The Liberal Democrats have always prided themselves on being the party of tolerance and pluralism in British politics. Their “values” include the claim that an active state should “ensure that no one is held back by… discrimination”, including based on beliefs. It is therefore interesting that the leader of the Lib Dems, Ed Davey, is under pressure to apologize after the party admitted discriminating against a prospective parliamentary candidate because of his Christian views.

Former BBC journalist David Campanale won the selection process in Sutton and Cheam to be the party’s candidate ahead of the 2024 general election. He was then deselected by the Lib Dems after being “mocked and abused” for his Christian beliefs, in one instance being “asked if he was enjoying his martyrdom just like Jesus did”. The party has since admitted wrongdoing and has agreed to pay Campanale damages, and now faces a legal bill in excess of £250,000.

This is far from the only high-profile scandal endured by the Lib Dems in recent years over a perceived atmosphere of anti-Christian sentiment. In 2017, then-party leader Tim Farron stepped down from his role after stating that he found it “impossible” to reconcile being a committed Christian and the leader of such “a progressive liberal party”. He criticized his own party, saying: “I seem to be the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and who my faith is in. In which case, we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society.”

These are not the only cases of such mistreatment by the Lib Dems. Former Labour MP Rob Flello switched parties following his defeat at the 2017 general election, and was selected to stand as a candidate for the Lib Dems. However, like Campanale, he was also deselected, claiming that the party was “concerned” about his “religious beliefs”.

Recent political debates have resurrected this question of religious belief in public life. Throughout the debate surrounding the assisted dying bill, supporters have highlighted religion as a motivating factor behind opposition to the legislation. Lord Falconer, who sponsored the bill in the House of Lords, falsely stated that “the people who are opposed to [the bill] are opposed to it on spiritual grounds”, claiming that faith “colors their view” and is not an objective stance.

Perhaps Lord Falconer is unaware that Christianity has been the bedrock for the entire basis of Western morality, and that professing Christian faith leads to no less an objective moral stance than being an atheist. Indeed, the laws of this country themselves owe their existence to Christianity.

It is therefore incorrect to claim, as the campaigner Esther Rantzen has, that politicians who do not publicly profess a religion but instead vote in line with their conscience have “undeclared personal religious beliefs”. Rather, their understanding of what constitutes morality will have been shaped by centuries of Christian legal and cultural norms. As Sarah Mullally, now Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote at the time of the first debates on the assisted suicide bill, when she was Bishop of London: “[I]t is not the case that there is a ‘religious view’ and a ‘secular view’ on these issues. People of faith and those ascribing to a variety of philosophies of life hold a wide range of differing views on these deeply complex matters.”

Britain and its institutions were built by people whose convictions were, in large part, formed by their Christian faith. The implication that such convictions are now inadmissible in public debate is not a sign of liberal progress. It is completely at odds with the supposed tolerance of different faiths and beliefs that these individuals tend to advocate. The admission of discrimination by the Liberal Democrats in the Campanale case is simply the latest sign that so-called liberals have become something far less tolerant than they advertise themselves to be.