A common slogan in western liberal societies is that religion is a private matter; it has no place in public discussions of law, economics, public policy, education, social ethics, culture and so on. This “separationist” view is often attributed to US Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson “Wall of Separation Letter” and has become the orthodox view in liberal thought receiving important advocacy by philosophers such as John Rawls.

This idea is often enforced in the courts with public displays or manifestations of religion being challenged on freedom of religion grounds. This has recently been seen in European countries; recent laws and cases have seen bans on religious emblems being worn in schools, employment situations and in public generally. The UK courts recently ruled that Christians could not foster children out of fear their private beliefs about homosexual conduct might be taught to the children.

In the US, a confusing, and often contradictory, array of cases on everything from public displays of the ten commandments, home-schooling, school vouchers and so on has rendered the position in the position more and more hostile towards religion being exercised in public and the law has become more and more difficult to comply with because of increasing lack of clarity as to how it works.

Increasingly in the West we are seeing the idea of religion being something private being accepted by Christian believers who feel that while they personally believe something it is inappropriate for them to apply or utilise these beliefs when thinking about or going about issues that may affect others.

An increasing body of theological, philosophical and legal scholarship has called this orthodox view into question. These scholars have argued that the orthodox view is unjust, contradictory and arbitrary. It is unjust in that it places moral and social restraints on religious advocacy that are not imposed on non-religious views. It is arbitrary and contradictory in that the reasons typically offered for this view, if sound, seem to apply with equal force to any controversial view whether religious or secular and, in fact, to many doctrines central to liberal thought itself. Moreover, it suggests that even if religious beliefs are true and relevant to public issues, believers are to conduct themselves in public in a manner which ignores these beliefs or treats them as if they are not true if they cannot be justified from a secular viewpoint; in private they are free to believe what they want.

Critics of orthodoxy contend this separation of faith and self in public is unrealistic at a psychological level and that it fails to understand how religions function in the lives of believers who believe their religion to be true and not merely just a personal private preference.

New Zealand jurisprudence has not seen the litigation on this subject that the United States and Europe has so it is largely untested. The practice of being influenced by international precedent from the commonwealth and US jurisdictions coupled with our secular society which contains strong factions in favour of the liberal view – secular humanist groups, some politicians, scholars, media, bloggers – suggests that it will fall the way of the rest of the western world unless a robust counter-view is developed and advanced in the New Zealand across disciplines.

Further to the issue of justice, the tendency to view religious beliefs as a merely private preference that is isolated from one’s public actions, decisions and choices is pervasive in the New Zealand evangelical church and it leads to a view of religion that ignores questions of truth and focuses instead on private benefit and piety of religious belief.

For these reasons it is important this conversation be had across disciplines; particularly the three disciplines of theology, philosophy and law need to understand and hear each other so we can work together on this problem.

With this backdrop in mind, Thinking Matters and Evangelical Union bring you, as part of Jesus Week, the following event:

A Godless Public Square:

Do ‘Private’ Christian Beliefs Have a Place in Public Life?

7pm Wednesday 3 August
Lib B28 (Library Basement, 5 Alfred St) University of Auckland

Organised by: Thinking Matters and Evangelical Union
Format: Panel Discussion followed by Q&A
Moderated by: Patt Brittenden
Speakers: listed in the order they will speak in:

Theology – Matthew Flannagan PhD
Is it unjust for Christians to appeal to their “private” theologically based moral beliefs in public discussion or is the demand that such discussions be “secular” actually itself an arbitrary and unfair restriction on Christian believers telling them they are free to believe their beliefs are true in private but they must treat them as untrue when in public? How should Christians reconcile the requirement to live an undivided life with the expectation that they keep their religion private?

Philosophy – Glenn Peoples PhD
Liberal views on religion in public life claim that the public square should be neutral, it should not privilege one viewpoint over another when discussing public matters. For this reason the public square should be secular – but can this demand be consistently made? Can liberal thinkers consistently maintain that secular beliefs are neutral and that religious beliefs are not? Or are they in fact privileging their own secular viewpoint over all others?

Critics of the liberal view argue that it is more just to have a more pluralistic public square; one where all views, including religious views, are openly advocated, discussed and debated.

Law – Madeleine Flannagan LLB
In New Zealand the law around public expressions of religion is a little contradictory; on the one hand we have a right to freedom of religion and a right to manifest that freedom in public in the Bill of Rights Act but then there are other laws which privilege secularism, such as the Education Act. There has been very little litigation here which raises issues as to what precisely the law is.

The current law and jurisprudence in New Zealand arguably could permit the solution Glenn alludes to of having a more pluralistic public square that allows religion to participate but the liberal view has strong support in many quarters whilst the alternative view is not widely known or discussed by those quarters that might support it. An alternative jurisprudence, which encompasses the spirit of the solution advanced in philosophy, is being advocated by some Jurists and it is compatible with both our laws and our limited case law to date.

RSVP on Facebook or just bring your friends and turn up – the event is free and lay friendly.

We will be videoing it so if you cannot make it keep an eye out here at MandM or at Thinking Matters for the video.

Tags:   Evangelical Union · Glenn Peoples · Jesus Week · Religion in Public Life · Thinking Matters11 Comments