Neither Private nor Privileged

I'm on the train to London to attend "Reviving Faith in Politics", an event hosted by Theos at the Houses of Parliament, and sub-titled "To what extent should the church seek to shape public policy?

Some of my posts address this question - law of blasphemy; human embryology - as I believe this at its root to be the key question of all political engagement. Actually, how can it not be? Replace, with any of the following, 'the church' in the sub-title, and the question remains essentially the same:

'my personal morality'
'the synagogue'
'the humanist society'
'my atheism'

Basically, how can one justify influencing, setting, or rejecting public policy on the basis of one's ideology, one's philosophy of life? But, think about it for a second... on what other basis would one wish shape public policy? A simple majority opinion? The loudest voice? Should 'the church' or any religion claiming divine inspiration, be discounted simply because science does not prove (not 'disprove') its claims?

I'm interested in the answers to this that will be given tonight (by MPs from the three main political parties), and will take notes and blog some more tomorrow about the event.

P.S. Theos' latest report (by clear and coherent thinker and author Nick Spencer), addresses this issue - Neither Private nor Privileged: The Role of Christianity in Britain Today.