Working to promote freedom of conscience for every person, no matter who they are or where they live.

October 3, 2011

How can religious freedom thrive in an increasingly secular world?

Is secularism the enemy of religious freedom? Earlier this year, a group of experts of the International Religious Liberty Association met at the Sydney University School of Law to debate this topic, and the result was a fascinating exploration of an issue that will only become more pressing in the coming years.

For many people of faith, the word “secularism” carries a host of negative connotations. They may see it as a force inherently hostile toward religion, which aggressively seeks to cleanse the public sphere of any manifestation of faith. They may see the increasing influence of the secular worldview as a frightening trend—a direct threat to the role of religion in shaping society’s values.

But the reality is far more nuanced than any simple black and white analysis.

No easy answer

Is secularism the enemy of religious freedom? Before answering that question we must step back and define what we mean by “secular.” It's a word commonly used to describe an indifference to religion, or a resistance to the influence of religious ideas or values. When we talk about the growth of secularism in the Western world, we're often describing the declining power of institutional religion as the moral voice in society.

But through the ages, the concept of secularism has also profoundly impacted the development of modern political philosophy.  From Voltaire, to John Locke, to Thomas Jefferson, secularism has also come to mean a state that’s neutral toward different religions; it doesn’t engage in favoritism; it doesn’t attempt to ally itself to any one faith group. In a secular state, therefore, political and religious bodies must occupy separate realms.

Next we need to ask, is religious freedom more vulnerable in a secular or religious country? Or to put it more bluntly, is religious freedom more likely to come under attack in the very secular countries of Europe or in the very religious Middle East? Do minority believers like Baha’is or Evangelicals have more protections in France than in Iran? Does the Ahmadiyya Islamic sect have more rights in Sweden or Pakistan? Is it easier to change your religion in Bhutan or Germany?  

Look back through history and you’ll see that no one religion has a monopoly on oppressive religious regimes. Take, for example, the religious minorities of Europe during the Middle Age, which endured terrible hardships under Christian rulers.

What’s clear, however, is that religious freedom suffers most when a religion or church gains political power and privileges. Secular governance provides an environment most likely to protect the rights of religious minorities and to preserve freedom of conscience. Why? Because secular governance embodies the idea of separation of church and state. Citizens have equal rights under the law, regardless of their religious beliefs, or their lack of belief.

Secular extremists?

But secularism is not always a benign force. With all the advantages and advances that secular governance brings, the secular worldview can evolve into hostility towards religion in general, and toward the smallest religious groups in particular. There can be “secular fundamentalists” and “secular extremists,” too. In the name of science or reason—which is seen as the opposite of “religious superstition”—some are ready to impose their worldview on society regardless of whether it restricts the religious rights of individuals or groups. Give these “secular fundamentalists” power and they’ll discriminate and persecute in the same way their religious counterparts have done through the centuries.

In the name of preserving secular values, France has recently made it illegal for women to leave their homes wearing the Islamic full body covering known as the burqa or niquib. How far could this reasoning be extended? In the future, what other religious practices may be deemed to be incompatible with secular values? And who, exactly, gets to define these “fundamental secular values” that must be preserved?

Doing what’s right, not what’s easy

Religious freedom, like all other freedoms, will continue to provoke disagreement and controversy. Not everyone will agree on the scope of protection that should be extended to religion. We may find it difficult to understand some religious practices, much less assert the rights of those who choose to observe them! We may feel personally challenged by individuals who look, dress, act and worship differently to us. 

The current hostility to religion in some secular societies is yet another demonstration that intolerance seems hardwired into human nature. Generation after generation faces the same temptation—to impose the norms of the majority on those whose beliefs seem “out of synch” with the mainstream. The time, place and circumstances may change, but the challenge remains the same.

Today, defending religious freedom means the same as it did yesterday: to be on the side of minorities, to speak for the voiceless, and to act on behalf of the powerless. It means to uphold the values of human dignity, respect, and love.

We don’t do this because it’s easy, but because it’s right. And we do it because the alternative to religious freedom is fanaticism and intolerance.

John Graz

Secretary General, International Religious Liberty Association

BE A VOICE FOR FREEDOM: In April 2012, people from around the globe will come together in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic for the IRLA’s 7th World Congress. For three days, legal experts, government officials, and religious freedom advocates will explore “The Secular Challenge to Religious Freedom.” To find out how you can attend this historic event, please go to http://www.irla.org/7th-world-congress.htm.