matter) no doubt views the world through multiple lenses, some of them tinged with the hues of religious imagery, values, and experiences. Media pundits and political rivals have often suggested that the religious commitments of one or another politician threaten their reliability and objectivity. John F. Kennedy famously broke through this barrier as the first Roman Catholic president of the United States in the 1960s and Mitt Romney is seeking to do the same for Mormons this year. In Canada, relatively equal numbers allowed both Protestants and Catholics to participate relatively equally since Confederation. It is rare and usually unwelcome for media pundits to wonder if a politician’s Catholicism, Judaism, or commitment to Islam undermines his or her judgment. When such ponderings are leveled against evangelical Protestants, one would only expect them to feel a little defensive.
Democratic states like Canada are also pluralist states. This means that our democratic institutions bring together people of multiple backgrounds, religious beliefs, and ideologies. They combine the “encumbered selves” of politicians for good and ill. Mature democratic institutions need to find ways for religious perspectives to be reflected just as regional identities, ideologies, and class have always been. In addressing how this might be done in the realm of public policy, my colleague Jonathan Chaplin has written an interesting and provocative piece available here. His idea that public defence of a policy need not be religious in order for religious believers to have a part in the discussion is refreshing.
Religious believers also have a right to participate in politics, whether or not they appear to be as “reasonable” as other Canadians. When we dig below the surface, we usually find that religious faith is not simply a matter of religious denominations and associations, but a deeper matter of complex worldviews that divide and unite us all as human beings. The authentic beliefs of politicians will become clear over time. We can then level our judgment on their politics in the next election. Given that this is the case, we should not be concerned that they might also have religious commitments that influence their policy choices.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Paul S. Rowe
It is an odd assertion that Harper’s attendance at a church that has no official policy against science, statistics, or environmentalism would have this effect. I’ve occasionally attended services at Christian and Missionary Alliance churches and rarely heard any mention of these topics to my recollection. And my (admittedly unscientific) impression is that church members would differ more on these issues in a way that has much more to do with geography than doctrine, Albertans more likely to share views with Mr. Harper than non-Albertans.
However, in asserting that religious impulses are relevant when they have an impact on government policies and priorities, Lawrence Martin has a point. The difficulty is that he seems certain that there is a clean and neat dividing line between those who have a clearly religious set of policy preferences and those who do not. The implication is that religious believers are only welcome when they lay aside their particular beliefs. In so doing, it is not at all surprising that he would stir the ire of believers.
Why? Religious beliefs are just one sort of premise out of which a larger view of the world arises. In politics, this view is also shaped by ideologies, socialization into a particular political culture, one’s social circles and educational background, or (perhaps) the editorial position of the Globe and Mail. True believers wonder why it seems so strange to others when their religious beliefs have something to do with their political preferences. Faith shapes the worldview of the religious subject and has an impact on every part of his or her life. To lay aside those basic beliefs would demonstrate a severe lack of integrity. In the world of theology, ignoring one’s faith while studying the world or discussing public policy is called “dualism”.
Dualism is commonly defended in Western societies where it is assumed that the separation of church and state is a basic constitutional norm. But the separation of church and state was never intended as a means of distancing the individual from the faith that he or she embraces. It was instead aimed at ensuring that ecclesial authorities did not have temporal power. Martin reflects the dualist assumption when he separates faith from reason, asserting that the two are mutually exclusive. To the consternation of fellow Roman Catholics, he also sees little difficulty in claiming to be a Roman Catholic without accepting the doctrine of transubstantiation. This may be because he feels there is something more compelling about his own reasoned objection to such a doctrine – reasons that appear no less religious to people of faith than their own beliefs.
The point is this: it is unfair to expect believers to lay aside their beliefs when they enter public office. Each politician comes to government with a variety of ideas about the world. Some are ideological, some may be cultural, and others may simply be about political expediency. But some are going to be religious.
Mr. Harper (or any politician, for that matter) no doubt views the world through multiple lenses, some of them tinged with the hues of religious imagery, values, and experiences. Media pundits and political rivals have often suggested that the religious commitments of one or another politician threaten their reliability and objectivity. John F. Kennedy famously broke through this barrier as the first Roman Catholic president of the United States in the 1960s and Mitt Romney is seeking to do the same for Mormons this year. In Canada, relatively equal numbers allowed both Protestants and Catholics to participate relatively equally since Confederation. It is rare and usually unwelcome for media pundits to wonder if a politician’s Catholicism, Judaism, or commitment to Islam undermines his or her judgment. When such ponderings are leveled against evangelical Protestants, one would only expect them to feel a little defensive.
Democratic states like Canada are also pluralist states. This means that our democratic institutions bring together people of multiple backgrounds, religious beliefs, and ideologies. They combine the “encumbered selves” of politicians for good and ill. Mature democratic institutions need to find ways for religious perspectives to be reflected just as regional identities, ideologies, and class have always been. In addressing how this might be done in the realm of public policy, my colleague Jonathan Chaplin has written an interesting and provocative piece available here. His idea that public defence of a policy need not be religious in order for religious believers to have a part in the discussion is refreshing.
Religious believers also have a right to participate in politics, whether or not they appear to be as “reasonable” as other Canadians. When we dig below the surface, we usually find that religious faith is not simply a matter of religious denominations and associations, but a deeper matter of complex worldviews that divide and unite us all as human beings. The authentic beliefs of politicians will become clear over time. We can then level our judgment on their politics in the next election. Given that this is the case, we should not be concerned that they might also have religious commitments that influence their policy choices.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Paul S. Rowe
No comments:
Post a Comment