What is secularism? (Part 2) – Introduction, Study notes of Religion

Download What is secularism? (Part 2) – Introduction and more Study notes Religion in PDF only on Docsity! Resource 1.02 Page 1 of 3 What is secularism? (Part 2) – Introduction  What is secularism?  Is secularism a religion? Things we notice When we talk about religion in society, lots of people notice things like:  People have different worldviews and ideas about how best to live.  These often include disagreements over religion or irreligion.  Some ideas about how best to live are compatible or widely shared despite different worldviews.  Some ideas about how best to live are incompatible with or exclusive to certain worldviews.  Religion or irreligion can be used to inspire positive social actions.  Religion or irreligion can be used to inspire negative social actions.  Some people experience unfair advantages because of religion.  Some people experience unfair disadvantages because of religion.  People’s ideas of what gods want often coincide with their own desires or moral preferences.  Making particular beliefs about religion required or favoured over others has led to bad outcomes. Once we notice these things, there are lots of different ideas about how we should respond. One of these ideas is called secularism. Q1. What is secularism? Note down on a whiteboard or flipchart some of the answers, grouping them under themes Resource 1.02 Page 2 of 3 What is secularism? Secularism refers to a range of different ideas and practices which seek to balance freedom of and from religion with other rights. In its broadest sense secularism is the idea that religious beliefs and identities should not be privileged or discriminated against. From this Jean Baubérot (a sociologist of secularism and religion) argues that three key principles emerge: 1. Separation of religious institutions from state institutions and a public sphere where religion may participate, but not dominate. 2. Freedom to practise your faith or beliefs without harming others, or to change it or not have one, according to your conscience. 3. Equality, so that your religious beliefs or lack of them doesn’t put others at an advantage or a disadvantage. People who support or oppose secularism interpret this in a range of different ways and have lots of different ideas about why this makes societies fairer or not. Because different people can have different ethical stances informed by their worldviews, secularists believe:  Personal ethical preferences arising from religious, non-religious or irreligious convictions should not be presumed to be of more or less worth. So  Personal ethical preferences aren’t sufficient to compel others. Rules which affect others need to be justified. And  We can persuade people to agree with our personal ethical preferences, but we can’t force them to. So  Sometimes we need to protect people from having others’ personal ethical preferences imposed on them. Q2. What do you think of this definition? Discuss how it accords with their initial thoughts. Q3. How is secularism relevant to this subject? I.e. why might you be discussing secularism in Politics, RE or Citizenship Studies? Q4. What does “secular” mean? Resource 1.03 Page 2 of 2 Are the viewpoints secularist? The clearest secularist answer here is #b, but both #d and #e are also secularist. Two of these statements come from people who are religious believers. But for a secularist that is up to them. All that matters is whether religion (or irreligion) is forced on others by the government. Viewpoint #a, though it comes from a non-religious person, is not secularist, because they think the church and the state should have strong links. They might have all sorts of reasons why they think religion (Christianity in particular) should be privileged. Viewpoint #b, from a Muslim, is secularist, because they don’t think any version of religion (or religion in general) should be imposed on anybody else. Viewpoint #c, comes from an atheist. But this person would impose their views on everybody else and would restrict religious freedom. Secularists would strongly oppose this. Viewpoint #d, is similar to the second – and largely secularist. They are a deeply religious person who respects the rights of others not to be religious and they don’t think religion should be legally privileged, so they are a secularist. Viewpoint #e, is similar to the fourth and largely secularist. They are non- religious with strongly anti-religious views, but they don’t want them imposed on others. For both viewpoints #d and #e some secularists could have concerns over “social pressure”. Many forms of social pressure are part of promoting your views and changing people’s minds in a pluralistic society. But other forms of social pressure could lead to privilege or discrimination. Viewpoint #f, is definitely not from a secularist. They are deeply religious (not a problem) but they want to impose that on everybody else and use the power of the state and the education system to make everybody else share their views (a big problem for secularists). So, you can be a religious secularist (e.g. #b or #d), or anti-secularist (e.g. #f). You can also be a non-religious secularist, which is very common (e.g. #e), or a nonreligious anti-secularist; this is less common, but not unheard of (e.g. #a or #c).  Find or imagine examples of two secularist and two non-secularist viewpoints, which people might hold.  How do you think these viewpoints will affect these people’s views on other issues?  Script or act out a roleplay involving people holding two of the example viewpoints. They could be discussing a social issue, or could both be being interviewed about the role of religion in society. Resource 1.04 Page 1 of 2 Viewpoints on religion and secularism (part 2) – Religion and others  What is secularism?  Who is a secularist?  How do secularists think about decisions? Viewpoint a “We’re a Christian country and have earned the privileges religion has. In a democracy, if most people want Christian services provided then why should non-religious services be imposed? I like having prayers in school and at the start of meetings; if you don’t like them then don’t turn up.” Viewpoint c “Religion might inform people’s personal values, but when we come together as a group to make decisions that affect all of us, decisions should be made based on reason and evidence, not just personal feelings. Otherwise what basis do we have to say your personal religious feelings should trump mine?” Viewpoint e “The only way to ensure no religion is treated more favourably than others is to completely ban religion from public life. If you want to be religious you should keep that in your home, along with any religious symbolism or claims. People guided by personal religious ideas have nothing to contribute.” Viewpoint b “It’s a problem when the government picks and chooses between religions. But as long as each religion is treated equally then why shouldn’t religion as a whole be promoted? Religious freedom means being able to practise your religion, so this should be supported by the state.” Viewpoint d “Religion is the only basis for morality and so should be the basis of our laws and decisions. If people don’t follow my religion it harms our society, which we all have an interest in preventing. If a law isn’t consistent with religion, then it can’t be moral and forcing people to follow immoral laws is wrong.” Viewpoint f “Everyone should have the right to practise their personal religion or belief, but this should never be imposed on others. The government should stay out of people’s religious beliefs and shouldn’t support religious practices or beliefs. This requires the state and its services to be religiously neutral.” Q1. What do you think of this viewpoint (a–f)? Q2. Who do you think might hold this viewpoint (a–f)? Q3. Why (a–f)? Q4. Is this viewpoint (a–f) secularist or not? Q5. Why (a–f)? Viewpoints Consider the following viewpoints (a-f) on religion and society: Q6. Place the viewpoints in an order of your own choosing. Why did you put the viewpoints in this particular order? Q7. Do you think religion should influence the rights of others? Q8. Where would your view fit in the order you’ve created? Resource 1.04 Page 2 of 2 Are the viewpoints secularist? a. This is a common objection to secularism; it mixes a majoritarian and traditional argument. Such approaches tend to be more favoured by groups in a privileged position. b. This could be seen as a model of secularism, although it is generally outside the mainstream (for secularists). The problem with trying to treat all religions with equal state support is that religions are not homogeneous groups. Such approaches tend to give more power to religious leaders and to exclude the non-religious. c. This is a mainstream secularist position. Different secularists might interpret this differently. d. This is almost the opposite of a secularist position, as they are advocating for all laws and decisions which affect others to be based on religion. Depending on how that is interpreted, it might be a democracy limited by religious rules or an outright theocracy. e. This could be seen as an extreme form of secularism, so far outside any mainstream approach that most secularists wouldn’t recognise it as such. Secularists believe religion shouldn’t be privileged in public life (so shouldn’t play a formal role in public services or government) but don’t believe it should be restricted, except where necessary to protect other rights. Most secularists think people guided by religious, irreligious or non-religious personal beliefs contribute to society, but that decisions which affect the rights of others shouldn’t be based on religion or purely personal preferences. f. This is a mainstream secularist position. Different secularists might interpret this differently.  Think of 3 questions to ask people that hold each of the 6 viewpoints.  Script or act out a roleplay involving people holding two of the example viewpoints. They could be discussing a social issue or both be being interviewed about the role of religion in society.  Find examples of historical, public or political figures who hold similar viewpoints. Resource 1.05 Page 3 of 4 Binding of Isaac The three largest monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity and Islam, often called the Abrahamic religions) believe there was a prophet called Abraham, who was favoured by their god and who revealed his (God’s) will to the world. Both Jewish/Christian and Islamic traditions have some version of the parable of “The Binding of Isaac”, where Abraham’s willingness to kill his son in obedience to his god’s wishes demonstrates his (Abraham’s) obedience, and is rewarded. Jewish/Christian tradition: Genesis 22 From Wikipedia: “At some point in Isaac’s youth, Abraham was commanded by God to offer his son up as a sacrifice in the land of Moriah. The patriarch travelled three days until he came to the mount that God told him of. He then commanded the servants to remain while he and Isaac proceeded alone into the mount. Isaac carried the wood upon which he would be sacrificed. Along the way, Isaac asked his father where the animal for the burnt offering was, to which Abraham replied “God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering”. Just as Abraham was about to sacrifice his son, he was interrupted by the angel of the Lord, and he saw behind him a “ram caught in a thicket by his horns”, which he sacrificed instead of his son. For his obedience he received another promise of numerous descendants and abundant prosperity.” Islamic tradition: Suras 37 – The Aligners In most Muslim traditions Abraham is instructed by God to sacrifice his other son Ishmael, though the Quran doesn’t name the son and other traditions disagree. From Wikipedia: “The general narrative pertaining to Ishmael in Islamic literature describes the sacrifice either as a test or as part of a vow. Some versions tell of the devil trying to stop God’s command from being obeyed by visiting Hagar, Ishmael, and Abraham. Every time the devil says Abraham is going to sacrifice Ishmael, each person answers that if God commanded it, they should obey. Eventually, Abraham tells Ishmael about the order and Ishmael is willing to be sacrificed and encourages Abraham to listen to God. Often, Ishmael is portrayed as telling Abraham some combination of instructions to bring his shirt back to Hagar, bind him tightly, sharpen the knife, and place him face down, all so that there will be no wavering in the resolve to obey God. “As Abraham attempts to slay Ishmael, either the knife is turned over in his hand or copper appears on Ishmael to prevent the death and God tells Abraham that he has fulfilled the command. Unlike in the Bible, there is no mention in the Qur’an of an animal (ram) replacing the boy; rather he is replaced with a ‘great sacrifice’ (Zibhin azeem).” Resource 1.05 Page 4 of 4  Imagine you are giving a speech on the role of religion in politics. Half of the audience will be part of the Religion is Great Society and half will be members of the Religion is Awful Club. What will your speech be and how will it address the concerns of both groups?  Try to find three examples of speeches addressing the theme of religion in politics. At least one should be from a secularist perspective and at least two should come from the UK. Compare these speeches to the extract. What are the similarities and differences?  Find contemporary news coverage of this speech. What were some of the positive and negative responses?  Find examples of UK opinion polls on the role of religion in politics. Write a short report or news story on your findings. Resource 1.06 Page 1 of 4 How do secularists think about decisions? (Part 1) – Public reason giving  How do secularists think about decisions?  What are religious privilege, tolerance and discrimination? 