Managing religion and inclusive politics.

I've been attempting unsuccessfully to do a post on this topic, trying to tie it in with the continuing role of the Orange Order within N.Irish politics and in particular the new Conservatives and Unionists grouping:

But politics is and must remain a secular occupation. Politicians represent a population that espouses all faiths and none. Their representatives can, of course, hold private religious conviction but, in my view, politicians should not deploy their faith to persuade us of their moral rectitude.

We can judge that for ourselves; by their actions, by the way they vote and conduct themselves.

The SNP candidate in the up- coming by-election in Glasgow insists his membership of the ultra Catholic Opus Dei remains a private matter - of no significance to the electorate.

And it is a private matter - up to the point where Opus Dei's beliefs affect the social policies he will be asked to vote on. If on issues such as homosexuality and women's rights, they are in conflict with views held by the majority of his electorate, the voters should know before the election.

Colette Douglas Home has summed up my own view pretty succinctly there; we don't and shouldn't put restrictions on a politician's religious and moral beliefs. However, how those beliefs will affect their political policies is very much the electorate's business and those offering themselves up for political office have a duty to be 100% upfront on how they will vote on such related matters as womens' reproductive rights, single-faith/segregated schooling etc.

So, following that through in a specific Northern Irish context, a member of the Orange Order has as much right to offer himself up for political office as a member of Opus Dei or indeed the National Secular Society Having done so though, then he/she's got to be completely open as to how his membership of that organisation could not only affect his vote on certain moral and cultural questions, but also his role as a public representative in a society still divided in many ways along sectarian lines. The last part is especially important for members of the Orange Order who may be selected to fight for the Conservatives and Unionists at the next Westminster election. In May, David Cameron had this to say on the subject:

"I think the point is that the Ulster Unionist Party has broken its links with the Orange Order and what I’m trying to do with the UUP is not look backwards, but look forwards and say we can build a new force in Northern Ireland…which can attract people irrespective of which church they go to or how they worship God or which part of the community they come from."

He's not saying there OO members shouldn't be a part of that "new force"...but he is stressing that the kind of politics being promoted is to be an inclusive one, not based on the traditional, communal lines.

I've got no idea how the selection procedure for Westminster candidates is presently being worked out between the Conservatives and Unionists in Northern Ireland, the three questions below would seem relevant in the circumstances:

1. If an Orange Order member is selected, they surely must also have to buy into that more tricky element of "change" promised in the above quotation by Cameron (the first, the promotion of a UK-wide politics within NI should be a pre-requisite for any Unionist anyway)?

2. Are there occasions when rules of the Order would restrict the performance we should expect from our MP, MLA, Councillor etc?

3.Membership of the OO definitely places a candidate in a certain "segment of the community", how does the candidate propose to appeal beyond that segment?

If an Orange Order member is putting himself up for election for a party promising change and a new kind of UK-based politics for Northern Ireland, the questions above seem fair ones.