US/EU: Conflicting Views on Secularism
From the desk of George Adair on Thu, 2005-12-15 10:57
A great element of living in a nation’s capital is the types and variations of people you get to meet. Last week I had the distinction of meeting with a noted Arab legal scholar. The conversation covered many topics, one of which was the idea of secularism, notably the differences in how this concept is handled in the Arab world, the US, and Europe.
The remark which caught my ear and got me thinking was the claim that secularism in the Arab world is much more aligned and similar to the idea of secularism in the US. Europe was catalogued as having a very different concept of secularism.
Not being the most religious of fellows I wanted to be doubly assured of the basic tenet of the topic:
secularism,
1) Religious skepticism or indifference.
2) The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
The mere definition of the word comes amazingly close to the US/Arab concept of secularism and that of Europe. The US/Arab view of secularism fits with entry 1. The US/Arab view can best be termed ‘benevolent secularism.’ Most inhabitants of the US and the Arab world either truly believe or at least give lip service to the idea of an extra-worldly purpose in life and the belief in a deity. The idea of ‘benevolent secularism’ comes into play in the spheres of public life and public institutions. Secularists in both the US and the Arab world are largely indifferent to the role of religion in these two spheres of life.
In the US and the Arab world of secularism religion can play either a small role in decision-making or a large role, rarely if ever a singular role. Unless religion is used as the decisive or only basis for making public decisions, secularists in these two parts of the world do not mind if religiosity is thrown into the myriad of other factors which make up the backdrop of discussion on any issue of the day. Rational people who are not afraid of religion are quite capable of knowing when lines are crossed in public life and religion is too great an influence. Extremists on both ends of the spectrum who can not differentiate such lines in public life are generally irrational and rightly ignored.
It is Europe which fits more closely with entry 2 in the definition mentioned previously. Europe is not content with merely limiting the role of religion in the public sphere, Europe seeks to exclude religion and religiosity from all forms of public life. This form of thought is by and large the realm of the Left in Europe. In a way this form of ‘malevolent secularism’ is oddly based on religion itself. The Left in Europe sees the state and government as a religion. It is the state which groups should rely upon in all times of need. It is the state which should provide to those in society unable to care for themselves. It is the state which is omnipotent. Traditional religion offers an alternative to individuals, an alternative which is not governed by the state. The Left can not control traditional religion so they must drive all vestiges from the public sphere. If you have not noticed, the Left does not like the competition of ideas. They are correct and anyone who disagrees (disbelieves?) is a heretic, racist, nationalist, corporatist, -ist, -ist, -ist.
In a way one can not fault the Left for clinging so desperately to their faith in government and the state. Having demonized the business community (aka ‘the rich’) and marginalizing/driving religion out of the public sphere, where else does the Left have to turn? Nowhere but the state and government. They have no other place to go, it is their religion. Like most traditional religious zealots their doctrine is enforced as strictly as possible. Unlike most traditional religious zealots the Left have the ability, and want, to force their religious beliefs in the state and government on non-believers. [A somewhat similar vein by Erik Svane.]
Hirsi Ali: Freedom of Education Hinders Integration, 12 December 2005
The Writing on the Wall, 18 November 2005
Europe, America, and Politics Without God, 16 October 2005
Will Europe’s Youth Bring It Back to Christendom? 16 August 2005
Europe Must Find its Roots in America, 3 July 2005
THE FOURTH STATE
Submitted by HECTOR DUARTE (not verified) on Fri, 2005-12-16 18:36.
I believe there are three distinct camps in America today regarding religion in public life:
1. The *religious right* which would turn America into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia (I truly believe this).
2. The *angry/PC elft* which damns Christianity in favor of Islam (I simply don't get this)
3. The militant atheists who would obliterate any reference to religion from public life (such as Americans for the Separation of Church and State a laudable group who lately has gone bonkers with a demand that highway crosses for fallen policemen are removed).
Then there are those like me. The Fourth State, people that think that religion should be a private matter, that it has its good moments and its bad moments and that one should leave well enough alone.
Although I'm an atheist I don't think that the copy of the Declaration of Independence in the National Archives should be destroyed because it has references to a deity. I don't think that placing a cross on a national highway to remember a fallen trooper is inappropriate.
I do think though, and I'm joined by many believers, that a copy of the ten commandments in a court of law is totally inappropriate. I believe that the motto of the United States is E Pluribus Unum and not In God We Trust. The former includes me, the latter excludes me.
I believe our Founding Fathers were geniuses who saw that religion was an integral part of the human experience but that the same time saw that it should not play a relevant role in government. With the very first sentence of the First Amendment they solve this problem.
If only a Thomas Jefferson could spring up from the Arab world...
This is what the American
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2005-12-15 22:32.
This is what the American Bill of Rights has to say about state and religion:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Surely, this is not proof of a "vehement" separation of state and religion. And it certainly is not evidence that secularism in the United States has the same constitutional standing as "laïcité" in, say, France -- even if the American Left would like it to be.
All the Bill of Rights says is that the state shall not "establish" or otherwise meddle in the religious affairs of its citizens. It most definitely does not say that religion has no place in public life, public education or any other part of the public sphere. The American Constitution does not disavow the Declaration of Independence, which mentions the [Biblical] God and Creator, and it does not mean that dollar bills are unconstitutional because they say "In God we trust".
As for the Dutch Constitution: it does NOT grant "religious education special rights over secular education". Article 23§7 merely says that if non-public schools satisfy the requirements imposed by law then they will be publicly funded according to the same criteria as public schools.
Poor analysis indeed
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2005-12-15 18:36.
I'm sorry to say this is a piss poor analysis.
1) european does not exist, Europe consists of many countries with many different views
2)The US actually has a constitution which separates church and state quite vehemently with a deeply religious population but a state enforcing secularism (remember the 10 commandments which had to go from a courtroom or the banning of schoolprayers?) thus putting it in category 2 whilst Holland for instance has a constitution which grants religious education special rights over secular education ( also see Hirsi Ali: Freedom of Education Hinders Integration, 12 December 2005 node/558 ); I know most dutch really don't care about religion and this is how Holland became secular thus putting the dutch in category 1
To be honest I have no idea how the arab world's secularism is but I doubt it is secular at all, name one arab country which doesn't (at lwast partly) base it's (civil) law on sharia?
Europe is therefore not 'secularist'.
Submitted by Cogito on Thu, 2005-12-15 14:55.
Good analysis, and I draw the conclusion that in fact, Europe is not secularist at all. Atheism is the state religion and that is what reigns in the public sphere, as well as, as much as it can, in the personal sphere.