To what extent is it legitimate to use religion as a basis for political decisions on public policy? Many people believe that such a use of religion ultimately results in violations of the separation of church state, and thus other people’s religious liberty. Many religious believers, however, argue that it is wrong to exclude religion from public debates and that such a policy effectively constitutes discrimination against religion and religious believers. Who is right?
In a way, both perspectives are “right” — it would be a mistake to assume that only one is valid and that the other must be wrong. Nevertheless, it must also be pointed out that former position is ultimately stronger. So long as it is not taken too far, it is the position which must serve as guiding principle.
There are a number of reasons why this is so, but perhaps the most fundamental and important is the fact that there is no one single religious perspective on the world or on questions of public policy. No matter what issue you might consider, even the existence of gods, there are a variety of religious positions on it.
What this means, then, is that it simply isn’t possible for the government to “take the religious perspective” into consideration — there is no one “religious perspective.” The government also can’t take every religious perspective into consideration because there are simply too many for that.
For the government to adopt any particular religious position as a basis for laws or policies, though, would mean treating the religious beliefs in question as true — or at least as more true than the religious beliefs that have been excluded. All other religious beliefs that have something to say on the matter are treated as if they were false, or at the very least as worthy of less consideration. This is a genuine example of religious discrimination which cannot be tolerated in a democratic, tolerant society.
To understand how this might be so, we can look at any number of examples from the headlines today: capital punishment, abortion, cloning, war, etc. What is the “religious position” on such issues? There are some especially vocal religious perspectives involved, but in no case is there a single religious perspective that we can consult. If those vocal religious views obtain a prominent role in the shaping of public policy when it comes to something as contentious as abortion, other religious views must be ignored — and that isn’t fair.
But why isn’t this the case any time the government adopts one basis for laws rather than other? The difference is that religion is based on what might be called “private truths” — ideas, beliefs, and “truths” that rely upon divine revelation. Such “truths” are a personal, private conviction which cannot claimed as creating obligations for others.
Non-religious arguments, however, can be based upon what might be called “public truths” — ideas, beliefs, and “truths” that rely upon public arguments and publicly accessible perspectives available to everyone, regardless of their religion. When public policy is based upon such public truths, then everyone is a part of the debate; but when private truths are used, then a great many people who do not recognize that particular divine revelation are automatically excluded.
