Documents | International Religious Liberty Association

The Journal of the International Religious Liberty Association
1998 Fides et Libertas

Professor

University of Strasbourg

Strasbourg, France

In western societies, religious pluralism is a social fact protected by legal guaranties. Thus, church and state,

or religion and government, are distinguished; they interact on a basis of equality in law and freedom. This process started two centuries ago and is now generally well accepted by citizens.

But in some traditional societies religious pluralism is still not accepted nor even contemplated. Neither state nor society nor the general public is ready to consider it a value in itself. When a religion is the historic structuring element of a civilization, it is likely indeed to claim exclusiveness.

Some countries are experiencing a period of transition from a monistic structure of society to a pluralistic structure. They may move from a system of monopolistic state religion or monopolistic state philosophy of anti-religion towards the unknown realm of religious and philosophical pluralism. This shift may be perceived as a threat to the social order, the cultural inheritance, and the moral value system of the people.

It would not be an exaggeration to assert that the pluralistic model is in accordance with the trend of history. The conditions fostering this situation are at work everywhere: globalization, planetary exchanges in economy, trade, and culture. In the age of the Internet, no place in the world can isolate itself. Now we discover that not only is there a variety of peoples spread over the continents, but that such a variety also exists on the same street and even in the same house. All attempts to preserve ethnic, cultural, or religious ghettos are destined to fail. So the trend is evident.

The transition from religious monopoly to pluralism may occur in different ways. Generally, it is not the dominant religion itself which chooses to be more tolerant towards others. Rather, the initiative comes from society. Public authorities may surrender the principle of an exclusive state religion and decide to recognize the equal rights of all citizens. It is not unusual that dominant religions will then cultivate for some time a certain nostalgia of the past, often excessively idealized. Then comes the moment when they enter a process of rethinking their present situation

and find in their own system of reference the justification of their new relations ship with the cultural environment.

If we look back at European history, for instance, we remember that the main Christian confessions were once state religions and enjoyed a position of dominance in respect to minorities which were at best merely tolerated. It is clear that those communities which have always been minorities under the domination of other Christian churches would be the first to urge for equal treatment .Large churches which shared for centuries the common destiny of a nation would resist change for a longer time, until they realized that a new chapter of history was unfolding. Legal changes often react late to sociological changes.

In all countries, the formal setting of religious pluralism will in most cases bear the tracks of history. The United States, however, could create a new model because it was starting anew when it decided in the First Amendment of the Constitution that there should be no established religion, nor prohibition of religious practice, within the limits prescribed by law. In general, the legislation of religious freedom we are enjoying is a result of the way the transition has been operated. For example, in France some elements of the hostile separation imposed in 1790 and again in 1905 are still observable. Most European countries have a system of recognized churches, combined with freedom for those which do not fit into the legal framework or do not want this status.

The Catholic Church does not claim preferential treatment where it is the majority religion. Nevertheless everyone will understand the difference between the legal equality due to all groups, including minorities, and the sociological importance and impact of those religious communities which express the sentiments of large parts of the population. Accordingly, in our view, there is no need to object when a religious community, because of its continuing link with the identity and history of the nation, receives special recognition by the state, as do the established churches of England, Greece, or Scandinavia, or indeed the states where Islam is a state religion. But in these cases it must be clearly provided in accordance with international norms, that all other religious communities enjoy full freedom to exist and develop under the protection of the law. For instance, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the existence of established churches does not contradict Article 9 of the European Convention for Human Rights.

As a basic right to be enjoyed by individuals and their communities, religious liberty is a recognized standard affirmed in international covenants and conventions. The state is responsible by law for the coherent application of this right, in accordance with all other human rights. The responsibility of the state is not to give support to a determined religion, but to guarantee the rights of all and to assure public order and public health. Thus the pluralistic model is supported by international law and tends to be diffused all over the world.

Religious pluralism cannot remain just a simple fact. It has to be integrated in people’s consciousness as a value in itself and a condition for genuine citizenship. If religious pluralism is considered an unwanted burden imposed by the evolution of societies and the law of the state, it will be a poor motivation for religions themselves.

The inner process of theologically adapting to a new situation can be a rather long-lasting challenge for churches.The Church of Rome took until the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) to solemnly acknowledge the principles of religious freedom and religious neutrality of the state. Since then, the Catholic church has worked to apply these principles in its relations with states and other religious communities. The church initiated steps to abolish the mention of Catholicism as a state religion in such countries as Argentina, Colombia, Italy, and Spain, and committed itself internationally to defend the principles of religious liberty for all--and this not without success: witness the Helsinki Process with its well-known result.

Now that things are clear, one begins to think back over the transition period and comes to the conclusion that the legal distinction between church and state, the recognition of conscience and religion, is a demand of the Christian faith itself. Why did we resist the request of modern society for so long? The answer cannot be too simple. When you are engaged in the middle of a river, you have no chance to meditate about the general trends of history. You know what you are leaving, but you do not know where you are going to land. Now that the evolution has taken place, we find ourselves closer to the first centuries of the church, when it was developing in a very pluralistic world, without state support, among many other religious communities, enjoying no power of restraint, but only the persuasiveness of its members.

A religious message can only be proposed, never imposed. Vatican II held that the truth comes to the heart of man by its own intrinsic power, not by external means. If we serenely look back to the specific contribution of Christianity in creating the conditions for religious freedom, we may acknowledge that it is historically the Bible that proclaims men and women free, created in the image of God, and endowed by God with a dignity that no human power can compromise or annihilate. Christ urged us to maintain a clear distinction between, on the one side, the rule of Caesar, which is subject to reason and natural law, and, on the other side, human destiny, which is subject only to God. We can praise the Lord for having given us life and faith in this time of history, when the very possibility to choose and to follow Him is again free of external constraint. And so our Christian faith is perfectly in accordance with the claims of our pluralistic society for liberty.

