Ralph Norman discusses Lord Raymond Plant and his contribution to recent discussions of the place of religion in politics.

Concern has recently been expressed over the undeclared religious beliefs of politicians. There is suspicion of the potential imposition of private beliefs and values on people who do not share them. Others have responded that attempts to silence all religious voices in the public square are at best disrespectful, at worst excluding. 

Some, like Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, insist that politicians should keep their personal views separate from legislation. When passing laws, the decisions politicians make should be made for everyone.

The dominant understanding of political liberalism – the one which has set the agenda for some decades – has been that of the American political thinker, John Rawls. Although Rawls developed his ideas in the 1970s, ‘80s, and ‘90s (he died in 2002), he remains a considerable influence on political philosophy.

To summarise a complex argument, Rawls viewed the development of liberalism as a political solution to the historical “problem” of religion. He held different religions to be mutually exclusive. The liberal order evolved independently of church authorities and grew out of the controversies over religious toleration of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He argued that the public culture of modern democracies ought to be post-religious.

That political philosophy may fit the US Constitution well enough. But does it suit the United Kingdom? Moreover, does it commit liberalism to the privatization of religious practice, making it invisible in public life? And would that itself be fair?

Raymond Plant, Baron Plant of Highfield, is an English political philosopher and Labour peer. He has made important contributions to our understanding of the rights and duties of citizenship, social policy, social work, as well as questions of electoral reform. He has also been a subtle and persistent critic of Rawlsian liberalism. He contends that proper attention to religion ought to lead to reflection on what gives liberalism the right to set the limits on public discourse. Why liberalism rather than any other political solution to the fact of pluralism?

I was recently invited to write a chapter for a volume honouring and assessing the academic and political career of Lord Plant. In my chapter I examine Plant’s signal contribution to recent and often deeply contested discussion of the place of religion in a liberal state, arguing that the exclusion of all religious voices is itself unfair. Inclusivity should mean not having to hide, or feel ashamed of, your identity – including your religious identity.

Moreover, religions really are making important contributions to society. For example, the large majority of food banks are run from churches and other places of worship. Many local authorities are increasingly acknowledging the services provided by faith groups. And a recent report by the National Churches Trust showed that churches take huge pressure off the NHS by providing services that would otherwise cost an extra £8.4 billion per year – the same cost as employing 230,000 nurses. Our different faith communities do much for the common good. We need to find a better way of talking about, and unlocking the potential of, their enormous contribution to our society.

Fellow contributors to the volume include Gordon Brown (Prime Minister from 2007-1010), Lord (Roy) Hattersley (deputy leader of the Labour Party 1983-1992), and a distinguished list of public figures and leading academics. The book, The Idea of the Good Society: Essays in Honour of Raymond Plant, edited by Matt Beech (University of Hull) and Kevin Hickson (University of Liverpool) is published by Oxford University Press.

Ralph Norman is Principal Lecturer in Theology in the School of Humanities and Educational Studies.