Should a political leader let his faith influence his decisions that he makes for the people he leads?

Comments

In a society where this faith is shared and influences political decisions in the direction of peace, justice, humanity, and equal citizenship, I see no problem.

Problems arise when either of these two conditions are not satisfied. Faith can lead people to do terrible things, for instance torture and murder those with different religious beliefs. No one should let his or her faith exert such an influence. Rather, when one's religion seems to require conduct that seems wrong, then one ought to re-examine one's religion. This does not mean that one should abandon one's faith, though it may come to that in some cases. Another possible outcome is a reinterpretation of one's religion (for example, many Christian now understand that their faith did not really require the Inquisition). And one may also conclude, on reflection, that one's religion was right, after all, to require the conduct in question (as when Christians in Nazi Germany came to endorse their religious duty to engage in treasonable resistance). These remarks about the second condition apply to political leaders and ordinary people alike.

You are probably more interested in cases where the first condition is not satisfied: where the political leader's faith is not shared and some political decisions this faith favors are controversial. Here a political leader may still allow himself to be influenced by his faith insofar as this faith favors good policies that have a solid secular justification -- as when his faith requires religious toleration, for example, or forbids torture. He should clearly not use state power to obstruct the practice of other religions or to require conformity to his own -- even if his faith suggests that those who practice another religion are doing wrong thereby.

The hard cases are those where the political leader's faith may influence him to endorse, and then to follow, one secular (freestanding) morality in preference to another. For example, quite apart from any religion, it is controversial among moralists whether it is wrong (absent special circumstances such as rape or genetic defect) to have or perform an abortion. A person of Catholic faith will feel drawn to a morality that deems abortion wrong (a crime against an as yet unborn human being) and may then favor some legislation against it as appropriate. Can we fault her for this? I think we cannot, so long as her morality, though supported by her religion, is also independent of it as shown by the fact that many non-Catholics also endorse it.

It is of great importance that political leaders act well, morally, because the decisions they make have such momentous consequences. (By the end of a President's or Prime Minister's term of office, millions have typically died prematurely as a result of decisions he has made.) Most political leaders do not act well, morally, and in most cases this is because they are not moral persons, not serious about morality. To be serious about morality, one must try to integrate one’s considered moral judgments through more general moral principles into a coherent account of morally acceptable conduct; one must work out what this unified system of beliefs and commitments implies for one’s own life; and one must make a serious effort to honour these implications in one’s own conduct and judgments. Those who are not serious about morality typically do not act well, morally, and when they are political leaders, then this can lead to a great deal of harm.

When a political leaders is committed to a religion that has implications for human conduct, and when he is serious about morality in the sense defined, then his understanding of his religion will invariably influence the coherent account of morally acceptable conduct he will develop. And his faith will then, via his morality, influence his decisions. If we voters want to avoid this, we can vote for non-religious politicians. But this may make it even harder to find ones who are morally serious about the momentous decisions they make in our names.

Read another response by Thomas Pogge

Read another response about Justice, Religion