Posted by Wendy on August 16, 19100 at 01:12:01:
In Reply to: Furious backpeddling posted by Wulf on August 15, 19100 at 22:43:00:
Thanks for the apology and sorry if my tone was a little bit "shrill".
I don't see why personal religious beliefs should not be the basis for a legislator's stance on an issue. A politician should always fight for what he believes regardless of whether that belief is based on religious convictions or strongly held political views. What's the difference between a person arguing and legislating for pro-family tax policies because of his religious beliefs and someone arguing the same thing because it makes sense economically / socially? The important thing is that we are in a democracy and ultimately the will of the majority should prevail - but I see no reason why the Christian politician should leave his religious convictions at home. Having said that most Christian politicians use secular arguments supporting their religion based beliefs. There are surely very few legislators that would simply say, "the Bible says it therefore..."
Your concerns would only be valid in an autocratic non-democratic setting or one where a particular religious group is in an overwhelming majority. We then get into the difficult area: when should the views of the majority NOT prevail because they interfere with the legitimate rights of the minority? But that surely applies whether the issue is based on religious beliefs or other arguments. I would say that the views of the majority should prevail except where it is a clear violation of an individual's human rights (I know we then end up in the realm of supreme court judgements etc!). Just to give some examples, I would argue that in Iran, freedom to worship for minority faiths is a fundamental human right that should be respected by the muslim legislators. However in Ireland, I would argue that abortion is not a fundamental right and that the majority has the right to legislate against it. (Preventing people from travelling abroad for whatever purpose is clearly a violation of the individual's rights).
Looking at your euthanasia example, suppose you have a Christian Labour MP who strongly opposes euthanasia. He argues against it in party circles but the party includes it in its election manifesto (unusual actually - most moral issues are excluded from party manifestos) then he should make clear in his personal election literature that he opposes the party line on this issue. It is then up to the party whether to discipline him or sack him. Suppose he's in parliament and the Labour government tries to legislate on the issue and applies a 3 line whip (again unlikely on this kind of issue) he should defy the whip and take whatever punishment they dole out "on the chin". If he's in the cabinet obviously he has no recourse but to resign. And answering your question, if he's on a committee why should he not cast his vote against it?
I suppose "euthanasia" is not the best example since it is a life and death issue and as mentioned above not normally the sort of thing that governments themselves act on. "Divorce" law might be a better example. This is a clear case where a Christian legislator might say that although he is against it personally, he doesn't feel he has the right to impose that view on the secular majority. Several Christian MPs supported the reduction in the age of consent for homouals using the similar argument that although they did not approve of homoual activity they did not feel that it was an area where the criminal law should intervene (though there are valid arguments against that position).