Religion in egalitarian politics

Johann Hari raises a tricky question. Writing of Brown’s “social Christianity” as the basis of his commitment to egalitarianism, he asks:

I think faith is a dangerous form of bad thinking - it is believing something, without evidence or reason to back it up….Yet at the same time, when there are so many Murdochian pressures on a British Prime Minister dragging them to the right, pressing him to fellate the rich, isn't it good to have a countervailing pressure to help the poor - even a superstitious one? If religion drives Brown's best instincts and whittles down his worst, should we still condemn it?

I say yes. It’s just incoherent to use religion to argue for equality, into three senses.
First, religious-based arguments don’t permit the possibility of persuasion. If a Christian says: “the Biblical prophets tell us to help the poor” an opponent could reply: “the Bible has no authority, as God doesn’t exist.” And the debate stops there.
Redistributive policies then become merely a way of the Christian imposing his private beliefs onto others. Other people therefore become tools of his own will, rather than moral agents in their own standing, with beliefs of their own which we should address. This is an odd thing for an egalitarian to do.
Secondly, religiously motivated arguments assume that one party has superior access to a “truth.” This surely is a strange thing for an egalitarian to believe.
Thirdly, religious appeals undersell equality, as there are countless secular ways to argue for it; see here and the papers collected here.
I should stress here that my beef is not with religion as such. It’s about the role it should play in politics. In an egalitarian polity, in which people should be persuaded rationally of policies, religion should have no place – even if it is true. Religion might motivate political beliefs, but it shouldn’t, and needn’t, be the public justification for them.

Comments

[Neal Hockley]

Broadly agree, but not with point 2.

Egalitarians can believe that some people have greater knowledge of "the truth". If i'm ill, i consult a doctor, not the average-bloke-in-the-street.

Egalitarianism is about believing that everybody matters, not that they are all equally right, or insightful.

Cheers

Neal

[Roger Thornhill]

If religion is not hijacked by beards wanting to impose rules (I say "if", but it pretty much always is) then the moral guidance would be just that - guidance. Therefore, if Brown followed a true religious tack with regard to redistribution he would make it VOLUNTARY and for the private conscience of the individual.

Being a Socialist/Communist and Statist, Brown cannot contemplate private choice and will, so he will join with the beards and impose it as a rule.

[Chris]

"Being a Socialist/Communist..."

I think you need to re-read the definition of Socialist and Communist

[Niko]

The idea Brown is a "Socialist/Communist" is hilarious! Is this satire?

[gracchi]

Good point Chris- I always find religious arguments quite weak.

What is interesting though is that of the possible political arguments in the New Testament people chose not to use the egalitarian one- that I think is an interesting reflection of our political culture- but I agree I'd prefer arguments to be couched in terms open to all for refutation.

[dearieme]

You take your allies where you find them. Hell, liberals have accepted Roman Catholics as allies when Marxists are the foe. Or Marxists when Nazis.

[Roger Thornhill]

Scratch a Socialist and you will find a Communist.

[Mark Wadsworth]

"Scratch"? Why not "kick"?

[Shuggy]

Hmmm - I don't like religious justifications of political ideas either but the idea that one party has 'superior access to the truth' isn't an exclusively religious phenomenon. Remember how the Marxists used to roll their eyes at those of us who failed to understand the Laws of History? Yet they claimed to be egalitarians. Or were you one of them? ;-) Also lefties referred to the writings of Marx in much the same way Christians quote the prophets - in an equally un-open to argument kinda way.

P.S. Can someone tell Johann him he's got the wrong end of the stick with the whole 'jot and tittle' thing?

[Thom]

Also, a 'christian' sense of morality could drive one to helping some members of society more than others

[Niko]

"Scratch a Socialist and you will find a Communist."

Yeah, Gordon Brown, Kim Jong Il... all the same under the skin.

[Phil]

Shuggy -

"lefties referred to the writings of Marx in much the same way Christians quote the prophets"

I've never met a leftie that did, but maybe I've just been lucky. But this one observation that I don't agree with suggests two points I do agree with. Firstly, everyone gets their ideas from *somewhere*; even a pragmatic common sense conservative could probably name their favourite interpreter of pragmatic common-sense conservatism. I don't see any fundamental difference between referring back mentally to Raymond Williams and Rowan Williams. Secondly, in practical terms there's not a lot of difference between
"I don't believe in money-lending, although I may be wrong" and "I believe that the teachings of Jesus (or Marx) call for opposition to money-lending, although I may be wrong". Dogmatism and religion can go together, but either one can exist without the other.

[Phil]

Shuggy -

"lefties referred to the writings of Marx in much the same way Christians quote the prophets"

I've never met a leftie that did, but maybe I've just been lucky. But this one observation that I don't agree with suggests two points I do agree with. Firstly, everyone gets their ideas from *somewhere*; even a pragmatic common sense conservative could probably name their favourite interpreter of pragmatic common-sense conservatism. I don't see any fundamental difference between referring back mentally to Raymond Williams and Rowan Williams. Secondly, in practical terms there's not a lot of difference between "I don't believe in money-lending, although I may be wrong" and "I believe that the teachings of Jesus (or Marx) call for opposition to money-lending, although I may be wrong". Dogmatism and religion can go together, but either one can exist without the other.