Secularism and the
Separation of Church and State
(Revision and update of
article posted in August 2011)
Introduction
The concept of “separation of Church and State” occupied an
important position in the political history and political science since its
introduction in the 17th century. Freedom of thought and public will
were proclaimed for the first time on paper in the English Bill of Rights in
1689, forty years after the uprising spearheaded by Cromwell against King Charles I. The King's execution in 1649 revolution showed that rulers no longer had the divine authority [1]
Debates over the relation between the
separation principle and the modern “democracy”, and over the alleged
contradiction of the principle to the “freedom of religion” continue to this
day. The use of these terms without assigning clear definitions to them exacerbates
the debate, as religious groups and so-called “secular states” give their own
interpretations to these terms.
The following
arguments are intended to clear the air from dissimulations, and to alert the
“separationists” to the insidious danger in “secularism” before the
“separation” disappears gradually into the history’s oblivion under the weight
of the surging religionism. This essay attempts to show first the practice of
secular politics in some critical constitutionally democratic countries.
Section 2 identifies some reasons for the failure of the separation principle
in secular states. Section 3 discusses possible means to achieve a real
(effective) separation for the sake of democracy.
To start with a brief recollection of how and why the
separation concept had emerged would be useful for understanding the arguments
in this article. The long historical sufferance of masses under the rulers
manipulated by religious leaders (Richelieu’s France, Rasputin’s Russia), and/or
engaged in wars to propagate religion (Christian crusades, Islam’s holy wars)
have been extensively researched and published. The combination of the
Christian spiritual power and the Roman military power engendered the crusades.
The combination of the spiritual and political powers in the essence of Islam
engendered the holy wars. “Whether politics corrupted religion or the other way
around is still debated. What is non-debatable is that the divine despotism
became the style of governance and continued for about a millennium and half.”[2]
Most rulers in history shrouded themselves with an assumed divine mantle to
strengthen and perpetuate their authority over people. Ruling in the name of
God made them untouchable; with that divine power they kept people power at
bay.
Not until the 17th century that people found out,
with the emergence of Enlightenment, that they did not have to be subjects;
they could and must lead themselves. A long bloody fight and arduous
deliberation in search of freedom of men from theocratic rule ensued. Had
religions stayed true to their purpose of peace and happiness of people and not
allowed to use or to be used by the political and military powers for ruling
the masses and making wars, they would not have gotten their hands bloody. It
was not irreligion or atheism that chased away religion from the political
arena it was people’s blood shed by major religions for the latter’s ecumenical
ambitions; it was the people’s natural reaction to oppression and injustice; it
was the reasoning and rationalism; it was the desire for freedom and equality; it
was the realization that the state’s legitimacy did not arise from heavenly
power, but from earthly people power. All of which is called, shortly, democracy,
and why separation of Church and state is fundamental to a successful democracy.
A clarification at the outset is necessary for countering
religionists’ possible refutation of the following arguments as another attempt
to defend atheism. Nothing in the following arguments should be interpreted to
be in defense of non-belief or an attack on belief. This essay’s sole purpose
is to rid democracy from one of the main obstructions on the road to its faster
and more robust success. The views below are expressed with the conviction that
it is needless to argue against religions because religions are introduced by
men to meet their spiritual needs (contrary to the religions’ claim that they
are God’s revelations to men), hence they are here to stay. Nowhere “separation”
has ever been defined as taking religion out of the society, but only as taking
religion out of the democratic state’s inherent authority and responsibility to
secure public peace and prosperity. We need not be drawn in religionists mental
gymnastics, or in some thinkers’ unfortunate effort to find a rational
explanation to the resurging irrationality and religiosity in democracies (like
distinguishing between political secularism and social secularism suggesting
that politics should be secular, but the society need not)[3].
Religionists believe God created men; hopefully, they do not believe that He
created them without the reasoning ability. We need not disprove religion to
prove the sovereignty of men and of his reasoning over all else.[4]
Another clarification needed for a meaningful debate is the
definition of some terms used in this context. The word “Church” is used as
religion in line with general usage, not as the Christian religious
establishment alone. The word “State” is understood as the modern contemporary
political establishment of self-governance called “democracy”. The term
“secularism” is understood as the state without a declared religion
(non-theocratic state), and the non –interference of state in religions and in
individuals’ freedom to exercise their religion. The term “separation” includes,
in addition to the above, the sovereignty exclusively belongs to people, and
religion will mutually stay out of state affairs and education.
