BEFORE the Bill to legalise assisted dying returned to the House of Commons last Friday, Dame Esther Rantzen wrote to MPs that many of opponents of “this crucial reform” had “undeclared personal religious beliefs which mean no precautions would satisfy them”. Should they have the right to impose such beliefs “on patients like me, who do not share them?”, she asked. Some of the recipients of Dame Esther’s letter responded angrily — and not only the religious ones. The Labour MP Florence Eshalomi, a Roman Catholic, argued that “members with valid concerns about this Bill are not raising it because of ideology or religious belief. It is because we recognise that, if this Bill passes, it may impact everyone, not just those who may choose to die.” Jess Asato, another Labour MP, who is not affiliated to any religion, described Dame Esther’s remarks as “disrespectful to those with faith and without”.
Similar arguments are often made when religious leaders make interventions on other issues, such as immigration and asylum, international aid, or poverty. Sometimes such interventions are couched in explicitly religious language; sometimes, they are not. But the suspicion remains that religious believers have no business bringing their ideological baggage to the public square. Our readers will hardly need convincing of the fallacy of this argument: atheists and secular humanists also have their own frameworks of belief which are no more subject to verifiability than religious ones.
But there is another reason not to exclude the voices of religious people from public life: as Ms Eshalomi said, in reference to assisted dying, opponents were motivated by the impact that a policy would have “on everyone”. Similarly, when 15 bishops joined religious leaders in taking the Prime Minister to task for his talk of an “island of strangers”, with regard to immigration, they did so not out of self-interest, but “for all those whose voices are rarely heard in these debates”. It is precisely their religious beliefs that motivate them to speak up for the marginalised and the vulnerable; and public life would be impoverished without their contributions.
Rather than seek the diminution or even the silencing of religious voices, what is needed is “a space for open, honest dialogue where all contributions are welcomed, and all perspectives — including those grounded in faith — are treated with the dignity they deserve”, as the director of the Sanctuary Foundation, Dr Krish Kandiah, says. It is important to remember, he argues, that “democracy is not threatened when people bring their faith, values, and convictions into the public square — it is strengthened”. In the multitude of counsellors there is safety.