7B’s Sandwiches Class 7B have done so well on their RE test that Mrs Butcher has decided to reward them with a big plate of bacon sandwiches. However, six students have a moral conviction which means they don’t want to eat them. a) Yvette is Jewish; she doesn’t want to violate a widely held Jewish belief that pork products aren’t Kosher and shouldn’t be eaten. b) Tayyab is Muslim; he doesn’t want to violate a widely held Islamic belief that pork products aren’t Halal and shouldn’t be eaten. c) Sasha is Christian; she’s come to believe that eating meat is a sin and her god doesn’t want her to. This belief isn’t shared by most Christians. d) Patrick is an atheist; he believes that the only reason people accept meat eating is because of religious influence, and that the only rational diet is pescetarianism. e) Veronika is a lifelong vegan; veganism is an important part of her life and central to her ethical and dietary decision making. f) Toby decided this morning that eating meat is ethically wrong after visiting a farm on the weekend and reading about the pork industry. Because different people can have different ethical stances informed by their worldviews, secularists believe:  Personal ethical preferences arising from religious, non-religious or irreligious convictions should not be presumed to be of more or less worth. So  Personal ethical preferences aren’t sufficient to compel others. Rules which affect others need to be justified. And  We can persuade people to agree with our personal ethical preferences, but we can’t force them to. So  Sometimes we need to protect people from having others’ personal ethical preferences imposed on them. Resource 1.06 Page 4 of 4  Create a poster to explain the principles of the veil of ignorance and a veil of ignorance thought experiment.  Research a critique of Rawls’ idea of the veil of ignorance and public reason giving. Do you find it compelling? Why or why not?  Read the Wikipedia article on John Rawls for a summary of his major theories on fairness and justice, with links to more detailed explanations.  Find a representation of the veil of ignorance in popular culture. For example this Dr Who episode: https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-great-hero-of-the-doctor-who-anniversary-special- is-1470394088  Contrast the use of “public reason” in the work of Immanuel Kant, John Rawls and a third philosopher of your choice. How might each of their interpretations be used to support or oppose secularism? Resource 1.07 Page 1 of 2 How do secularists think about decisions? (Part 2) – The Lemon test  How do secularists think about decisions? The Lemon test Secularists share the desire to balance freedom of and from religion with other rights when making decisions which affect the rights of others. Different secularist thinkers articulate this in different ways and take different approaches. One example of a secularist approach is known as the Lemon test. While secularists might not necessarily use such language (it after all comes from a specific example), it illustrates the sort of moral, political and legal philosophy which secularists use. The background to the Lemon test was a 1971 court case in the United States of America called Lemon v. Kurtzman. The USA is a legally secularist country – its constitution forbids the government from either establishing or prohibiting religion. You might be interested in the full background of the case, but in summary the Supreme Court considered two laws which allowed public money to be used to fund teaching at religious schools. Arguments were made on both sides. The lawyers for David Kurtzman argued that the law treated all private schools (religious or not) equally and not to allow this would violate his religious freedom. The lawyers for Alton Lemon argued that being forced as a taxpayer to fund religious teaching violated his religious freedom and violated the separation of church and state. The Court eventually decided that the laws were unconstitutional. They set out a test by which they and future courts would consider whether laws related to religion would be constitutional, i.e. whether they would be secularist by neither unfairly advantaging nor disadvantaging people based on religion. The test had three parts (or prongs) and a law or policy would have to pass all three to be allowed, or to be considered fair from a secularist viewpoint. 1. The Purpose Prong: the law or policy decision must have a secular purpose, i.e. it might have purposes related to religion, but it must also have a purpose unrelated to religion/irreligion. 2. The Effect Prong: the law or policy decision must not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. 3. The Entanglement Prong: the law or policy decision must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. Q1. Is something like the Lemon test a fair test (or tests) for laws or policy decisions which affect all of us? Q2. Pick one of the examples of a proposed a new law or policy above; does it pass each stage of the Lemon test? Resource 1.07 Page 2 of 2  Create a poster explaining the Lemon test.  Hold a mock debate based on the proposed laws in question 2. Resource 1.08 Page 3 of 6 Agenda item 2: School teaching The Temple of Teifi are a small group in the town of Bradlaughton, whose members have a history of being discriminated against. One of their theological beliefs is that the moon is made of Teifi cheese and that they will one day travel there to share the bounty among all humankind. For both observing and non- observing members of the Temple, Teifi cheese has an important role in social gatherings and ceremonies. Representatives of the Temple have argued for the “Teifi Theory” to be taught alongside the theory that the moon is made of rock in science classes. Vote “yes” to teach this alternative theory or vote “no” to keep things as they are. The councillors’ viewpoints Councillor Scarlet (votes yes): “The Temple of Teifi are a marginalised group; we shouldn’t be further marginalising them by unfairly excluding their theory of the moon from science classes. To exclude their belief simply because it is religious is to privilege the majority’s view of what should and should not be taught.” Councillor Mustard (votes yes): “As a member of the Temple of Teifi’s science committee I have studied the real scientific evidence on the moon and can indeed confirm it is made of cheese. The atheistic bias towards liking rocks explains their misconstruing the evidence to argue for their theory. Let the students learn both ideas and make up their own minds.” Councillor White (votes no): “The Temple of Teifi just want their ridiculous moon theory taught so they can promote their foreign ideology of excessive cheese eating. This will undermine the moral fabric of our town.” Councillor Green (votes yes): “The division between science and religion is put up by those that want to drive religion out of society. If we start saying that the Temple can’t have their views taught in schools, then they might be forced out of schools along with everyone else that wants to practise their religion. The moon being made of cheese is true for children from Temple families.” Councillor Peacock (votes no): “Many cultures and religious groups have their own myths about how the moon was formed, and it is right that these should be covered in RE lessons, but these are not science and we shouldn’t give in to religious demands for their beliefs to be taught as if they were.” Councillor Plum (votes no): “Schools should absolutely not teach anything about the moon being made of cheese as it is clearly false. Furthermore, schools should actively teach how harmful this nonsense is and the Temple of Teifi’s after-school class should be shut down if they continue to teach this cheesy claptrap.” Resource 1.08 Page 4 of 6 Agenda item 3: Birthdays The Church of Birthdays believes in rebirth and that everyone should celebrate every day as their birthday. You can’t enter the church without a birthday hat on and some followers insist on only eating birthday cake. They want to make birthday hats a mandatory part of the school uniform. Vote “yes” to make this change; vote “no” to oppose it. The councillors’ viewpoints Councillor Scarlet (votes no): “I am a member of the Church of Birthdays and practise it in my own way. I don’t need church elders or the town council telling me what to wear to show I am living a moral life according to the teachings of my faith.” Councillor Mustard (votes no): “In the Temple of Teifi we celebrate birthdays with cheese on toast. I don’t want another religion being forced on our children. We should ban birthday hats completely from public places.” Councillor White (votes yes): “Religious freedom means that sometimes accommodations have to be made; as long as these do not burden the running of the school, or harm the rights of others then they should be made.” Councillor Green (votes no): “I always wear a birthday hat when visiting their church out of respect, but that’s their space where they get to decide the rules. A school needs to be inclusive for everyone with the rules based on common principles.” Councillor Peacock (votes yes): “No matter your religion or belief, there are good reasons to make birthday hats part of the school uniform that are entirely unrelated to their religious significance.” Councillor Plum (votes yes): “I’m not a member of the Church, but I really like birthdays. They’re my happiest day of the year and if they make people happier then why not make them part of the school uniform?” Resource 1.08 Page 5 of 6 A secularist viewpoint (Agenda item 1: Speed limits) Councillor Scarlet’s viewpoint could be seen as secularist as they are not arguing on religious grounds but are making a majority argument. However, it isn’t very secularist to argue that just because a big religion says something it should get its way, we don’t know that all members of the Church support this belief, and we don’t know what effect it will have on other people’s rights. Councillor Mustard is making a secularist argument because they are saying the decision should be based on the evidence, not on the religious beliefs or identities of different people. Councillor White is definitely not making a secularist argument because their argument is based just on their religious beliefs. These may be okay for them, but what about others who don’t share these beliefs? Councillor Green seems to be making a secularist argument; they have their beliefs but draw a line between religious rules they follow and rules that everyone should follow. Our personal beliefs inform our morality and how we look at all sorts of questions. But can we really look beyond our own personal views? Councillor Peacock is making a secularist argument very similar to Councillor Mustard’s. But they disagree over whether the evidence really does justify the new speed limit, or whether the evidence is being twisted to suit someone’s pre- existing belief. Councillor Plum’s argument doesn’t seem very secularist; they are making their view of the religion the core of the argument. Should the town council be in the business of arguing about religious beliefs? Is arguing that a religious belief is wrong different from saying that it should be set aside to focus on secular (not related to religion) arguments? A secularist viewpoint (Agenda item 2: School teaching) Councillor Scarlet’s view isn’t very secular. Secularists seek to include all groups including marginalised groups by making sure they have the same rights, not by treating their beliefs as special. If the Temple’s view was being excluded because it was religious that wouldn’t be secularist, but in reality, it is being excluded from a science class because it isn’t scientific, and those arguing for its inclusion are doing so because it is religious. Councillor Mustard seems to be making a secular argument claiming to be based on science, not religion. But is this really the case? Councillor White isn’t making a secularist argument as their opposition to the cheese theory being taught is based on who is proposing it and their religious identity. Councillor Green isn’t making a very secular argument as they’re saying religious views should be taught because they are religious. Green’s view also assumes that members of the Temple and children from Temple backgrounds will share the same views. Councillor Peacock is making a secular argument as they are treating different religious ideas equally but saying they shouldn’t be given any special weight, such as being equated with scientific ideas. Councillor Plum’s views are complicated; they don’t want a false belief being taught in science classes, but should schools actively challenge religious beliefs, and what about religious organisations teaching about their own beliefs? Resource 1.09 Page 2 of 2 Privilege and discrimination When we talk about privilege and discrimination in a social context, we’re talking about unfair advantages or disadvantages which affect groups of people based on their shared (or perceived to be shared) characteristics. Examples might be racism, sexism, classism, ableism etc. There are all sorts of ways that society is set up to advantage or disadvantage particular groups. These can be complicated and overlapping, and they might not apply to everyone in that group, so speaking in generalisations can be problematic. One area of privilege and discrimination involves religion. There are many ways in which individuals within religious groups (and those groups themselves) experience unfair advantages (privileges) or disadvantages (discrimination) based on religion. For example, based on his membership of a religious group, James may experience discrimination by:  Being turned down for a job because an employer is prejudiced against that group.  Being the subject of unfair police suspicion based on actions of other members of the group. He may also experience privilege by:  Societal taboos against criticising his religious views.  