Iris Robinson’s doctrinaire views on religion have landed her in controversy again. In June she caused an uproar with her views on homosexuality and this week she again came under fire for saying that it is the role of government to uphold the laws of God.

There is no doubt that Mrs Robinson holds deep and sincere religious views and she should be respected for that. She is also a hard-working and effective MLA and MP as evidenced by her popularity at the polls.

However, on reflection, she should consider the import of her views on the role of government. When she says that government should uphold God’s laws, does she mean her interpretation of the divine message? She is a member of a church which, according to census returns, has only around 12,000 adherents in Northern Ireland. Why should the laws governing the province be dependent on the views of those church members or, indeed, any of the Christian denominations?

What relevance does the laws of a Christian God have to those of other faiths or those who hold no faith at all? As a democrat she must realise that the imposition of personal, or even sectional, beliefs on the whole of society is a denial of democracy.

Of course, Mrs Robinson, like any other politician is perfectly entitled to oppose any legislation which contradicts or offends their personal convictions. At Westminster, Ruth Kelly, a Catholic member of the Cabinet, won the right for her and others to have a free vote on aspects of the human fertilisation and human embryology bill. But as a Cabinet Minister she will have to accept that Bill when it becomes law

or else resign her post. That is how democracy works. To follow Mrs Robinson’s argument to its logical conclusion would mean the creation of a fundamentalist state which would have no regard for the rights of non-Christians.

The challenge for politicians in Northern Ireland is to create a society that reflects the views of all its citizens. We have seen to our cost the dangers of domination by one section of the community, which left the minority feeling alienated. We have also seen how a mixture of politics and religion can further ferment division. The present power-shar

ing arrangement is an attempt to have inclusive politics and equality and fairness.

None of that prevents Mrs Robinson or any other MLA attempting to bring their personal values to bear on the political process. After all, some of God’s teachings, such as on murder and stealing, form the bedrock of civil law. Justness should always be at the forefront of legislation, but that means being just to everyone.

Mrs Robinson may argue that she has been unfairly treated for speaking out on her personal religious beliefs. Yet she has to realise that her views could be embarrassing to her husband, the First Minister. The public is entitled to wonder if he shares her views and would he use his position of influence to further those views.

There is also the possibility that Mrs Robinson may one day in the not-too-distant future become a Minister in the devolved administration. Would she then use that position to impose her beliefs on the community as a whole?