Religion in a Secular Democracy
In light of the recent events inciting the discussion of religion and its place in a self-proclaimed “secular” democracy, the authors convened to discuss the role of the government in maintaining religious tolerance. The idea was to present strongly varying viewpoints in order to get the most balanced opinion. This is the transcript of the conversation edited for concision, syntax and relevance.
"The issue with fundamentalism is that it raises the question of the balance between what is discrimination and what is protecting identity."
Jack: In 1997, Samuel Huntington came up with a theory called the “Clash of Civilizations.” This theory stated that after the Cold War, marking the conclusion of the constant struggle between major powers such as the U.S.S.R. and the United States, new conflicts would arise along the fault lines of religion or race or identity. Specifically, he named Islamic fundamentalism as being contradictory to Western-style liberal democracies. What do you think about this? Is religious fundamentalism and textualism contradictory to democratic principles, or is it possible for traditionally religious individuals to coexist in a secularly democratic government?
Tatum: The role of the government is to protect people from injustice, which includes discrimination, while also allowing for people to make their own decisions outside of the political sphere. The issue with fundamentalism is that it raises the question of the balance between what is discrimination and what is protecting identity. I think that it can exist within a Western liberal democracy, but it can lead to conflict and problems.
Emmanuel: I think it is important to look at how we define fundamentalism, especially since we confuse multiple groups of traditionalist Muslims in a way that we would not with Christians or Jews. I think it would be strange to think that Pope Francis would be in the same sect as the Westboro Baptist Church, despite the fact that their position on abortion, or gay marriage, or women in religious roles are actually quite similar. Even then, no one would say that they are the same thing. I think we often confuse conservative and traditional Muslims with fundamentalists, who pose a real threat to liberal values. I think we in the West have to have more respect for Arab tradition overall.
Janalie: By saying that radical Islamic fundamentalists pose a threat to liberal values, I think you are conflating fundamentalism with terrorism. I do not think that fundamentalism in itself is a danger to Western society. The phrase radical Islamic fundamentalism is especially concerning, because it’s often used as a catch-all for terrorists. I think a lot of sects of various religions believe themselves to be upholding fundamental values of their respective religion, and thus saying fundamentalism is a danger to Western society is ignoring the subjectivity of religion. If you look at Christianity, each denomination believes themselves to be the correct interpretation, the fundamental interpretation. I do not think you can simply say that fundamentalism is a threat to Western society.
Jack: I think the point is that a fundamentalist does not have to be a terrorist to be a threat to the principles of democracy and what has been established in policy through said democratic principles. For example, progressive takes on personal freedoms have been established by most, if not all, Western democracies. An Islamic textualist who pushes for Sharia law to be implemented would then go against many of the things synonymous with Western liberalism: rights to life and liberty, self-ownership and religious freedom. I agree that fundamentalists are not necessarily violent, but a large majority of what we would describe as “fundamentalists” go against basic human rights and lots of other things that we would associate with liberal democracy.
Emmanuel: I think you are making a mistake there, because you are calling someone who believes in Sharia law a fundamentalist, when I would not necessarily say they were fundamentalist. They are just a traditionalist who speaks their mind on a matter that is important to them. A fundamentalist is someone who believes that the word of their God is omniscient and all-encompassing, and attempts to force their specific interpretation of their text down everyone else’s throats regardless of whether or not they like it. A traditional interpretation of religious texts, and the associated beliefs that come with it, are not necessarily incompatible with Western democracy, even if you don’t agree with the specific policies.
Tatum: I think that Jack has a point, though. Consider Orthodox Judaism, which is a fundamental religion by most definitions. Even if Orthodox Jews are not advocating for complete Torah law or trying to take over the world, there is a lot of sexism, both constructed and inherent, within Orthodox institutions that are entirely incompatible with what a liberal democracy stands for. However, I also think it is important to recall the separation of church and state here. Even if a religion discriminates against women, the state shouldn’t have the capability to force an individual to change their religion to conform to democratically constructed laws.
Janalie: I agree with that. I think it is important to look at how this plays out in real life, with those people that claim their religion justifies why certain things should apply to everyone. We see people using what they may call the fundamentals of their religion to then say that someone else should abide by those same morals or rules. The government should not be able to say “because of my religion, you should do this.” If fundamentalist Jews, Orthodox Jews, believe something about gender, the government should have no right to tell them that they are wrong because their religion disagrees with it.