Special exemptions to the law for his religious group. And that’s only looking at how society treats that group. There may also be internal dynamics of privilege and discrimination. For example: within John’s religious group, the views of men might be given greater weight or authority (privilege). But if John was a homosexual and LGBT people were the victims of prejudice within that group, then he might be the victim of discrimination. Q1. Why are students at the back of the class less likely to think this was fair? Q2. Why are we better at recognising unfairness that disadvantages us, than those that advantage us, or disadvantage other people? Q3. What is a headwind? Q4. What is a tailwind? Resource 1.10 Page 1 of 4 Religious privilege, tolerance and discrimination (part 2) – What are they?  What are religious privilege, tolerance and discrimination? Q1. What do these terms mean to you: a) privilege, b) tolerance, c) discrimination? Write down some key words or phrases in the boxes. Q2. What do these terms mean to you: a) religious privilege, b) religious tolerance, c) religious discrimination? Write down some key words or phrases in the boxes. Principles What are religious privilege, tolerance and discrimination? Privilege, tolerance and discrimination are key concepts within sociology and social justice. They are also key to secularism, and to arguments for or against a secularist approach. Privilege describes the benefits and advantages held by one group relative to another, which are the result of power dynamics. Privileged groups often view the imposition of their values as natural or normal. Because religious privilege is so normalised, many people have difficulty identifying it. To get around such “privilege blindness” we need empathy. If you are comfortable with one form of religion being imposed, how would you feel if it was another religion or belief system? “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” – Anonymous Tolerance is the ability or willingness to allow practices or opinions that one differs from, dislikes or disagrees with. Synonyms include: forbearance, toleration, sufferance, liberality, open-mindedness, lack of prejudice, lack of bias, broad- mindedness, liberalism and pluralism. In terms of religion, tolerance is the ability to practise your religion or belief without interference and without impinging on the rights of others; in this way tolerance is not and cannot be absolute. Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people. Religious discrimination would be laws or practices which treat people unfairly or restrict their freedom because of religion or belief – either the religion or belief of the person being treated unfairly, or that of the person practising the unfair treatment. Privilege and discrimination can be seen as a horseshoe, as privilege for one group or idea inevitably means discrimination for alternative groups and ideas that are relatively disadvantaged by not receiving this privilege. For example, privileging group A in school admissions discriminates against group B as they are moved towards the back of the line. Many people are beneficiaries of privilege in some ways and victims of discrimination in others. Resource 1.10 Page 2 of 4 Examples In this stimulus you will examine six examples where religion impacts public life. Example A: Bishops in the House of Lords The UK House of Lords is an unelected chamber. That means most members hold their position – and can vote on laws that affect all of us – after being appointed. An exception to this (the appointment, not the voting) is the “Bishops’ Bench” – twenty-four bishops and two archbishops of the Church of England hold seats in the House of Lords based on their church offices. Example B: Article 9 of the Human Rights Act Article 9 of the Human Rights Act (which is also Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights) states: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Example C: Equality Act The Equality Act sets the standard for equality and anti-discrimination law in Great Britain (Northern Ireland has its own version). It sets out the conditions where it is legal or illegal to treat people differently based on their “protected characteristics”. Among these are religion and belief and sexual orientation. That means that it is generally illegal for a business like a shop, restaurant or taxi company to refuse to serve someone because they are a member of a group the business owner doesn’t like. For example, Barry the baker could refuse to sell Cindy a croissant because Barry doesn’t like Cindy. This would be legal. But if Barry refused to sell Cindy a croissant because Barry didn’t like women, or didn’t like gay people, or didn’t like Christians, or didn’t like Asian people, or didn’t like people with disabilities or didn’t like old people, this would all probably be illegal. Example D: Blasphemy laws Blasphemy is defined in the Cambridge Dictionary as “something that you say or do that shows you do not respect God or a religion”. Generally, the term is applied by different groups to describe beliefs or statements they have a theological disagreement with, because either they differ on interpretations of a religion, or criticise religious ideas and institutions. Blasphemy laws can take the form of laws banning insulting religions or causing religious offence. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished in England and Wales in 2008. As of 2018, blasphemy remains a common law offence in Scotland and Northern Ireland although these laws are probably not enforceable. Elsewhere in the world, blasphemy laws are enforced, and in some theocracies carry the death penalty. Some people would like to see blasphemy laws introduced or other laws against insulting religions, though very few advocate such extreme penalties. Example E: Non-stun slaughter Animal welfare legislation in the UK requires all animals to be stunned before slaughter in order to minimise suffering. The only exemption is for religious communities to meet Jewish and Muslim religious dietary preferences. Resource 1.11 Page 1 of 4 Religious privilege, tolerance and discrimination (part 3) – How do we address them?  What are religious privilege, tolerance and discrimination?  How do secularists think about decisions? An RE lesson During an RE lesson, students have learnt about the role of worship in different religious traditions (and considered non-religious analogues such as personal reflection). They are then split into three groups and asked to consider ways in which worship is affected by religious privilege, tolerance and discrimination. The first group discusses the religious privilege in compelling, or giving special support to, worship. Dominic points out worship being an official part of school assemblies. The second group discusses the religious tolerance in allowing people to worship freely e.g. the quiet room where students can go to pray or reflect over their lunch break and Rima shares her experiences of going to church on a Sunday. The final group discusses how religious discrimination can affect worship. Paige shares her experience of their synagogue being vandalised, leaving them unable to attend prayers. When the groups feed back, there is some disagreement over whether the groups have put the different examples of practice into the right categories, and over whether it is fair or unfair for different practices to be tolerated. Susanna feels some examples don’t fit neatly into religious privilege, tolerance or discrimination. The teacher says this can be thought of as a continuum and the class discuss how other examples fit perhaps on a left-to-right scale. The next week the class have a history lesson about conscientious objection, perhaps considering those that have refused to fight in wars or practised civil disobedience motivated by religious or irreligious beliefs. This brings the discussion round to conscientious objection and what it means in today’s society. The class generally agree that people should not be forced to do something against their conscience, but disagree on what exactly this means and how it applies to different situations. This could bring up some issues that require careful handling, particularly as it relates to equality and the rights of others. Resource 1.11 Page 2 of 4 Q1. How does our view of what counts as religious privilege, tolerance or discrimination affect our view on the place of religion in society? Q2. Why might people disagree over whether something is religious privilege, tolerance or discrimination? Q3. Why do you think that religious privilege is good or bad for a fair society? Q4. Why do you think that religious tolerance is good or bad for a fair society? Q5. Why do you think that religious discrimination is good or bad for a fair society? Q6. Write down between six and ten examples of religious or religion-related practices. Q7. Does our society treat these examples of religious practice with religious privilege, tolerance or discrimination? Q8. For each example in Q7, how does this affect different people’s rights? Consider the following viewpoints (a-f) on religion and society: a) “We’re a Christian country and have earned the privileges religion has. In a democracy, if most people want Christian services provided then why should non-religious services be imposed? I like having prayers in school and at the start of meetings; if you don’t like them then don’t turn up.” b) “It’s a problem when the government picks and chooses between religions. But as long as each religion is treated equally then why shouldn’t religion as a whole be promoted? Religious freedom means being able to practise your religion, so this should be supported by the state.” c) “Religion might inform people’s personal values, but when we come together as a group to make decisions that affect all of us, decisions should be made based on reason and evidence, not just personal feelings. Otherwise what basis do we have to say your personal religious feelings should trump mine?” d) “Religion is the only basis for morality and so should be the basis of our laws and decisions. If people don’t follow my religion it harms our society, which we all have an interest in preventing. If a law isn’t consistent with religion then it can’t be moral and forcing people to follow immoral laws is wrong.” e) “The only way to ensure no religion is treated more favourably than others is to completely ban religion from public life. If you want to be religious, you should keep that in your home, along with any religious symbolism or claims. People guided by personal religious ideas have nothing to contribute.” f) “Everyone should have the right to practise their personal religion or belief, but this should never be imposed on others. The government should stay out of people’s religious beliefs and shouldn’t support religious practices or beliefs. This requires the state and its services to be religiously neutral.” Q9. How might different people’s viewpoints on religious privilege, tolerance or discrimination influence their thoughts on social issues? Q10. How might different people’s viewpoints on religious privilege, tolerance or discrimination be influenced by their own background and experiences? Resource 1.11 Page 3 of 4 7B’s Sandwiches Class 7B have done so well on their RE test that Mrs Butcher has decided to reward them with a big plate of bacon sandwiches. However, six students have a moral conviction which means they don’t want to eat them.  Yvette is Jewish; she doesn’t want to violate a widely held Jewish belief that pork products aren’t Kosher and shouldn’t be eaten.  Tayyab is Muslim; he doesn’t want to violate a widely held Islamic belief that pork products aren’t Halal and shouldn’t be eaten.  Sasha is Christian; she’s come to believe that eating meat is a sin and her god doesn’t want her to. This belief isn’t shared by most Christians.  Patrick is an atheist; he believes that the only reason people accept meat eating is because of religious influence, and that the only rational diet is pescetarianism.  Veronika is a lifelong vegan; veganism is an important part of her life and central to her ethical and dietary decision making.  Toby decided this morning that eating meat is ethically wrong after visiting a farm on the weekend and reading about the pork industry. After some discussion various other students suggest the following: a) All the students should have to eat the sandwiches. b) None of the students should have to eat the sandwiches. c) Yvette shouldn’t have to eat the sandwich because it goes against Judaism. But the others should. d) Tayyab shouldn’t have to eat the sandwich because Muslims face religious discrimination that the others don’t. e) Yvette, Tayyab and Sasha shouldn’t need to eat the sandwiches because they all have a strong religious objection, but the others just have their personal preferences. f) Yvette, Tayyab, and Veronika shouldn’t have to eat the sandwiches because their objections are central to their worldview. g) Patrick, Veronika and Toby shouldn’t need to eat the sandwiches because their objections are based on their own reasoning, rather than just religion. h) Yvette and Tayyab shouldn’t have to eat the sandwiches, because objections to eating pork are mainstream in Judaism and Islam. But Sasha should, because the idea that meat eating is a sin is fringe within Christianity. i) Veronika shouldn’t have to eat the sandwiches because of her life long objection. But Toby’s objection is recent and wishy-washy. Resource 1.10 Page 2 of 4 The paradox of religious tolerance So, how does this apply to secularism and religious tolerance? Secularists recognise that people with different worldviews can have very different ideas about how to live a good life, that these might occasionally be in conflict, and that they might include intolerant views and practices. Secularists recognise that religion can have positive and negative manifestations, and believe that preventing religious privilege or discrimination can prevent most of these negative manifestations. But to do this can require limits on religious tolerance, in order to protect greater tolerance. This limit on religious tolerance is reflected in Article 9 of the Human Rights Act having two separate clauses, which state: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. If religious tolerance or freedom were unlimited there would only be the need for the first clause. You will notice that neither clause creates a duty on the state to encourage religion. Q2. Why does a tolerant society require (or not require) limits on religious tolerance? Q3. How does secularism address the paradox of tolerance? Q4. How do critics of secularism address the paradox of tolerance? Q5. Why should a concern for religious tolerance lead us to support or oppose secularism? Examples In the following example we consider three reasonably common negative manifestations of religion. That is not to suggest that all religions, or all of any one religion manifests itself in such ways, or to that extent, or that irreligious beliefs can’t manifest in similarly negative ways. Example a. Homophobia Some religious groups have homophobic beliefs, i.e. they believe that natural human sexualities (other than heterosexual) and gender identities (other than male or female) are immoral and should be prevented. In the interest of religious tolerance, we might tolerate the following intolerant behaviours:  Publishing books or delivering lectures on why being LGBT is wrong.  