Re: Mitt Romney. Is it ever appropriate for a politician to justify policy on the basis of religious belief? Presumably, most people would answer this question with a vociferous "NO!". There's something strange about the way we ask politicians to compartmentalize their beliefs and motives, however. If a politician tells me that he has religious belief X but that he's able to separate this from his work in office, it seems to me that he doesn't really believe in X at all.

Comments

I'm inclined to agree that there's something strange in asking politicians to recuse themselves from personal integrity (which is how such compartmentalization might be characterized).

One interpetation of the politician's statement that he's able to separate his religious belief from his work in office is that his policy justification for X will not rely on his religious beliefs, even though his religious beliefs happen to endorse X; he will offer justification that a democratic majority is able to accept, one that doesn't violate any constitutional principles. I don't think this poses any threat to personal integrity. There may certainly be more than one reason for believing X, not all of them religious. A different case occurs when the politician endorses something incompatible with X. Then I'm inclined to agree with your last statement...although a single belief system may entail X but also the belief that itis wrong to force someone to act against his/her conscience, which the politician might judge would be the result of enforcing X as a matter of public policy. Most belief systems are hierarchical, and whether belief in X or belief in (say) freedom of conscience is more fundamental would probably determine whether the politician could in fact separate his belief in X from his work in office without impugning his personal integrity.

Read another response by Kalynne Pudner

Read another response about Justice, Religion