1. The practice of the separation principle in
constitutionally secular states
A short overview of state practices and public attitudes in
selective democratic countries will help us assess whether “secularism” achieves
the intended separation of Church and state.
The U.S.A.: Americas was discovered at a very
opportune time for those European Christians who wanted to escape centuries-long
oppression by the Catholic Church and endless religious wars. The part of
Americas under the British colonial rule revolted against the continued British
oppression -remarkably for reasons other than religious oppression- and
declared independence in 1787. They adopted a constitution in a Convention of
representatives of states acting in the name of the people of the United
States (not in the name of states, but then Constitution was ratified by
the states’ assemblies instead by public referendum), to “establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessings of liberty”. The Constitution did not contain the
word religion, save in its last but one Article, presumably in consideration of
the historical experience of emigres with religious states left behind, and of
the diversity of religions in the immigrant society. The last Section and the
last sentence of which provided, there shall not be any religious requirement
for “any office or public trust under
the United States”. It looked like an afterthought and was limited to no
religious discrimination regarding eligibility for federal service.
When, however, the Constitution was offered to individual
States for adoption, the faithful showed their power. Several States refused to
ratify it and asked for its amendment. Thus came the bill of rights (read, the
right to free exercise of religion) in 1791. This time around the very first
Article, the very first phrase of the Bill of Rights mentioned religion: “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof”. The result was that the Federal State could keep
the provision regarding no religious test for public service in exchange for
the recognition of freedom to exercise religion. There was no corresponding provision
for keeping out religion from the Federal government. While the public is
protected against the state imposing a religion on them, the Federal government
was denied a corresponding protection, imposition of religion in federal
affairs. Among the several holes the federalism served to the Constitution,
this is the ‘black hole’ of the Constitution.
This constitutional omission was not accidental; it was the
reflection of the public attitude. Federalist Papers published at the time in
defense of the adoption of the national Constitution did not elaborate on
non-intervention of religion in government, presumably to obtain public support
for the Constitution. Even one of the prominent architects of the Constitution,
Thomas Jefferson, in his famous letter to Danbury Baptist Church described his “wall
of separation” concept as a mono-directional barrier, like a one-way
transparent glass. He reiterated only the Constitutional provision that the
state shall not “have” a religion, and it shall respect people’s religions. He
did not declare that religion shall not likewise “have” the state, that religion
shall respect the state’s sovereignty.
Nevertheless, President Kennedy had made a memorable
statement. “In his celebrated speech to the Greater
Huston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, Democratic
presidential candidate John F. Kennedy declared unequivocally that he believed
‘in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute
–where no catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be catholic) how
to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote
-where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political
preference –and where no man is denied public office merely because his
religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who
might elect him. Kennedy went on to make it clear that he regarded the
Jeffersonian wall of separation not as a flexible metaphor but as the
foundation of the American system of government”[5]
(emphasis added). He added that adherence to a belief was a private matter, he
did not speak for his Church. If the Church directed him, he would not comply.
Kennedy’s words were lost in the dust and darkness of history, instead of being
included in schoolbooks, and inscribed on Congress’ and courts’ walls in place
of the existing religious inscriptions.
President Carter eloquently describes the actual U.S. political
practice, “The most important factor is that fundamentalists have become
increasingly influential in both religion and government and have managed to
change the nuances and subtleties of historic debate into black-and-white
rigidities and the personal derogation of those who dare to disagree. At the
same time, these religious and political conservatives have melded their
efforts, bridging the formerly respected separation of church and state. This
has empowered a group of influential ‘neoconservatives’, who have been able to
implement their long-frustrated philosophy in both domestic and foreign
policy.”[6]
President Carter who is always very candid in his statements, also admits the
involvement of religious considerations in his presidential decision-making. “I
must acknowledge that my own religious beliefs have been inextricably entwined
with the political principles I have adopted.” (p.6). He further elaborates
this point on pp. 57 and 58.
When the time came for Bush II’s presidency, he “at the
National Religious Broadcasters Convention in 2005 said, I welcome faith to help solve
the nation’s deepest problems. Attendees called out ‘amen’ as Bush spoke, and
some waved rhythmically as they did during the hymns that preceded the speech”[7].