Not being friends with LGBT people.  Not having LGBT clergy (priests, imams, rabbis etc.). Resource 1.10 Page 3 of 4 In the interest of religious tolerance, we might not tolerate the following intolerant behaviours:  Publishing books or delivering lectures advocating violence against LGBT people.  Refusing to provide goods or services to LGBT customers.  Refusing to hire LGBT candidates for a job. Example b. Restrictions on blasphemy Some religious groups believe that it is wrong to say or think certain things that go against their religious beliefs or criticise or disrespect figures in their religion. In the interest of religious tolerance, we might tolerate the following intolerant behaviours:  Preaching that people who commit blasphemy will go to Hell.  Banning people who commit blasphemy from being a member of the religion.  Not being friends with people whose religions they consider blasphemous. In the interest of religious tolerance, we might not tolerate the following intolerant behaviours:  Preaching that people who commit blasphemy should be violently attacked.  Passing laws banning blasphemy.  Refusing to provide goods or services to customers whose religions they consider blasphemous. Example c. Unscientific beliefs Some religious groups subscribe to beliefs that they might view as theologically true or even believe are scientifically accurate, but are from a scientific perspective factually wrong, e.g. the world being 6,000 years old. In the interest of religious tolerance, we might tolerate the following intolerant behaviours:  Preaching that unscientific beliefs are in fact true or scientific.  Persuading followers to make ethical decisions in accordance with those unscientific beliefs.  Refusing to be friends with followers of religions (or non-religious worldviews) that do not share these unscientific beliefs. In the interest of religious tolerance, we might not tolerate the following intolerant behaviours:  Teaching that unscientific beliefs are in fact true or scientific in schools.  Making those unscientific beliefs the basis of laws or policy.  Refusing to provide goods or services to customers who follow religions (or nonreligious worldviews) that do not share these unscientific beliefs. Q6. In the examples (a–c), what intolerance would be caused if the intolerant behaviours were outlawed? Resource 1.10 Page 4 of 4  Create a poster describing the paradox of tolerance.  Write a short story or roleplay which illustrates the paradox of tolerance.  Write a short essay entitled: “In the interest of religious tolerance, religious intolerance should be tolerated.” Resource 1.13 Page 3 of 5 Negative view: Critics argue that Laïcité leads to an obsession with religion and desire to legislate about religion that prioritises homogeneity over pluralism. Some argue that its emergence in such a specific cultural context leaves it inflexible and unable to respond to cultural change. Necessity (1) freedom of/from religion: Laïcité heavily favours freedom from religion in the public sphere, relegating freedom of religion largely to the private sphere or personal practice. Necessity (2) ordered liberty: Such systems are suspicious of overt religious manifestations that are seen as potential sources of conflict or competing authority. Laïcité sees participation in a particular form of secular citizenship as an important responsibility which allows rights to be granted. d. Accommodationism Background: All models of secularism are accommodationalist to an extent. But what is referred to as “Accommodationism” is the belief that religion is a public good that can be promoted by the state as long as it doesn’t unfairly privilege one religion over any others. In this view the state should respond to traditional conflicts caused by and between religions by making religious organisations partners in the delivery of services and the maintenance of order. Positive view: The need to appeal for state support can moderate religions, leading to them being more managerial and service-oriented and less evangelical. With less of a need to compete for new converts, religions are freer to work together, and a less turbulent religious marketplace reduces the likelihood of religious upheavals. The state is able to harness religions’ potential for social good – alleviating a welfare burden on the state – while gaining influence over religious communities. Negative view: While reducing interreligious conflict, such policies can increase oppression within communities by setting religious community leaders up as gatekeepers. Such policies undermine the principle of equality before one unified law. Such policies do not well accommodate small religious communities and the religiously unaffiliated or nonreligious. Such policies can encourage politicians to appeal to religious blocs rather than individuals or cross-community initiatives. Necessity (1) freedom of/from religion: Such models generally prioritise freedom of religion over freedom from religion, and see such rights as more communal than individualist. Proponents of such models argue that they moderate the negative aspects of religion that citizens might need freedom from. Necessity (2) ordered liberty: In such models, religious institutions and leaders are seen as key in maintaining order within their in-group, alongside rather than in competition with the state’s own maintenance of order. e. Non-cognisance Background: This is the idea that the state doesn’t take “cognisance” of religious concerns, but dons a “veil of ignorance” which blinds it to these. The state can recognise things like religious freedom and religious discrimination (where it has a secular interest in them) but aims to be neutral on (or blind to) theological issues. Positive view: This means that the state treats religious organisations and irreligious organisations equally. The state treats the secular concerns of all citizens, whether religious or not, equally. Negative view: A problem with this could be that because of traditional religious privilege and discrimination, the secular concerns of certain religious groups, leaders or organisations end up being given more or less attention. Others might question why religious (or irreligious) concerns should be excluded from public policy making. Others question the legitimacy of differentiating between religious or secular concerns. Necessity (1) freedom of/from religion: In effect it aims to separate religion and state (and vice versa) while maintaining a state role in protecting freedom of and from religion. Because the state is non-cognisant of purely religious concerns it can’t act on them or be used to impose on them. Resource 1.13 Page 4 of 5 Necessity (2) ordered liberty: This model restricts the state to maintaining rights and policies that can be articulated in a secular manner. This sees the scope of ordered liberty as being defined to those restrictions and protections that can be secularly justified. f. State Sponsored Atheism Background: Some states have adopted official policies of promoting atheism or outlawing religious practices or institutions. Most advocates of secularism do not consider this to be a form of secularism – particularly as such states have usually targeted religion to avoid rivalry with their own official dogma. Positive view: Religion has often been a source of disruption and conflict. States which mandate atheism might hope to escape such conflicts and create a more homogeneous nation with a unified worldview. Negative view: Such states have tended to be extremely repressive and operate functionally similarly to theocracies. It is unreasonable to expect groups (particularly marginalised or minority groups) to abandon religious and closely related cultural practices and beliefs. Necessity (1) freedom of/from religion: This form of secularism (if it can be considered one) is not generally concerned with freedom of religion, however it could be considered an extreme attempt to maintain freedom from religion. Some such states (like the theocracies they mirror) might make limited accommodations for religious freedom where it is not in conflict with state order. Necessity (2) ordered liberty: This model prioritises order above other concerns. Such models usually have an extremely limited concept of ordered liberty, in which adherence to a specified worldview is seen as essential for order. Q4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each type (a–f) of secularism? Q5. How does each type of secularism (a–f) approach Berlinerblau’s first of “two necessities”? – balancing freedom of and from religion Q6. How does each type of secularism (a–f) approach Berlinerblau’s second of “two necessities”? – ordered liberty. Q7. Does the UK follow any of these models of secularism, or a synthesis of more than one? Freedom of thought, conscience and religion Article 9 of the Human Rights Act (which is also Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights) states: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 14 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) says: 1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Resource 1.13 Page 5 of 5 2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. 3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Q8. How does Article 9 of the Human Rights Act address the first of Berlinerblau’s “two necessities”? – balancing freedom of and from religion. Q9. How does Article 9 of the Human Rights Act address the second of Berlinerblau’s “two necessities”? – ordered liberty. Q10. How does Article 14 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child address the first of Berlinerblau’s “two necessities”? – balancing freedom of and from religion. Q11. How does Article 14 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child address the second of Berlinerblau’s “two necessities”? – ordered liberty.  Find an interview of Berlinerblau discussing the six types of secularism.  Find a critical and a positive review of Berlinerblau’s book How to be Secular, which discusses these models of secularism.  Divide a piece of paper into six rows and three columns. How does each of Berlinerblau’s six types of secularism affect religious privilege, tolerance and discrimination? Positive viewpoint OC 17th century thinkers from this country, notably John Locke, were instrumental in establishing Enlightenment ideas of the separation of church and state. Although this never formally happened in this country, the power and influence of the established church has in practice massively declined and secularist values are mainstream in this country’s culture. Less than two percent of the population choose to attend established church services in any given week, and there is a strong commitment to freedom of speech. In 2012 the monarch as supreme governor of the established church declared that it “has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely.” During the 20th and 21st centuries, progressive liberation movements secured rights for range of marginalised groups including women and religious, ethnic and sexual minorities. Critical viewpoint PU Religious organisations exercise control over approximately one third of state funded schools and use this platform to lobby for religious interests. The country still has the same established church with the monarch still as its head as well as being head of state. The state continues to be involved in the appointment of church bishops, some of whom have ex officio places in the legislature through membership of the upper house of parliament, the House of Lords. Model of secularism OZ The country is an example of the slow development of secularism over centuries. With the powers of the established religion being reduced over time, other denominations acquired equality before the law and a culture of tolerance grew eventually to include all faiths as well as non-religious and irreligious worldviews. From the latter 20th century, the country has emphasised more secular democratic principles such as pluralism and human rights. In other ways the state has become more accommodationalist, with religious organisations receiving support and privilege but specific denominations being treated more favourably. Country description NI This country is a constitutional monarchy with an established church and a parliamentary democracy. It is actually a union of countries comprising four members, three of which have devolved parliaments or assemblies. The role of the monarch as head of state is largely ceremonial, with real power being exercised by the prime minister, who is