Although Gordon Brown is famously a son of the manse and refers often to the importance of his upbringing, David Cameron has described his Anglicanism (in a quote he attributed to Boris Johnson) as “a bit like the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns: it sort of comes and goes”. They all contributed thoughtful pieces to our recent discussion on citizen ethics, putting their political beliefs into an ethical and moral framework independent of religious belief. Yet like ancient earthworks in the early morning light, the outlines of Britain’s religious past remain discernible even among those who would only describe themselves as cultural Christians. Their shadows explain, for example, why Mrs Thatcher’s most prominent defeat was on Sunday trading, and Tony Blair felt he could not formally convert to Catholicism until after he left office.
The danger is that Anglicanism’s privileges, woven into national institutions, increasingly provoke demands for parity from other faiths. In some constituencies, religious influence is rising. Their demands will be a challenge for the next prime minister, the more pressing if constitutional renewal ”“ and the removal of the bishops from the second chamber ”“ is as high on the agenda as we hope. Dr Rowan Williams observed (before he became archbishop of Canterbury): “We have a special relationship with the cultural life of our country and we must not fall out of step with this if we are not to become absurd and incredible.” It is time to step out, not of public life, but from the legislature.
I was listening to the 2nd Debate of the 3 leading candidates for Prime Minister on the BBC earlier in the week. It was fascinating on a number of levels. They were having an American style townhall debate, and it really felt like an American Presidential election/debate and not a parliamentary election at all. (I have many British friends who were very put off by this fact.)
One of the more interesting questions that was posed had to do with some issue of faith, or religious diversity. I can’t remember exactly how the question was phrased, but it does not really matter because none of the candidates specifically answered the question as asked. What all the candidates did do was to re-frame the question in the same way by making it into a “how does religious faith affect my political outlook?” type of answer.
The answers from all three candidates were fascinating. Gordon Brown surprised me and openly claimed to be Presbyterian but then hedged his bets and said something about all religions are good if they work for peace and what not. Cameron, in typical Cameron fashion, didn’t actually profess any specific faith other than perhaps a nominal Christian one (although I inferred that) and the religion can inform politics but should be separate (again, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and trying to make an assumption that his answer had some coherent point.) The Liberal Democrat candidate, Nick Clegg, flat out said he was not a person of faith, although his wife was Roman Catholic, and their children were being brought up as such. He then modulated into how the recent abuse scandal has hurt Roman Catholics and caused a crisis of faith for many.
It seemed to me that their answers were trying to pander to the potential religious voters, but not the way American politicians do lip service to at least civic religion, if not to the full blown Religious Right in this country. They also seemed to be pandering to the prevailing anti-religion secularism sentiment that is rampant in Europe these days, especially among the intelligensia crowd.
That was just truly an interesting slice of British political science in action. Religion seemed to be playing a bit more of a role in this election in Britain than in years past, but it was still marginal. I still do not believe anyone could be elected President in the US and openly claim to be an atheist or “not a person of faith.”