Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

An uneasy marriage of necessity

By Tony Coady - posted Friday, 20 April 2007


Santamaria would have been happier with his latter-day followers' focus on issues of sexual and procreational morality and euthanasia, areas in which the bishops still think they can command obedience. But Catholics and other Christians have increasingly diverse and considered views on these matters, and talk of "the Catholic vote", though still influential in some quarters, is mostly an anachronism.

Abbott and others with simplistic pictures of the role of religion in public life see politics as an arena in which religion battles "secularism", but this is a dangerous muddle. An anti-religious ideology of secularism must be distinguished from the commitment to secular space for politics.

Granting such a space need not indicate contempt for religion, nor relegation of it to the private sphere, since religious people are free to announce and pursue openly their conscientious values and argue for their political implications in the public sphere. They will, however, compromise their religion and weaken the impact of their values if they behave like puppets of their religious leadership or seek to further their ends by devious or surreptitious means.

Advertisement

Some theorists (such as the American philosopher Robert Audi, himself a Christian) hold that liberal democracy cannot allow religious premises a place in the arena of public reasoning, but there seems to me no principled reason for this restriction. The appeal to religious premises may be unwise since it may not convince the non-religious, but some religious values can be acknowledged on other grounds by outsiders, and an open statement of one's deep values is better than offering spurious non-religious arguments as a mere tactic.

One general lesson is that religious people should bring their values into politics with a sense that the complexities of policy will often make the concrete relevance of those values a matter for interpretation and controversy, even among those who share them. Faith, reason and politics can co-habit, but there is no slick formula for their successful marriage.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in The Age on April 3, 2007.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

65 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Professor Tony Coady is Professorial Fellow in Applied Philosophy at the University of Melbourne. He has published extensively on definitional and ethical issues to do with terrorism. His book, Morality and Political Violence will be published by Cambridge University Press later this year.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Tony Coady

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 65 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy