Katie Mackintosh looks at how state and the church compete to control
Historically, religion and politics have been inextricably linked. as the two most influential factors on people’s lives, religion guarded their souls while politics guarded their welfare. However, as modern societies become secular and increasingly turn to science and technology rather than theology for their daily guidance and support, religious influence in politics quickly turns to interference.
Now, in many parliaments around the world this interference is closely guarded against. Despite an overwhelmingly Muslim population, Turkey has been fiercely secularist since 1923. last month, hundreds of thousands of people rallied in istanbul in support of secularism, following concerns that the ruling party’s presidential candidate, foreign minister abdullah Gul, who was an outspoken islamist in the 90s, remained loyal to his islamic roots. While Gul pledged to be loyal to secular principles, he has also stoked secularist concerns by speaking out against restrictions on wearing islamic-style scarves in government offices and schools and taking steps to bolster religious schools. People protested in the streets, MPs boycotted the first vote and even the army, which as recently as 1997 carried out a coup to force Turkey’s first Islamist Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan from power, issued a forthright statement accusing the government of tolerating radical Islam and vowing that it would defend secularism. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Gul has since withdrawn from the candidacy.
In America, however, the distinction is more blurred. While the separation of church and state is one of the core values of the Us constitution, they often overlap because america remains a very religious country, “one nation under God”, that to a large extent expects its leaders to be guided by their religious values. as such, while the constitution may dictate that the two never shall meet, american politicians show no qualms about taking their faith into high office. President George W Bush, a born-again christian, even went so far as to claim that he is on a direct mission from God and that it was God who told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and create a Palestinian state.
In contrast, UK politicians are decidedly more reticent about laying their bibles on the table. When an American journalist from Vanity Fair dared to ask Prime Minister Tony Blair about his beliefs during an interview, his former spin doctor Alistair Campbell quickly stepped in saying: “We don’t do God.”
And yet religion is still significantly entwined with UK politics. the Queen remains the “Defender of the Faith”, supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the Church of England is even represented in the House of lords in the form of the Lords Spiritual.
However, despite these links, imagine the public outcry in the UK if Blair had claimed of the Iraq war, “God made me do it.”
imagine the public outcry in the UK if Blair had claimed of the Iraq war, “God made me do it.” 
overtly religious politicians make the public nervous. When it was revealed that former education minister Ruth Kelly was a member of the Catholic conservative opus Dei movement, her ability to carry out her role in government in an unbiased way, particularly in relation to sex education, was called into question. Unlike in America where public displays of faith are often seen as reassuring, reaffirming the individual’s morality and credibility, such displays are treated with suspicion by the great British public who prefer their politicians to have no greater influence than that of the people.
In Scotland, the link between religion and politics may be less formal but no less fraught.
However, the 2001 census showed that religion is still very much part of everyday life in Scotland. Perhaps unsurprisingly for a country with strong roots in Protestantism and Calvinism, 65 per cent of the population identified themselves as Christian, making this the largest religious group.
More tellingly though, it also found that over a quarter of the population, 28 per cent, stated that they had no religious affiliation. Furthermore, while 65 per cent may identify themselves as Christians, in terms of active Christians, or bums on pews, their numbers are freefalling.
As Michael Rosie, lecturer in religion and society at Edinburgh University explains: “the 2002 scottish church census found 570,130 Scots in church on the last Sunday of October, 11 per cent of the population. Whilst a substantial proportion of Scots are churchgoers, their numbers are in accelerated decline. Between 1980-90, the number of scots churchgoers declined by over 70,000: over 1990-2002, the decline exceeded 240,000.
“Between the Church Censuses of 1994 and 2002, the decline represented a loss of about 425 worshippers each week, the equivalent of a very large and vibrant congregation.”
Rosie explains that while the Church of Scotland has taken the biggest blow to its numbers in recent years, the Catholic Church is also beginning to feel the pinch.
“it has become a commonplace over recent years that the Church of Scotland is in a state of inexorable decline, and attendance figures seem to bear this out, Kirk attendance declining by 38 per cent between 1980-2002. But the latest figures suggest that the Catholic Church is now fully feeling the chill wind of secular decline. Whilst Mass attendance declined by five per cent over 1980-1990, the decline over the period 1980-2002 has been 45 per cent with further sharp falls projected.”
And yet, despite this decline in attendance, the census shows that a significant proportion of the population indicated that religion is a part of their life in some form or other. Certainly, religion retains a highly visible presence in daily life – be it through the significant work faith groups undertake with vulnerable groups in society, the diversification of society, the continuing fight against sectarianism or the faith schools debate. as such, their contribution to the political debate still deserves an ear.
