Generally speaking, those who follow a religion are able to accept democratic political rule. Democratic rule can be defined as a political system under which people govern themselves through elected representatives. Religion can be seen as the belief in and worship of a superhuman power/s. Democratic and religious believers often share similar values and endorse one another which proves their compatibility. Ways to behave and morals to follow, which may historically arise on religious doctrines, are often upheld and enforced through laws created by governments. This arguably aids religious followers and reinforces their their faith. Despite the fact that modern day western democratic systems protect the freedom of religion by allowing people of different faiths to live under the same institution, some religious beliefs still clash. 

Religions often have a set of values and ‘rules’ that a follower is advised to abide by. Not all people who classify themselves as say a Christian, abide by all the practices that are mentioned in the holy book, however some of these practices do align with laws created within a democracy. For the purpose of this essay I will assume that all followers are devoted and follow all the values and teachings of their religion. To begin with, most religions, with a few exemptions, believe in equality for all no matter gender or age or ethnicity. Looking at a democracy such as the UK, there are laws that protect this. For example, the Equality Act enacted in 2010 that protects people legally from discrimination inside and outside the workplace. Furthermore, a key concept of democracy are individual freedoms which are generally supported within religions across the world. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association and of course freedom of religion and belief are the most important ones. These are common values that, for example Sikhs hold as they also believe strongly in human rights such as freedom against oppression and freedom against injustice. They also believe that people have the right to follow their own path religiously and should not be condemned by others for their own beliefs. This arguably takes a more liberal approach than some other religions which believe that theirs is superior.  That said, a more liberal approach to human rights and justice tends to be a common theme throughout multiple religions that align with liberal democratic values.

Democratic systems generally enact laws aimed at  preventing people from doing what is deemed morally reprehensible. These moral values that are upheld by laws within democratic political systems, are often seen as universal and shared by majority of religions. These moral values therefore lay at the core of the laws created in a democratic countries. For example, it is illegal to steal something or to murder someone and if anyone breaks these laws then they are punished accordingly and within the law. These rules for example correlate with the ten commandments that Christians and Jews believe in such as one should not kill or one should not steal.  

The biggest issue, one may argue, is that some of the more zealous religious believers often follow their God as the highest and ultimate authority above the law. Respecting a  democratic government’s legitimate authority and abiding by laws and regulations, could be perceived by such religious extremists as undermining the authority of God, especially if some of them appear to go against the strict religious rules. However, governments and political authority tends to be accepted by most religions and even mentioned in certain religious teachings. Democratic governments themselves are also accepting of religions and do not regard themselves or attempt to portray themselves as higher than any supernatural being that people believe in. The aim of a government is to make a system that represents all people, no matter their religion so laws are adequately adjusted to tailor for different beliefs and do not force any set of beliefs on any members of the public thus protecting the freedom of religion.

Furthermore, according to Rousseau, individuals have agreed with the social contract to being part of the state, accepting the laws of the government and to being governed by those in power. This contract means that even if one is religious, they should accept and follow the rules of a state. Whilst this can be seen as a more extreme view where people are forced to accept and live by the democratic state, this is evidence that people have been accepting the authority of the government whilst also accepting that there is another powerful being like God. Christians can consistently believe that God authorises governments while also accepting the liberal principle of legitimacy, which states that political power is justified only when exercised according to principles all citizens can reasonably accept. This is evidence that religious individuals can agree with the sovereignty of the state and abide by its democratically enacted laws.

However, having multiple religions, let alone religions at all, within a democratic country, can lead to some members of society not tolerating other people of differing religions who happen to be governed under the same state as them. Different religions have differing opinions on whether it is acceptable to follow another religion. Being intolerant of other religions undermines the principle of plurality upheld by democracy, thus it is difficult for people who are intolerant to accept a democratic state. This religious fundamentalism can lead to civil unrest and acts of religious intolerance. It is therefore crucial that in democratic systems everyone should be represented equally and their issues should have an equal chance of being solved. If people are less tolerant to specific requirements and needs of different religious groups then this may result in difficulties in the government passing any legislature that can tailor to all people within such democracy. This can be especially the case with some potentially divisive issues such as abortion that have religious implications so the justification of passing a certain law may not be acceptable for a certain religious group making it difficult for the government to make policies.

I believe the most crucial issue arises when a democracy takes little consideration of religious groups and prohibits or limits freedom of conscience. This could be through the education system solely based around one religion, resulting in children not being exposed to other religions and beliefs as well as having laws that prevent same sex marriage which goes against the freedom of expression right of self identity. Such restrictions can lead to some religious followers concluding that their religion is not compatible with democracy as such, especially if they are living in a democratic system allowing for only one state supported religion such as Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Any such system that promotes one single religion at the expense of plurality results  in lack of belief in compatibility of religion and democracy.

People who follow a religion are able to accept a democracy as most religions accept the authority of the government as well as democratic values and laws upholding universal moral values which are mostly agreed on by all religions. Despite there being difficulties considering all religious views when making decisions in democracy leading to certain decisions being more secular focused and possibly lacking consideration of religious peoples concerns, overall democracy accommodates all religions and their rights are protected thus they can live under this system. However, the extent to which a religious person may reject living under a democratic state, depends upon how devoted they are to their religion and how much they practise their religion.