To What Extent Are Religious Political Actors Constrained by Political Neutrality?

This conference presentation, and the essay it is based on, makes three claims. First, that political neutrality, as a doctrine which seeks to guide policymakers as they make impartial yet positive changes to the social order, also applies to religious leaders. I claim that to the extent that religious leaders are able to influence and advocate for policy changes which pertain to their traditions, they should adopt neutrality—equal treatment—with respect to the validity of their tradition as opposed to the validity of any other given religious tradition under debate. Second, I claim that the moral ideals and values of religion have a place in politics, and the interventions of religionists in public fora are within the scope of public reason. The difference between this second claim and the first, is that, for the first, political neutrality is the manner in which religious and non-religious actors intervene in public life; whether they are legally or rightfully able and justified to do so, pertains to the second claim (scope). Third and finally, I do not preclude religious leaders’ ability to personally adhere to the theological values inherent within their own tradition. A faith leader, while adhering publicly to the ethical and theological dictates of their tradition, should treat general religious lifestyle choices as on par with other, equally permissible and valuable, social vocations including work and leisure, in addition to treating their tradition as on par with other faith perspectives.