AS I suggested in a recent posting, Pope Francis said something quite profound, and provocative, when he declared in his folksy way that the atheist and the believer could “meet each other” by doing good. In almost every democracy, there is a lot of hard debate about the terms on which people of different religions and none can or should co–operate to achieve common goals, which might be social, political or humanitarian.
A British think–tank, Theos, is plunging into this discussion. Theos is a body that commands attention, and not just by virtue of its name, which is the Greek for God. It was launched with some fanfare in 2006 by the leaders of the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches. From an office a stone’s throw from the Palace of Westminster, it opines on the public role of faith in a country that combines Christian institutions and public symbols, an intensely secular intelligentsia and a messy multi–faith reality.
The body’s latest report is a clarion call for “political friendships across difference” in which people of various faiths and no faith form local coalitions to attain their ends. The author, David Barclay, starts with a couple of points on which many secular thinkers would agree. Public endeavours of any kind are likely to be coalitions, in a country where not only churches but political parties and trade unions have seen a tumble in membership. And “state multiculturalism”—helping religious and ethnic groups to assert their distinctiveness—is widely seen as a dangerous failure, at risk of turning the nation into self–contained blocks that hardly touch.
The answer? People with contrasting ideas about the ultimate can get to know and respect one another by working together to change everyday reality in big and small ways. The author acknowledges his debt to the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, who has said faith groups should stand “side by side” at a common coal–face rather than face to face. But in his report, “Making Multiculturalism Work”, Mr Barclay goes on to challenge some secularist thinking about broad coalitions. He insists that religious partners in any project should be free to talk about their motives; otherwise friendships will be superficial. As an example of secularist thinking which in his view demands too much, he cites a contributor to a Labour website who puts her case like this:
…the question for me is, would I be a friend with someone who thinks my sexuality, or right of access to contraception or abortion is inherently wrong? I would not. Why are making these exceptions seen as not a problem when we deal with faith groups?
Mr Barclay says this seems “a truly extraordinary view of friendship” because it could ultimately “rule out the possibility of being friends with anyone who disagrees on anything of fundamental importance.”
Read the full piece at economist.com