Today, even when we seem to have no objection to the social order of pluralism and the freedom we enjoy in democratic societies, we still face some specific challenges: First, from those who still belong to the former monistic model, which does not grant religious freedom to all citizens; and second, from some religious groups within the pluralistic order itself.

Discrimination continues to be practiced on the basis of state ideology or state religions. In Central and Eastern Europe, religious persecutions have ceased with the fall of the communist system. According to international standards, it is not acceptable for states or social groups to legally discriminate among their citizens for reasons of religious belief. Yet, several large countries in Asia still impose restrictions on the free exercise of religion. Some Islamic states do not grant freedom of religion at all. Some are controlled by fundamentalist ideologists who dream of imposing their faith by the sword on their co-nationals, and--why not?--on the whole world, as in ancient times. The new millennium will certainly witness the fall of these two extreme attitudes. They have no future in the world of an open-market economy, of democracy and human rights. To such nations we must not hesitate to issue this reminder: Human rights are binding on everyone by everyone.

Since we are living in pluralistic societies, we cannot continue to think of the relationship between religion and society in terms of past models in which religion and national identity were strongly linked: the Irish are Catholic, the British are Anglican, the Greeks are Orthodox, and so on. During the millennium past, religion was often the cement of national identity. It still is. But we are facing a new period in which, whatever we may or may not prefer, belonging to a nation, a culture, a language, will no longer overlap with membership in a specific religious community. This should not at all shock Christians, because Christ’s message is, in its essence, border-breaking and universal.

The rapid growth of so-called cults in our societies is a source of concern for traditional religious communities and public authorities. Some of these groups have developed activities which look more like business, mental manipulation, or psychological conditioning than the proposition of religious beliefs. States acting according to the rule of law decline to define religion--what it is and what it is not. Their concern for religious freedom must obviously maintain an open attitude on this subject. But public authorities also must protect and guarantee the free exercise of all human rights and make sure that no abuses forbidden by law are perpetrated under the pretext of religious freedom. A specific feature of cults is that they tend to deprive members of their freedom of judgment and compel them to show blind allegiance to their leaders. Certainly, the fate of religious freedom in the next millennium will depend on the fate of freedom in general. We know how sensitive an area this is when we consider that freedom in society is a relatively recent conquest of civilization, one not yet achieved in many parts of the world.

Pluralism challenges the reluctance of religions to take seriously the faith of other believers. There is no question here of encouraging any attempt at religious relativism or syncretism. The fact is that we must respect the dignity of persons in themselves, irrespective of what they believe or do not believe. We address the conscience of human persons. We do not compete with man-made products on the market. We will always have differences in approach and interpretation of religious truth, even within the same religious tradition, but we must learn to appreciate the earnestness of those who believe differently.

This means that we must find in our own religious tradition the grounds for positively supporting a pluralistic social order and a fair relationship between religious communities. The major challenge we have to overcome is proselytism, understood here as the unfair propagation of one’s religious convictions without consideration for the psychological, cultural, and social environment of the person or people addressed. This is quite different from preaching by honest means the faith of one’s religion. The message should always be presented positively in its content, not as a form of religious aggression against other believers. Too often religious groups put all their emphasis on what differentiates them from others. In preaching one’s faith all forms of prejudice, disrespect, or hatred should be avoided. We know what dramatic episodes religious calumny have generated throughout history. Those who have nothing else to preach than the defamation of others have a poor sense of what religion is all about. A religious person should always demonstrate respect for the other person because the other person is also a creature of God. The correct method of explanation of differences with other creeds should emphasize doctrines, concepts, moral conducts, norms, and contents, not indulge in the denigration of the followers of those creeds. We need to learn every day how to make our own faith attractive by itself, not by destroying the faith of others. Where God is involved, something of His universal love for all His creatures should be perceived in all of us.

Here a further step is envisaged. Some inner religious attitudes convey a threat to religious pluralism in society. Consider religious exclusiveness. If in a religious community all non-members are viewed as damned, as excluded from God’s salvation, then there is no chance to support from inside the fact of pluralism. The Catholic church solemnly stated at Vatican II that God’s gifts and grace are not restricted to Catholics, but flow over its visible borders to other Christian communities and to all men and women who honestly search for ultimate answers and live according to their conscience. The truth about God cannot be appropriated by anyone. It may be approached from different backgrounds. Whatever is good and right in a person or a religion can only converge towards the truth itself, which for us Christians is revealed in Jesus Christ. This theological vision has to be quoted as opposed to the sectarian attitude which pretends to possess all truth and hence rejects and condemns all outsiders to utter darkness. It seems urgent to recall that fanaticism and religious hatred are always based on the denial that others also have a genuine relationship to God’s truth.

A final thought. In the proclamation of religious faith, all guaranties of external and inner freedom of the followers must be insured. Freedom of access to, and freedom to depart from, religious communities must always remain open. Religious communities can certainly contribute to improve the standards of human rights all over the world by fostering reciprocity of treatment. Religious minorities in pluralistic societies enjoy a freedom which they often deny in countries where they enjoy special legal protection. It would seem desirable that those national minorities who benefit from religious freedom commit themselves to exercise pressure on their public authorities, urging them to implement international standards at home. Unless religious pluralism is appreciated as a positive value, universally and personally, instead of giving birth to a new era of freedom and hope, the very concept of religious pluralism could become an easy target for those who still dream of establishing the reign of God through violence (Matthew 11:12).

Edited from an address by Monsignor Minnerath to the IRLA’s Fourth World Congress on Religious Liberty, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1997.

TOP