Dr Mario Aguilar, director at the Centre for the Study of Religion and Politics, says that the need to create space for dialogue between religion and politics is vital, arguing that there are better opportunities for society when religion and politics interact and that separating the two merely creates “religious terrorists”.
In what way? “By suppressing discussion and democracy. after all, what is religion’s role in society? it is to support democracy, to create a basis for dialogue.
“I think Scotland is at the forefront of that dialogue, regardless of the Celtic and Rangers problems. the Dalai Lama came here twice. since devolution, religion has had its place within Parliament so we need to build on that.”
And yet in order to build upon that, it is worth noting that the church’s word is no longer gospel and while its representatives are more than welcome to add their views to the pot, in terms of Scottish politics, they are just another lobbying group, and as such, must respect the rules. Consequently, any perceived signs of interference are guaranteed to spark furious debate, as was evident by the furore that greeted Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s comments on abortion last week.
Speaking on the 40th anniversary of the abortion act, O’Brien spoke directly from the pulpit to the Parliament, urging politicians to “have no truck with the evil trade of abortion”. He went on to describe the number of terminations in Scotland as the equivalent of two Dunblane massacres every day and urged the Scottish Executive to put pressure on Westminster to change the laws on abortion. He continued: “For those at Westminster this means finding means of overthrowing the legislation, which makes the killing possible.
“For those at Holyrood that means refusing to allow our health services to participate in the wanton killing of the innocent.”
O’Brien went on to advise the congregation not to give their vote to politicians unwilling to give this support, and added a warning to Catholic politicians of “the barrier co-operating in pro-abortion legislation erects to receiving holy communion”.
The public’s reaction to his comments was divisive but nevertheless explosive. While most accepted that as the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, O’Brien was entitled to spout the party line, what irked more was not what he said but the way he said it.
Various parliamentarians lined up to condemn his comments, with Jim Devine MP criticising him for laying down penalties and questioning the right of a politician and practising Catholic to attend communion if they support abortion legislation, and Liberal Democrat MSP Jeremy Purvis accusing O’Brien of using “extreme and provocative language” and a “hectoring and bullying tone” towards politicians.
So was this the kind of dialogue that Aguilar had in mind?
First pointing out that the cardinal is, in fact, one of the patrons of the centre and he himself is a Catholic, Aguilar says: “is the cardinal not allowed to address his flock? If he was inciting bigotry like some radical Muslim clerics, there’s legislation for that and i’m sure the police would speak to him.”
Instead, Aguilar argues that the cardinal is entitled to tell any Catholic what the party line is.
“Some people have said that his language is very strong but for me, it is not strong for him to be saying something like that…
The Catholic Church has condemned it as immoral, that is the party line coming out of the Vatican.
“In my point of view, the cardinal is entitled to come to office and say why write something for abortion when you are a Catholic? If you support the 28 days’ Bill, we assume good Catholics would have to resign.”
Even if by supporting abortion laws they are representing the views of their constituents rather than their own interests?
“Then you have to ask, do you really have to be a member of the Scottish Parliament? You don’t have to serve if it is going to compromise your faith.”
But is faith compromising politics? Graham Blount, Scottish Churches parliamentary officer, argues that: “For most people of faith, faith pervades their whole attitude to life and that includes the whole political dimension as much as anything else. in terms of the churches engagement, the creation of this office came out of the Constitutional Convention and the campaign that brought us a Parliament. At the point when it became obvious that we were actually going to get the Parliament, the churches did not feel that it was either their wish or within the spirit of the Convention just to say that now we have elected you, over to you and we will just let you get on with it.”
Was it right for o’Brien to speak directly from the pulpit to Catholic politicians? Blount says: “I think churches differ in how they see their relationship with politicians who belong to that church or to other faiths. Most of the churches would not see it in the way that the cardinal does, or appears to have done.”
With the lines of communication between religion and politics kept open, such occasional spats are to be expected. What’s important, Blount argues, is that the relationship between the two is maintained and nurtured. “I think we would hope to have a relationship with politicians that is both critical and supportive – to recognise the calling of politicians and their need for support for that while frequently engaging in robust discussion with them, where we disagree with them, is the best way forward.”
No one has commented on this article. | 
Holyrood magazine is the fortnightly insiders guide to understanding the complexity of Scottish politics and policy developments and is widely regarded as being the leading publication for political news and information in Scotland.