conventionally the leader of the largest political party in the House of Commons. The largest religion or belief group are the non-religious, hovering at around 50% with a significant Christian minority and other smaller religious minorities. Positive viewpoint TW From the philosopher Confucius onwards, this country has had a long cultural history of scepticism and “this-worldliness”. It now has the world’s largest non-religious population. The country’s communist government is officially atheist, but unlike in the erstwhile communist Soviet Union, religion is not banned, and religious freedom is nominally protected. A 2015 Gallup poll revealed that 61% of the population are convinced atheists, 29% were “not-religious”, and just 7% claimed to be religious. Official recognition is given to five religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism. Critical viewpoint ZZ In authoritarian communist states, Marxism often operates in the same way as religion does in theocracies. A specific ideology of the state is exclusively promoted as the only permitted orthodoxy of belief, with freedom and equality denied to other religious or non-religious worldviews. Despite the constitutional promise of freedom of religion in the country, in fact all religions and alternative non-religious worldviews are subject to severe restrictions and state controls. In order to be a member of the Communist Party, an individual must not have a religious affiliation. Freedom of thought and expression are very restricted. Model of secularism US While the country incorporates some aspects of separationist secularism, it is in practice not really a secular state. It has a cultural background of irreligion in thought and practice, but since 1949 it has been to varying extents a dogmatic authoritarian state largely promoting a particular brand of Marxist atheism. Religious organisations are highly regulated and restricted where they are seen as a challenge to the state ideology. Country description YJ This is a socialist republic run by a single party, the Communist Party. No other parties are permitted. The offices of President (head of state), General Secretary of the Communist Party and Chairman of the Central Military Commission have been held simultaneously by one individual since 1993, giving him de jure and de facto exclusive power over the country. The large majority of the population is non-religious or follows traditional, folk religious or spiritual traditions. There is a significant Buddhist minority and there are smaller minorities of Christians, Muslims and other religions. Given the country’s large size, religions with relatively small percentages of the population still represent numerically very large groups and are the majority in some provinces. Positive viewpoint LO National law does not officially require all those living in the country to adhere to a specific religion and government policy theoretically allows other religions to be practised in private. Some argue that the ideological view of the state best reflects that of its citizens (formal citizenship can only be held by Sunni Muslims) and provides a basis for an ordered society. Critical viewpoint AA Non-Muslims, foreign Muslims and others whose beliefs are held not to conform to the official interpretation of Sunni Islam are vulnerable to discrimination, harassment, detention and imprisonment. Freedom of speech is vigorously suppressed. Blasphemy and apostasy are punishable by death. Women do not have the same rights as men. A version of Sharia is rigidly enforced as law, and public corporal and capital punishments, including crucifixions, floggings, amputations and beheadings are common. Religious and state powers are inextricably intertwined. Model of secularism LD As both a constitutional and practising theocracy, the state takes an almost completely anti- secularist approach to freedom of and from religion. In recent years however, there have been some signs of movement towards modernity in the social position of women, who are now allowed to drive for example, and also a curtailing of the intrusive activities of the religious police. While religious and non-religious groups other than the approved religion face severe persecution, there have been some efforts towards accommodating them. Country description XV This country is an Islamic theocratic monarchy with an official religion of Sunni Islam forming the basis of laws. The royal family dominate the political system and balance authoritarianism at home with now a more open image abroad. Partly this is driven by the need to find alternative businesses in the face of the depletion of the country’s oil reserves, which have been its main economic driver. Citizens are overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim, but analyses of the religious make-up of the country does not include the large population of foreign workers living in the country. Positive viewpoint PA The 18th century European Enlightenment was promoted by many of this country’s philosophers, who argued against the authoritarian dogmatic control over national political and social institutions exercised by the Roman Catholic Church, in close cooperation with the aristocracy. In 1789, a revolution swept away the old regime of church and monarchy in its entirety. The concept of Laïcité emerged as a republican ethic to protect the rights and freedom of conscience of every citizen from religious interference. The current Fifth Republic is built on the rigid separation of church and state. Freedom of religion and belief are seen as purely private matters. Critical viewpoint MU Laïcité, seen as the underpinning of this republic’s key values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, has at its heart a historical antireligious animus. This has led some to see this country as “militantly secular”. In 2010, the government implemented a ban on the wearing of the Muslim burka in all public spaces. This was much criticised internationally as a violation of individual liberty. Model of secularism HH The country’s model of secularism has a focus on shared values and identities. Freedom of religion is considered primarily to be a matter for the private sphere, with freedom from religion dominating the public sphere. Country description WH This country has a hybrid presidential/ parliamentary system of government. The president is head of state and shares power with a prime minister, chosen by the president who is the head of government. Democratic elections are held for members of the National Assembly, the lower house. The upper house, the Senate, has senators elected by an electoral college of local elected officials from across the country. This country has a nominal Christian majority, with a significant non-religious minority. There are smaller minorities of other religious groups, with Muslims being the largest of these. As part of its commitment to the separation of religion and state, the government does not collect official statistics on citizens’ religious views. Positive viewpoint YZ This state was created in 1947 after it won independence from British colonial control. Although intended as a country mainly for Muslims, it began in principle as a secular state. Its founding ruler, Jinnah, told his people: “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed. That has nothing to do with the business of the state. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state.” Earlier he had said, “Religion should not be allowed to come into politics. Religion is merely a matter between man and God.” Very quickly however, Islamic influence over government began to grow, although religious minorities were given freedom to profess and practise their faiths, something which is still formally guaranteed by the constitution. Critical viewpoint ZD This nation was originally divided into two separate countries, East and West. But in 1971 the eastern part became a separate country, and popular support for Islamist parties in the remaining western part increased. Subsequently, under various leaders, aspects of Sharia law were progressively introduced. The second prime minister, Khawaja Nazimuddin declared: “I do not agree that religion is a private affair of the individual, nor do I agree that in an Islamic state every citizen has identical rights, no matter what his caste, creed or faith be.” Freedom of speech about religion continues to be severely restricted by harsh blasphemy laws carrying the death penalty. Resouce 1.14 Page 2 of 7 Positive viewpoint OH The country’s intellectual founders were very aware of the potential for conflicts and persecution resulting from religious control of states and sought to create a secular republic in which the government could make no law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This effectively established the separation of religious and state institutions and formed the basis for the country’s religious pluralism. Despite a strong and diverse tradition of religiously motivated politics, the state is not meant to favour one religion over others or religion over irreligion. Critical viewpoint LM Critics of the country’s approach to freedom of and from religion come from different directions. In the view of some critics, while claiming not to favour one religion over others, the state allows for the religious motivations of the majority to form public policy, while not truly protecting freedom of and from religion for religious and non-religious minorities, resulting in marginalisation. Others argue that the separation of religion and state creates competition between religions, which drives polarisation. Model of secularism SS Essentially the country operates a “free market” approach in which a plurality of religious institutions and denominations compete, with no one denomination officially privileged over any other. In theory the state acts as an honest broker and establishes the parameters within which this competition takes place. No religion has any formal power in the public sphere, but the state is not hostile to religion and many political groups in government pursue policies motivated by religion. The country has traditionally taken a separationist approach to secularism with a separation of church and state. In recent history the country has taken a more accommodationalist approach, with the state partnering with and supporting religious organisations without officially privileging any one particular denomination. Country description NU This federal republic is the second largest democracy in the world. The executive branch is headed by the president who is formally independent of both the legislature and the judiciary. The legislature is bicameral (it consists of two chambers of congress). Republicanism, formal belief in equality and freedom of speech have long been established national political values. Taken together, Christian denominations form the largest religious groups, with significant and diverse religious and non-religious minorities. Positive viewpoint XP This country has a long history of religious diversity. Many centuries ago the first emperor to unite the country promoted tolerance and observed that “one should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others”. The British Empire claimed to bring a new equality before the law for all, regardless of religion. At independence in 1947, this country was declared to be a secular state. Its first leader, who was not religious, saw secularism as the route to modernity. The constitution provides for “liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, equality of status and of opportunity”. Critical viewpoint EK This country has faced difficulties over reconciling the separation of state and religion with the principles of freedom and equality of religion. The state has intervened in religious practices and institutions on a number of occasions, for example, in making laws to protect the conditions of life of those deemed untouchable in the caste system. Similarly, laws to create a uniform civil code clashed with Sharia law as practised by some Muslims. Recently there has been a resurgence of Hindu nationalism, which is challenging what it sees as “pseudo-secularism”. The prime minister has talked of “cleansing” the country of “foreign” religions like Islam and Christianity and challenging the place of secularism in the constitution. Resouce 1.14 Page 3 of 7 Model of secularism AX Whereas other models of secularism focus on protecting religion from the state, or individuals from religion, this country’s model seeks to protect different religious groups from each other. This concern is rooted historically in the cultural value of religious pluralism. The approach is fundamentally accommodationalist in that the government treats religious organisations as partners. Country description CX With 1.025 billion citizens, this country is the biggest democracy in the world. It is a federal parliamentary republic. It has a ceremonial president as head of state and a prime minister as head of government. The constitution defines the powers of both central and state governments. There is a bicameral legislature, consisting of an upper house representing the states of the federation and a lower house which represents the people as a whole. Hindus form the significant religious majority, with a significant Muslim minority. Christian and other religious and non- religious groups form smaller minorities. Given the country’s large size, religions with relatively small percentages of the population still represent numerically large groups. Positive viewpoint RS This country was the first Muslim majority country to declare itself secular. For six hundred years it was at the heart of the extensive Islamic Ottoman empire and its leader, the sultan, was both a political and a religious figure. All sultans claimed to be “caliphs”, divinely ordained to inherit the authority of Muhammad. But the Ottoman empire collapsed after the First World War