Jack: To play devil’s advocate against my own point, I would also like to point out that this idea that progressive and socially liberal values are inherent to democracy is taken for granted. Consider the popular revolution in Iran, where a pro-Western and relatively progressive government was overthrown after mostly bloodless mass protests and strikes. An authoritarian and fundamentalist theocracy replaced it, but that was more or less the will of the majority of the people: democracy. I suppose in a democratic society, it is possible that fundamentalism wouldn’t disagree with the will of the majority if the majority are fundamentalists or theocrats anyways.
Tatum: Even if a majority of people agree with it, that does not mean that it might contravene critical things like human rights. I think another topic that we are going back and forth is on the relationship between individual human rights and the separation of church and state. I say that the separation of church and state should come first.
Janalie: To an extent, I disagree, but mainly because I believe that separation of church and state, which is essentially religious freedom, is a human right. People have the human right to believe what they choose to believe. In that case, human rights should come first, because in putting human rights first you are putting separation of church and state first, but the other way around does not hold. At the same time, I feel like you have to prioritise basic human welfare over abstractions like the separation of church and state. Without the establishment of human safety, things like secularism make no difference anyway. A respect for human rights are the foundation of a functioning democracy.
Jack: I am with Janalie on this one. Meaningful democracies only arise in the presence of a common understanding of at least a concept of natural rights and their inalienability.
Emmanuel: I think an idea that we’re coming up against (and this is something that Huntington said) is that Muslims, Jews and Christians were incapable of living with each other in one society. However, I think the conflict today is more between those subscribing to any traditional religion and those who believe in the value of both human rights and secular government. As an example, consider the historical positions of French governments regarding laïcité. Left-wing and right-wing governments alike have banned religious symbols in public spaces, ranging from physical items like the niqab or hijab, while also pushing for the suppression of kosher-only supermarkets and the presence of crosses in schools. I would say that traditional religious people share more with each other across sects than they do with militantly secular governments like those in France.
Tatum: I think that’s a really good point. I also think there’s another good case study of the relationship between secular people and fundamentalists in Israel. For example, on Shabbat, Orthodox Jews believe that no one should be able to drive. Some roads are then shut down across Israel, and many neighborhoods have an Orthodox “feel” to them. However, for a lot of secular people and liberal Jews in Israel, the demand of a minority in Israel hinders their ability to move through their daily lives.
Janalie: Then you go back to the issue of whether or not someone can use their religion to justify why other people can or cannot do certain things. In this case, Jews in Israel seem to be saying that their religion can justify making the secular people and liberal Jews in Israel not drive on Shabbat.
Emmanuel: Do Orthodox Jews believe that all Jews should subscribe to Torah law? It sounds like they’re infringing on the rights of those Jews who want to be able to drive.
Tatum: Part of the reason why the Israeli government —while conservative but not traditionalist— takes the side of the Orthodox Jews is simply that it is less trouble to placate the vocal minority of Orthodox Jews, who do believe that all Jews should not drive on Sunday. So yes, that’s why the Israeli government does this.
Emmanuel: It seems like it would be less trouble to just allow the Orthodox Jews to form their own society and have the secular people and liberal Jews also form their own country.
Tatum: While it might be true that it might be easier for them to form their own little tribes, larger societies will necessarily be separated and tribal but all united under one federal government.
Jack: While existential threats like war and starvation remain, societies fractured along religious or ethnic lines will always have to come together for their mutual benefit. To go back to Huntington’s original question of the clash between democracy and fundamentalism, taking the assumption that we can’t just partition everyone up neatly into one commune or another, will the presence of religious textualism and fundamentalism in liberal-democratic societies lead to violence or the erosion of liberal values? It seems to me that all the examples we’ve brought up so far demonstrate the seeming incompatibility of fundamentalists and the secular state. I suppose, though, that the original theory that Huntington talked about, that fundamentalism leads to violence, may not be true all the time. Conflicts usually begin over scarcity of resources or privileges like food or water or land or freedom. Rarely do they emerge out of a purely ideological stance.
Emmanuel: Maybe we could look at how Lebanon resolved its issues with numerous conflicting fundamentalist groups. Lebanon’s law system has separate court and criminal justice systems for Muslims, Christians, secular people and so on. This allows each community to live by its own laws and in peace with one another. You expect Lebanon to be highly unstable and violent with the sharp divides in religion and race, and in many ways it is, but it has proved over the past twenty years to have endured great stresses on its political and national identity without breaking like Syria or Iraq have.