Esther Rantzen is wrong. There’s no such thing as ‘secular neutrality’

Before the vote on Kim Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying Bill last week, Dame Esther Rantzen, the UK’s foremost celebrity supporter of a change in the law, said she “worries” about the number of opponents to the practice who are “guided by their faith”, adding they should be more “honest” about this fact.

The message was clear: ‘religious’ opposition to assisted suicide is illegitimate. Rantzen seems to believe that Christians MPs should preface their contributions on this topic with an admission: “I’m a Christian, and my views are coloured by this fact.”

Of course, she doesn’t demand this of atheists, humanists or agnostics. Her thinking is rooted in the myth of ‘secular neutrality’ – an idea that rears its head periodically in our national discourse.

Irrational beliefs

For people like Rantzen, ‘non-religious’ people such as herself approach issues objectively, unencumbered by “irrational”, “faith-based” beliefs. This idea has held sway in the higher echelons of society for a long time, but it offers a false view of the world.

It’s also an increasingly unpopular view.

As people like Justin Brierley have noted, society has moved past the intolerant approach to Christianity seen at the height of new atheism. In truth, every person comes to politics (and life!) with a range of values, beliefs and assumptions. Both atheism and secular humanism are faith-based belief systems. It’s also true that people on both sides of the assisted suicide debate make religious arguments.

 Contrary to what Rantzen believes, nobody is coming to the assisted suicide debate ‘neutrally’

In a helpful article, Christian doctor Alex Bunn, who has encountered the myth of secular neutrality in the world of healthcare, argues that: “Everyone has a worldview – a set of assumptions, prior truth commitments, by which to interpret the world and live by – on which they base their morals, even if they do not realise it.”

He continues: “Worldviews are not scientific conclusions, but that does not make them irrational or biased. They answer questions such as: How and what can we know? What is the purpose and goal of life? What does a good life consist of? What is wrong with man and the world, and how we can address it? Where did man come from and who is he? And what happens after death?”

Bunn stresses that no-one can “avoid making moral judgements, whether they are religious or not. Secular humanists also make them on the basis of their worldview and act as if they are binding on everyone else.” Contrary to what Rantzen believes, nobody is coming to the assisted suicide debate ‘neutrally’. Christians should not be made out to be inherently biased or untrustworthy.

A rational faith

Christians can feel intimidated by attacks on our faith, but we shouldn’t be. Ours is a rational faith and, whether it is recognised in our politics or not, Christianity has powerfully shaped our society for good over the centuries.

Distinctive Christian ideas of freedom, kindness, progress and equality have become part of the “air we breathe”, as both Christian thinkers such as Glen Scrivener, and non-Christians have observed.

Our laws have given expression to the fundamental idea that every person is made in God’s image and has intrinsic value. This has provided a solid basis for equality and the protection of vulnerable groups. Moving away from this position would have terrible consequences.

Everyone has a worldview – a set of assumptions, prior truth commitments - by which to interpret the world

Christians in ages past argued powerfully for justice, motivated directly by their faith. Think of William Wilberforce opposing the slave trade. He worked hard to convince others of his, and the Bible’s, view of human dignity – that those being kept as slaves had equal value and dignity to others in society and should be treated as such.

Wilberforce knew that the claims of scripture accorded with what he saw in the world around him. He saw that obeying God’s commands lead to good outcomes and spurning them lead to great harm. We can seek to emulate his approach, reasoning with people of different beliefs and helping them to see God’s better blueprint for society.

The hope to come

Christians, in parliament and outside, should continue to point out the terrible consequences of assisted suicide and herald a better way forward. One that truly affords equal value to every person and refuses to see suicide as a fitting response to suffering.

Palliative medicine is one response to suffering we can wholly support. As we engage, we must continue to proclaim the gospel – reminding our neighbours that they are made in God’s image, loved by him, and offered forgiveness and hope through Jesus Christ. We know that death and suffering will not be with us forever. Christ will return, death will be defeated and God will wipe away all tears from the eyes of his people.

“Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. There shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” (Revelation 21:3-4).