and the country’s new leader ended theocratic rule, abolished the caliphate and brought in secularist reforms, declaring the country “laiklik”. The present constitution declares “individuals are equal without any discrimination before the law, irrespective of... philosophical belief, religion and sect, or any such considerations” and also “everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religious belief and conviction”. Critical viewpoint MK In practice this republic does not have freedom and equality on grounds of religion or belief. Certain Muslim sects are prevented from opening mosques or publicly manifesting their religion. There is a government ministry to control religious institutions. In the past sixty years of democracy, the secularism of the modern state’s founding father has been diminished. Culturally the people do not value secularism as much as the ethnic nationalism in Ataturk’s original vision. The election of Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his AKP party in 2002 began a further retreat on secularist values and a move towards making this an Islamic country with an explicitly religious constitution. Model of secularism DU The country is a case study in the introduction of secularist institutions by a powerful leader but without the full support of the vast majority of ordinary people. Its model of secularism is similar to Laïcité, with a focus on protecting the individual from religion, and separationism, with a focus on protecting state institutions from religion. The model is largely associated with the urban class and the political elite. Consequently, over time the population has used the democratic processes secularism introduced to vote for parties with anti- secularist agendas. Country description BF This country is a parliamentary representative democratic republic with a prime minister as head of government and a president as head of state. The prime minister is chosen by the president. The president is elected every four years on the principle of universal suffrage and does not need to be a member of parliament. A reform was passed in 2017, substantially increasing the powers of the president. The overwhelming religious majority is Muslim (with Sunnis the largest group and a significant minority of Shias); there are also other small religious and non-religious minorities. Resouce 1.14 Page 4 of 7 Positive viewpoint OC 17th century thinkers from this country, notably John Locke, were instrumental in establishing Enlightenment ideas of the separation of church and state. Although this never formally happened in this country, the power and influence of the established church has in practice massively declined and secularist values are mainstream in this country’s culture. Less than two percent of the population choose to attend established church services in any given week, and there is a strong commitment to freedom of speech. In 2012 the monarch as supreme governor of the established church declared that it “has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely.” During the 20th and 21st centuries, progressive liberation movements secured rights for range of marginalised groups including women and religious, ethnic and sexual minorities. Critical viewpoint PU Religious organisations exercise control over approximately one third of state funded schools and use this platform to lobby for religious interests. The country still has the same established church with the monarch still as its head as well as being head of state. The state continues to be involved in the appointment of church bishops, some of whom have ex officio places in the legislature through membership of the upper house of parliament, the House of Lords. Model of secularism OZ The country is an example of the slow development of secularism over centuries. With the powers of the established religion being reduced over time, other denominations acquired equality before the law and a culture of tolerance grew eventually to include all faiths as well as non- religious and irreligious worldviews. From the latter 20th century, the country has emphasised more secular democratic principles such as pluralism and human rights. In other ways the state has become more accommodationalist, with religious organisations receiving support and privilege but specific denominations being treated more favourably. Country description NI This country is a constitutional monarchy with an established church and a parliamentary democracy. It is actually a union of countries comprising four members, three of which have devolved parliaments or assemblies. The role of the monarch as head of state is largely ceremonial, with real power being exercised by the prime minister, who is conventionally the leader of the largest political party in the House of Commons. The largest religion or belief group are the non- religious, hovering at around 50% with a significant Christian minority and other smaller religious minorities. Positive viewpoint TW From the philosopher Confucius onwards, this country has had a long cultural history of scepticism and “this-worldliness”. It now has the world’s largest non-religious population. The country’s communist government is officially atheist, but unlike in the erstwhile communist Soviet Union, religion is not banned, and religious freedom is nominally protected. A 2015 Gallup poll revealed that 61% of the population are convinced atheists, 29% were “not-religious”, and just 7% claimed to be religious. Official recognition is given to five religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism. Critical viewpoint ZZ In authoritarian communist states, Marxism often operates in the same way as religion does in theocracies. A specific ideology of the state is exclusively promoted as the only permitted orthodoxy of belief, with freedom and equality denied to other religious or non-religious worldviews. Despite the constitutional promise of freedom of religion in the country, in fact all religions and alternative non-religious worldviews are subject to severe restrictions and state controls. In order to be a member of the Communist Party, an individual must not have a religious affiliation. Freedom of thought and expression are very restricted. Resouce 1.14 Page 7 of 7 Model of secularism JK The country makes minimal accommodations for freedom of and from religion, but in practice the dominant religion is closely tied with the state and enforced on citizens. Country description MZ Under the 1973 constitution, the country is called an Islamic Republic. Officially it is a federal multiparty parliamentary democracy, but army generals have always exerted considerable power over government policies. During the 20th century, several military coups were staged which overthrew democratic regimes. The overwhelming majority of the population are Muslim, with small religious and non-religious minorities.  As members of the United Nations, all six countries have said they will abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Compare and contrast each country’s approach to secularism with their responsibilities under Article 18 of the declaration “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”. Of these six countries only Saudi Arabia abstained on the vote to ratify the declaration, claiming that Article 18 was not consistent with Islam.  Look up Mandarin, Chinese, Turkish, French, Urdu, Hindi and Arabic words most analogous to the English word secularism. They might not be direct translations and there might be multiple translations. What do the usages of these words tell us about the different approaches to secularism in the countries above?  Divide into groups. Each group should pick one of the eight countries and create a poster or presentation on how this country approaches secularism or the relationship between religion, society and the state. The presentation/ poster should include the strengths and weaknesses of the country’s approach.  How does each country’s approach to secularism affect religious privilege, tolerance and discrimination? Resource 1.15 Page 1 of 2 Different types of secularism (part 3) – The Secular Charter  What is secularism?  How do secularists think about decisions?  What are religious privilege, tolerance and discrimination? The Secular Charter The National Secular Society’s Secular Charter reflects the mainstream model of and approach to secularism in Britain. But there are different models and secularists will disagree on how such principles should be applied. The charter promotes a secular democracy, where: a) There is no established state religion. b) Everyone is equal before the law, regardless of religion, belief or non-belief. c) The judicial process is not hindered or replaced by religious codes or processes. d) Freedom of expression is not restricted by religious considerations. e) Religion plays no role in state-funded education, whether through religious affiliation of schools, curriculum setting, organised worship, religious instruction, student selection or employment practices. f) The state does not express religious beliefs or preferences and does not intervene in the setting of religious doctrine. g) The state does not engage in, fund or promote religious activities or practices. h) There is freedom of belief, non-belief and to renounce or change religion. i) Public and publicly-funded service provision does not discriminate on grounds of religion, belief or non-belief. j) Individuals and groups are neither accorded privilege nor disadvantaged because of their religion, belief or non-belief. Q1. Do you agree with this clause? (a–j) Q2. Why or why not? (a–j) Q3. How would this clause affect religious privilege, tolerance or discrimination? (a–j) Q4. Is this the case or not in the UK? (a–j) Resource 1.14 Page 2 of 2  Find other examples of secularist organisations that have a charter or other statement of principles. How do these differ, and how does this affect their approach to secularism and religious privilege, tolerance or discrimination?  Write your own charter for secularism and religious tolerance. It might be a charter for your school, club or country. Create a poster for this, or for the Secular Charter above. Resource 1.16 Page 3 of 7 Many credit Luther with starting the Reformation, when he posted his famous Ninety-five Theses to the door of churches in Wittenberg – this criticised the Church’s sale of indulgences and would eventually see him excommunicated. As the Reformation gathered steam there were increasing conflicts between the Catholic Church and various Protestant Christian sects for the control of nations and city states across Europe. While Luther was primarily concerned with issues of theology, he made significant contributions to contemporary Christian views on the relationship between secular and religious authority. In his 1518 sermon (The Two Kinds of Righteousness), Luther argued that Christians should follow righteousness coram deo (in the eyes of God or faith) and coram mundo (in the eyes of the world, civil or legal righteousness). While this sort of worldly or secular righteousness was not in Luther’s view worthy of salvation, it was still a moral duty. Lutheranism (the branch of Protestant Christianity most associated with his legacy) developed the “two kingdoms doctrine”. This was the belief that that the church should not exercise worldly government, and princes should not rule the church or have anything to do with the salvation of souls. In a letter to the Duke of Saxony, Luther wrote: “God has ordained the two governments: the spiritual, which by the Holy Spirit under Christ makes Christians and pious people; and the secular, which restrains the unchristian and wicked so that they are obliged to keep the peace outwardly… The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself. Therefore, where temporal power presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God’s government and only misleads and destroys souls. We desire to make this so clear that everyone shall grasp it, and that the princes and bishops may see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with their laws and commandments into believing one thing or another.” Enlightenment The Enlightenment (also known as the Age of Enlightenment or the Age of Reason) was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe during the 18th Century, though its roots lay in the scientific revolution of the 17th Century and the Reformation of the 16th. The Enlightenment questioned traditional sources of religious, moral, political and intellectual authority. A range of thinkers began to view reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy and came to advance ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state. The Enlightenment, like the Reformation, is a hugely complicated period which, depending on your view, might stretch over more than a century. We only have space to consider four thinkers in this period and their contribution to the development of secularist thought: Locke, Voltaire, Kant and Jefferson. John Locke Born in England in 1632, John Locke was an early though influential enlightenment philosopher. A lot of his work revolved around “social contract” theory and theories regarding how property and rights could emerge from nature. In On the Difference Between Civil and Ecclesiastical Power (1674) Locke distinguished between two spheres of concerns or authority; civil and religious society. The first was the realm of the state, and the second of the church. Resource 1.16 Page 4 of 7 In the aftermath of religious conflicts following the Reformation, Locke wrote a series of pieces that would become Letters Concerning Toleration. In it he makes three central arguments for religious toleration: (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth- claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single “true religion” would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity. Locke believed that human nature was created by