A key tenet of democracy is the freedom of citizens to participate in the political process. The main purpose of such participation of course, is to influence the direction of government policy..People usually get involved to convince politicians and/or fellow citizens the government should pursue — or stop pursuing — a particular course of action. A side benefit to such activism is the participants often become better citizens, more aware of the issues that affect their community and better able to articulate their beliefs and values..If a healthy democratic society depends upon interested and engaged citizens — as most people would agree — then activism helps to improve the overall quality of democracy..This applies to conservative Christians just as much as anyone else, of course. Indeed, political scientist Jon A. Shields makes this point explicitly in his book The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right..His book counters the view conservative Christians pose some sort of threat to democracy. Strangely, such fear of Christian activists is widespread in 'progressive' circles. As Shields writes, “The claim that theologically conservative Christians threaten democratic values is not new. In fact, it would be hard to find a more well-entrenched and enduring belief among elite journalists and academics alike.”.According to Shields, there are three main criteria that are commonly used to evaluate political movements in terms of their impact upon democracy..The first is whether a movement has been successful in mobilizing citizens into political participation, especially citizens who had previously been disaffected or alienated from politics..The second is whether the movement has encouraged its adherents to abide by 'deliberative norms' (acting civilly and appealing to public reason) rather than exhibiting hostility to others and appealing to theological declarations..And the third is whether the goals of the movement enhance the common good..Unfortunately, the third criterion is not very helpful because the common good is defined very differently by people depending on their ideological perspective..According to Shields, there has been a substantial increase in the participation of conservative Christians in American politics since the 1970s..“By significant margins,” he writes, “conservative evangelicals in 1972 were less likely than other Americans to influence other citizens to vote and less likely to follow politics.”.However, beginning in the 1970s and accelerating during the 1980s and 1990s, Christian organizations deliberately mobilized conservative Christians for political activity..This effort had a noticeable effect. As Shields explains, “today conservative evangelicals are not only more engaged in politics than they were in earlier decades, they are also more engaged than other groups that they once lagged behind.”.Considering the first criterion, then, conservative Christian organizations have been successful: “Far more than any movement since the early campaign for civil rights, the Christian Right has helped revive participatory democracy in America by overcoming citizens’ alienation from politics.”.This is a clear win for democracy..The second criterion relates to how a political movement’s members conduct themselves in public. Do they treat others with respect and try to reason with fellow citizens? Or do they scream at their opponents and speak in terminology that others cannot understand?.For his study, Shields focused on the pro-life movement because it is one of the most important and long-standing causes of conservative Christian activism..He found pro-life organizations frequently try to develop skills of reasoned argumentation among their members. Their leaders “overwhelmingly emphasize four important deliberative norms: promoting public civility, practicing careful listening and dialogue, avoiding theological arguments, and embracing moral reasoning.”.They have discouraged pro-lifers from using theological arguments because those kinds of arguments are unpersuasive for non-Christians. There are solid philosophical and biological reasons demonstrating abortion involves killing an innocent human being..With this in mind, it is interesting to note that “one of the great ironies of the abortion debate is that it is actually the secular 'pro-choice' movement that routinely frames abortion as a religious issue.”.That is, abortion activists try to discredit their opponents by portraying pro-lifers as religious people trying to impose their beliefs on society. When pro-lifers avoid theological arguments, they undermine this 'pro-choice' tactic..Many pro-life organizations help to train their members how to argue for the rights of the unborn. For example, they explain fetal development and why the “pro-choice” position is inconsistent with human rights..As a result, pro-life activists become better educated about abortion and how to explain the issue to fellow citizens. This often makes them more engaged as citizens..Shields demonstrates Christians who engage in political activism tend to become better democratic citizens. They increase their knowledge of public affairs and improve their ability to discuss those affairs with others..In this way, they help to make the democratic process work as it ought to, and reflect the values of those who care about their society.
