Religion and Democracy

The Guardian journalist Madeleine Bunting has been for a while one of the few left-leaning commentators who acknowledges the importance of religion. Yesterday she announced that she will now be leaving to become the director of the Demos think tank, "to try to shape debates, to move upstream in the process of how ideas bring about change".

While I'm sorry to learn that Ms Bunting (a recent discovery for me) will no longer be pitching into Richard Dawkins etc, it will be interesting to see what happens at Demos. I remember when it was formed by a guy called Geoff Mulgan about 20 years ago, and announced with much razzmatazz. Then I read one of its papers and remember being really quite unimpressed. Maybe it's time to take another look.

One of Madeleine Bunting's themes - probably her central theme - is that "democracy may not generate the values on which its vitality depends"; and that religion is one of the "ethical resources" that we have available to us. This point was illustrated very well by the (atheist) Roy Hattersley last year in the same paper, when he observed that following the Tsunami disaster in the Indian Ocean there were very rapidly a large number of religious organizations on the ground dispensing essential medical care, building shelters and otherwise providing people with succour in time of need. Where, Hattersley asked, were the secular equivalents? If religion is really unnecessary in our post-Enlightenment times, why does it seem to inspire people in a way that secular institutions and ideals don't?

In yesterday's piece, Faith can make a vital contribution to both democracy and scientific ethics, Bunting reports that the German leftist philosopher Jurgen Habermas recently had a dialogue with Pope Benedict XVI, concluding that 'The liberal state should "treat with care all cultural sources on which the normative consciousness and solidarity of citizens draws"'. Fans of HH will, I am sure, not miss the significance of that phrase "cultural sources". It does seem as if the liberal secular left is finally coming round to the view that something has been left out of the equation.

Speaking for myself, I don't subscribe to any particular religion, but I would defend the right of anyone to do so. I don't find religion is necessary for myself, the thought of a paternal, overseeing God never enters my mind, although I would describe my interests as almost entirely spiritual. Son of Moses might, I imagine, object to my position as "arid", but frankly that is just one point of view. In my view, the "Religion of the Self" spoken of by His Holiness as a possibility for the future could be a far broader Church, and a more generous philosophy, than has so far been dreamt of.