God and characterised by reason and tolerance. For Locke, the only way a Church can gain genuine converts is through persuasion and not through violence. This relates to his central conclusion, namely, that the government should not involve itself in the care of souls. From this he reasoned that civil societies could come together to address common concerns. However in reality Locke’s toleration for Catholics and atheists was far more limited. He believed that while Catholics should be free to practice their religion, their loyalty to Rome was a threat to state order in protestant countries. Voltaire If you’ve heard of Voltaire (real name François-Marie Arouet), you might have heard the quote “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. This actually comes from his biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall almost a century after his death, but many feel it sums up Voltaire’s views. Born in France in 1722, Voltaire would go on to be a prolific writer, historian and philosopher famous for his wit. Like many leading thinkers of this time Voltaire was a deist – he believed that a god had created the rules of nature (including human nature), but that these were governed by reason, while the god played no role in human affairs. In A Treatise on Toleration (1763) Voltaire argued for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and separation of church and state. “It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?” Voltaire’s fiction and non-fiction work often focussed on abuses of power by religious and aristocratic authorities, who presented their self-interest as the will of God. Immanuel Kant Kant was a German philosopher considered a central figure in modern philosophy. He was born in 1724. Much of his work concerned ontology (studying being) and epistemology (studying knowledge). Kant was religious, but criticised religious abuses of power and hierarchies. He believed that religion should be constrained by rationality, and that rationality properly understood supported a certain type of religion: “An inner disposition lying wholly beyond the civil power’s sphere of influence”. He appealed for “public use of one’s reason” to describe a common mode of deliberation, though much of his work focussed on the limits of reason. Kant described his liberal view of the state as: “Freedom (independence from being constrained by another’s choice), insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in accordance with a universal law”. He therefore argued that the state should hinder actions that themselves would hinder the freedom of others. However he also thought that the state should allow “all vices that do not contradict the civil covenant between citizens” and that this meant “permitting any irreligious behaviour”. Thomas Jefferson Jefferson was born in Virginia in 1743 and would go on to be the United States’ third president. Resource 1.16 Page 5 of 7 He was one of the intellectual leaders of the USA’s founding and instrumental in the development of the constitution’s first amendment, which guaranteed separation of church and state. The phrase “separation between church and state” is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” “Great men of history” When we consider the broad history of thought that led to the development of modern secularism in the European and later British tradition, we realise that many of the thinkers are white, European, Protestant men. The ability to contribute to public debates has often been restricted to certain groups, and some people’s contributions are more likely to be preserved for history because of their privileged status. But if you want to learn more about the development of secularist thought, it would be negligent not to consider the development of secularist ideas by other thinkers, including those in various Arabic, African, American, Indian and Asian traditions. By the standards of today, few people would describe Locke and Luther as tolerant, liberal or secularist. Locke helped lay the intellectual foundations for political liberalism, yet he supported slavery and colonialism. Luther helped lay the intellectual foundations for religious liberalism, yet he had very clear and dogmatic ideas on the correct way to live and on who was going to end up in Hell. If you met them today you might think they were bigots, yet their ideas helped inform many of the freedoms and tolerances we enjoy today. It is for this reason that some people argue that liberal secularism owes its foundations to Protestant Christianity. Others argue these ideas would have developed anyway. Whenever a social idea comes along, it tends not to have one source, but is influenced by the events of its day and ideas that people have thought about for a long time before. The 19th Century Secularism in the UK has a long history and was influenced by the historical setting discussed above. The development of modern British secularism starts with the freethinkers of the 19th Century. Again because there isn’t a space for an in-depth look at all these speakers we are going to focus on three thinkers in particular: Richard Carlile, George Jacob Holyoake and Charles Bradlaugh. The Victorian Age, while one of huge technological and social progress, saw a lot of authoritarianism as the authorities sought to put down radical and working class movements which might upset the status quo. Resource 1.17 Page 1 of 5 Why secularism? (Part 1) – Competing concepts  Why do people support or oppose secularism? Things we notice When we talk about religion in society, whether they are religious or not, and whether they support or oppose secularism, people tend to notice things like:  People have different worldviews and ideas about how best to live.  These often include disagreements over religion or irreligion.  Some ideas about how best to live are compatible or widely shared despite different worldviews.  Some ideas about how best to live are incompatible with or exclusive to certain worldviews.  Religion or irreligion can be used to inspire positive social actions.  Religion or irreligion can be used to inspire negative social actions.  Some people experience unfair advantages because of religion.  Some people experience unfair disadvantages because of religion.  People’s ideas of what gods want often coincide with their own desires or moral preferences.  Making particular beliefs about religion required or favoured over others has led to bad outcomes. Once we notice these things, there are lots of different ideas about how we should respond. Secularism is just one response (or range of responses) Key concepts for supporters and opponents People who support or oppose secularism generally have competing interpretations of certain key concepts. The same can be seen in other disputes over political or social worldviews. For example: John and Sasha might both value fairness and oppose oppression, but if they have different interpretations of these concepts, this might lead to John or Sasha supporting very different policies or approaches. In philosophy, we might consider how different philosophers (and their supporters or opponents) have interpreted certain key concepts such as: free will, justice and aesthetics. Throughout Exploring Secularism, you will have encountered key questions (e.g. What is religious discrimination?) and seen that people’s answers to these questions can lead them to support or oppose secularism, and that both secularists and critics of secularism often find the same questions to be of great importance. One approach to understanding why some people support or oppose different forms of secularism is to consider different answers to these questions. Another is to consider differing interpretations of key concepts. Resource 1.17 Page 2 of 5 Concept 1: Secularism People who support or oppose secularism generally have competing interpretations of certain key concepts. The same can be seen in other disputes over political or social worldviews. For example: John and Sasha might both value fairness and oppose oppression, but if they have different interpretations of these concepts, this might lead to John or Sasha supporting very different policies or approaches. In philosophy, we might consider how different philosophers (and their supporters or opponents) have interpreted certain key concepts such as: free will, justice and aesthetics. Throughout Exploring Secularism, you will have encountered key questions (e.g. What is religious discrimination?) and seen that people’s answers to these questions can lead them to support or oppose secularism, and that both secularists and critics of secularism often find the same questions to be of great importance. One approach to understanding why some people support or oppose different forms of secularism is to consider different answers to these questions. Another is to consider differing interpretations of key concepts. Concept 2: Liberalism and Pluralism Liberalism is a wide-ranging political concept which focuses on protecting and enhancing the freedoms of individuals. Liberalism is concerned with a balancing act between the need for governments to protect individuals from harm, and the need to restrain governments from interfering in personal freedom. Supporters and opponents of secularism might disagree on whether certain courses of action that secularism (or conversely a lack of secularism) leads to, are on balance more liberal or illiberal either intrinsically, or in their outcomes. See resources 1.03 and 1.04. Liberalism is closely tied to the concept of pluralism – though they are not synonymous and under some conceptions might be in conflict. In philosophy, pluralism is “a theory or system that recognises more than one ultimate principle”. It can also be defined as “a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc. coexist”. A pluralistic society is generally conceived as one where people are free to pursue their own – often conflicting – versions of “the good life”. See resources 1.03 and 1.05. Concepts of liberalism or pluralism which might lead people to support secularism include:  A secularist framework allows different groups to pursue their own concepts of “the good life”, while ensuring these do not negatively impact on the rights of others.  Religions need to be as free as other organisations, cultures and ideas to rise and fall in the “marketplace of ideas”; this is central to pluralism.  (Accommodationalist secularism) the state should support all religious or nonreligious groups to live their version of “the good life”.  While religious power or privilege might have some liberal consequences, it is on balance more liberal to restrict this. Concepts of pluralism which might lead people to oppose secularism include:  Different religions have conflicting visions of “the good life” that are not reconcilable with a single secular legal authority or set of rules.  Without state support or special accommodations, certain forms of religion would not be sustainable.  Pluralism is not desirable or should be placed below the importance of the state supporting the “correct” religious (or irreligious) worldview. Resource 1.17 Page 3 of 5  While religious power/privilege might have some illiberal consequences, it is on balance more illiberal to restrict this. Concept 3: Democracy All theories of liberal democracy (of which secular democracy is a subset) propose some form of limited democracy, i.e. where there are constraints on what a simple majority can do, this acts to constrain majoritarianism. For example, some democracies may require the people to express their will through elected representatives rather than referenda, or might have some laws which require a supermajority (e.g. 75%) to change. See resource 1.12 Concepts of democracy which might lead people to support secularism include:  Democracies are limited in the interests of protecting minorities and individuals. Such limits include protecting freedom of and from religion.  Democratic arguments against secularism are undermined in increasingly religiously diverse and non-religious countries such as the UK.  Bringing religious decisions within the scope of democratic decision-making violates individual conscience. Concepts of democracy which might lead people to oppose secularism include:  Governments should reflect the religious make-up and concerns of citizens. Just as a majority left-wing country would expect to have a left-wing government, a majority Christian country would expect a Christian state.  It is wrong to exclude religiously motivated policies from the scope of democratic decision-making.  Democracy is not desirable or is less important than the state promoting the “correct” religious (or irreligious) worldview. Concept 4: Public reason See resources 1.06, 1.07 and 1.08 to understand how public reason giving (although the term is relatively modern) is of central concern to secularists and their critics. From the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: “Public reason requires that the moral or political rules that regulate our common life be, in some sense, justifiable or acceptable to all those persons over whom the rules purport to have authority.” Concepts of public reason which might lead people to support secularism include:  Translating concerns into public reason is the only fair way to overcome differences which themselves might not be rationally reconcilable.  Religious or irreligious motivations are not a good basis for state actions, unless these can be translated into non-religious concerns which are open to rational debate.  If a religious (or irreligious) cause is justified, then expressing this justification through public reason shouldn’t be a barrier. Concepts of public reason which might lead people to oppose secularism include:  Not all religious concerns can be translated into those that can be expressed as public reasons, or open to rational debate.  The concerns of marginalised groups have historically been excluded from privileged groups’ concept of public reason or debate.  The decision to include or exclude certain concerns from public reason can be subjective and controversial. Resource 1.18 Page 1 of 4 Why secularism? (Part 2) – Viewpoints  Who is a secularist?  Why do people support or oppose secularism?  Where does secularism come from? Viewpoint a “The good of the people must be the great purpose of government. By the laws of nature and of reason, the governors are invested with power to that end. And the greatest good of the people is liberty. It is to the state what health is to the individual.” Viewpoint c “I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody’s personal concern!” Viewpoint e “We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and State are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not to believe, all are free to practise a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free to speak or and act on their belief.” Viewpoint g “If there were only one religion in England there would be a danger of despotism. If there were two they would cut each other’s throats, but there are thirty and they live in peace and happiness.” Viewpoint b “(This organisation) aims to raise awareness within British Muslims and the wider public of democracy – particularly secular democracy, helping to contribute to a shared vision of citizenship (the separation of faith and state, so faiths exert no undue influence on policies and there is a shared public space).” Viewpoint d “We cannot, and should not, protect our country’s children from being brought up by ultra-conservative religious parents but we can, and should, ensure that they go to a school where they learn about other religions, about humanism, about living without religion and are given the confidence that people of all faiths and none are treated equally under the law.” Viewpoint f “You must understand that secularism is our tradition, our choice. […] I thank the grand imam of Al Azhar for indicating that in a secular and non- Muslim state, it is the duty of everyone to respect the law. […] There are no rights without duties, and if the Muslims of France have the same rights as other believers, they have the same duties.” Viewpoint h A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. Viewpoints Below are twenty viewpoints (a–t) on secularism, these should be matched to the authors (1–20) Resource 1.18 Page 2 of 4 Viewpoint i “Secularism does not mean rejection of all religions. It means respect for all religions and human beings including non-believers.” Viewpoint k “My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will, every man can follow his own conscience provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him act against the liberty of his fellow men.” Viewpoint m “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Viewpoint o “There is a twofold society, of which almost all men in the world are members, and from that twofold concernment they have to attain a twofold happiness; viz. that of this world and that of the other; and hence there arises these two following societies, viz. religious and civil.” Viewpoint q “No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order.” Viewpoint j “The spirit or the conscience might belong to God but the body belongs to the state.” Viewpoint l “Modern society requires and deserves a truly secular state, by which I do not mean state atheism, but state neutrality in all matters pertaining to religion: the recognition that faith is personal and no business of the state.” Viewpoint n “Oppose anything that trespasses on the secular line of the separation of church and state, because civilization begins where the separation of church and state begins. There are no exceptions to that in any country. So it’s in the general interest, as well as your own, that we patrol that line with great vigilance.” Viewpoint p “Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life.” Viewpoint r “The purpose of government is purely material – the prevention of in-fighting and disorder between people.” Resource 1.18 Page 3 of 4 Viewpoint s “God has ordained two governments; the spiritual, by which the Holy Spirit produces Christians and righteous people under Christ; and the temporal, which restrains the un-Christian and wicked so that – no thanks to them – they are obliged to keep still and to maintain an outward peace.” Viewpoint t “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed. That has nothing to do with the business of the state. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state. Religion should not be allowed to come into politics. Religion is merely a matter between man and God.” List of Authors 1–20 1. John Locke 17th century English philosopher commonly referred to as the Father of Liberalism. 2. Thomas Hobbes Englishman who published his most famous book, Leviathan, in 1651. Argued that political power must be representative and based on the consent of the people. 3. Voltaire French Enlightenment philosopher noted for his advocacy of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the separation of church and state. 4. Denis Diderot Prominent 18th century French thinker during the Enlightenment, an associate of Jean Jacques Rousseau. 5. Thomas Jefferson American Founder Father who was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and third president of the US from 1801 to 1809. 6. Jean Jacques Rousseau An 18th century Genevan philosopher famous for his ideas about the basis of society as a social contract. 7. Martin Luther Born in 1483 priest and monk Martin Luther was a seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation. He rejected several teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. In particular he famously attacked the selling of indulgences. 8. George Jacob Holyoake Nineteenth-century newspaper editor who coined the term secularism in 1851. 9. Richard Dawkins An English evolutionary biologist who published the bestselling book The God Delusion in 2006. 10. British Muslims for a Secular Democracy A charitable organisation of Muslims founded in 2006 by Nasreen Rehman and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown dedicated to supporting secularism in the UK. 11. Mahatma Ghandi An Indian activist who led the Indian independence movement against British rule. He inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. 12. Susan Blackmore Noted psychologist interested in the study of consciousness. 13. Nicholas Sarkozy French politician who served as president of France between 2007 and 2012. 14. Mustafa Kemil Ataturk Turkish army officer, revolutionary and founder of the Republic of Turkey. Was its president from 1923 until 1938. Strong advocate of secularism. 15. Christopher Hitchens Anglo-American author and columnist who was one of the four “New Atheists” together with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. 16. Albert Einstein Renowned German-born theoretical physicist who developed the theory of relativity. 17. Muhammed Ali Jinnah Lawyer, politician, committed secularist and founder of Pakistan. After Indian independence in 1947 he was its first governor-general. 18. Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen A human civil rights document from the French Revolution approved by France’s National Constituent Assembly in 1789. 19. Ronald Reagan American actor turned politician who became the 40th president of the US from 1981 to 1989. 20. Dalai Lama Leading monk of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism, widely perceived as a global spiritual figure. Resource 1.19 Page 2 of 4 Glossary a. Atheism A theist is someone who believes in one god (monotheism) or multiple gods (polytheism). A theist might or might not regard themselves as part of a religion. b. Apostasy Apostasy is the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief, principle or identity. People can be labelled as apostates for holding alternative versions of religious or political beliefs. Apostasy and apostates are generally considered pejoratives and apostates suffer discrimination in many cases. Some people self-identify as apostates in order to celebrate its positive connotations for independent thinking or to rob the label of its power as an insult. c. Blasphemy Blasphemy is defined in the Cambridge Dictionary as “something that you say or do that shows you do not respect God or a religion”. Generally the term is applied by different groups to describe beliefs or statements they have a theological disagreement with, because either they differ on interpretations of a religion or criticise religious ideas and institutions. d. Humanism Traditionally “humanist” has been a label applied to people or worldviews that are primarily concerned with the ethical value and agency of human beings, or that emphasise reason over dogma or superstition in decision-making. Although many religious traditions have strong histories of humanist thought, the label generally applies nowadays to people or worldviews which are non- religious. So a humanist is someone who believes humans are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. The term “secular humanism” might be used to emphasise the non-religious nature of modern day humanism. Most forms of contemporary – and many forms of historic – humanism include support for some form of secularism. e. Liberalism Liberalism is a very wide ranging political, philosophical and social concept. This means that people with very different and conflicting opinions on how society should be run can still be liberals, or advocates of liberalism. Liberalism is an idea that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of individuals to be the central problem of society. Liberals typically believe that rules and restrictions are necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognise that excessive rules or restrictions can pose a threat to liberty. Liberalism generally values pluralism and the freedom of individuals and groups to seek their version of the good life. f. Pluralism A pluralistic society is one where people with different or competing views on how to live, are largely able to live according to these views. Pluralism can be descriptive, i.e. it could mean the existence of different types of people, who have different beliefs and opinions, within the same society. Alternatively it might be normative, i.e. it could mean the belief that the existence of different types of people within the same society is a good thing. g. Privilege Privilege exists when a group, ideology or identity is given special treatment because of differences in power related to other groups. h. Privilege blindness Privilege blindness refers to being unaware of privilege because of being so accustomed to something being treated specially. When an advantage or special treatment is normalised, people who benefit from it (and others) start not to notice it, or think of it as normal, natural or the default. Resource 1.19 Page 3 of 4 i. Religiopolitical This is an adjective which refers to issues, worldviews or movements which combine religion and politics. j. Religious privilege Religious privilege exists when a group, ideology or identity is treated specially for religious reasons, e.g. a law that treats two similar ideas or people differently because of the religious nature of one of them. k. Secular “Secular” means religiously neutral or unrelated to religion, e.g. brushing your teeth is a secular activity. Beyond this simple definition, secular is a contested adjective. It comes from a Latin word saecularis or saeculum meaning “the world”, “generation” or “age”. Many religious traditions draw a distinction between the temporal and the divine, or the worldly and the spiritual, considering that both have their place. In some contexts, secular is used to mean non-religious. l. Secularisation Secularisation is a label that has been applied to many historical and contemporary processes. It can refer to the transfer of religious assets to secular organisations, the trend of many western countries’ populations to become less religious, the decline in religious interest or ideas, the removal of religious ideas or symbols from certain spheres or the disentanglement of religious concerns from everyday life. m. Secularism Secularism is a political approach which aims to balance freedom of and from religion with other human rights. Its main principles are that religion should not be privileged or discriminated against by the state. There are many different models of secularism. A secularist might or might not be personally religious or non- religious. n. Theocracy Theocracy could refer to a worldview that believes religious rules should govern most areas of life, or a system of government where either authority derives from religious positions, or a religious ideology or organisation runs the state. o. Theocratic This is an adjective describing something as being related to theocracy. It might be applied to ideas, e.g. “the idea we should ban blasphemy is theocratic”, or movements, e.g. “the ‘Ban Blasphemy Party’ is theocratic”. Q3. What do you think of this term’s definition? (a–o) Q4. Did it match your definition? (a–o) Q5. Why or why not? (a–o) Resource 1.19 Page 4 of 4  Use each of the terms in a sentence.  Write a short script featuring two or more people discussing religion and politics. Within at least eight lines of dialogue, at least four of the above terms should be used in the correct context.  What do you think might be some of the misconceptions/confusion/conflict over these terms?  Independently research these terms. Try to use a variety of sources. How are they used in different contexts? Are there disagreements over their definitions?  Are there any other terms that should be included in the glossary? What are they and what are their definitions?  Create a poster display for this glossary to explain them to other students.  Try to find translations (these might not be literal) of the terms in the glossary in other languages.