British daily Independent reported on
October 7, 2005, “The President made the assertion during his first meeting
with Palestinian leaders in June 2005, ‘I am driven with a mission from God”.
Here are some examples of how religion is intertwined in a
number of government branches of the United States. 1) The Church internally
investigates and disciplines the clergy for offenses committed by the church or
the clergy, not public prosecutors, because of a judicial doctrine called
“church autonomy”.[8] Even the clergy’s sex abuse
statistics come from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ annual reports, not
from an independent or a governmental audit. Only a few out of more than five
thousand priests found to be molesters were turned over to government
prosecutors. The rest of the cases since 1950 were settled by the Church by
payment of about one billion dollars compensation to the victims. In the
absence of proof to the contrary, this compensation was financed from
congregations’ donations, if not from their tax relief or the government’s faith-based
initiative program. This means that, in either case, the public paid for the sexual
satisfaction of priests.
2) Federal government
facilitates missionary activities at home and abroad by extending diplomatic
immunity to missionaries, a practice with adverse effects on foreign policy. Religion,
and Christianity in particular, is granted special access to the U.S. military.
Military cadets have frequently reported being pressured to participate in
prayer during their training and as part of their graduation ceremonies, or to
attend proselytizing religious events on military bases.[9]
Another missionary example is the Child Evangelism Fellowship, which ran at one
point 4700 Good News Schools nationwide and operates also worldwide to
proselytize boys and girls.[10]
3) The federal government partly finances religious
activities with public funds through tax exemption and the “faith-based
initiative” program. “An investigation initiated in 2007 by Senator C. Grassley
of the Senate Finance Committee did not go anywhere because the four out of six
media-based churches he investigated did not comply with the request for
information on their income and spending.” “Unlike other 501(c)(3) organizations, however, churches are not required to
file a Form 1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption under Section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and they do not have to file a Form
990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax. … Church Audit Procedures
Act 1983 CAPA was enacted in
response to concerns about the IRS auditing churches and that these churches
were committing significant time and resources to these audits. CAPA was
designed specifically to ensure that the IRS thought long and hard before
auditing churches and to ensure that examination of religious doctrine was not
the basis for an audit.”[11] Other direct government assistance to religious
establishments include The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
which allows religious organizations to override residential zoning codes to
build wherever they desire, and government tuition vouchers (public
funds) for religious education in schools.
4) Federal and state officials are required to take an oath on
their faith. Religion is included in the country’s national symbols, like the
currency. The Pledge of Allegiance to the state as a united nation under the
U.S. flag and the Republic, was changed to “a nation united under God”.
Congress adopted in 1988, the first Thursday in May as the Day of Prayer[12],
and it is its practice to open its sessions with prayer. It is almost a daily
occurrence some senators or House representatives to invoke God or passages
from the Bible to make their political points during the legislative process
(thus using public time, money, and space to promote allegiance to religion-
and, of course, to their own religion alone). The State, with these practices,
gradually but steadily increases religion’s presence in the solemn halls of
government.
5) Religious
organizations are getting increasingly active in the political process despite
the Internal Revenue Code of electioneering prohibition by charitable
organizations. It became customary for the clergy, in the course of their
clerical functions, to endorse a political candidate for office or a
legislative bill. Religious organizations make financial contributions to
political parties and make public statements on political matters; the
Christian Coalition’s active and financial support of Republican presidential
candidates in recent elections were well publicized (famously in 2000)[13]. Prof. Scott Thumma of
Hartford Institute published in Washington
Post, in the summer of 2008, a study on megachurches, “a quarter of these
megachurches engage in any overt political activity … pastors are consummate
politicians, keenly aware of the power of their platform. … pastors skillfully
persuade town, county and state officials to work on behalf of a church’s
future, based on the votes the churchgoers could deliver”. He gives the number
of megachurches as “roughly 1300”. As a matter of fact, organized religious
groups, like the Heritage Foundation and American Legislative Exchange Council
of 1970s, widely contributed to the election of the Republican candidate R.
Reagan’s victory, and since then to the victory of the Republican Party in
Congressional elections, gubernatorial elections, state legislatures, even
local officials’ elections. The Christian Coalition Chairman Pat Robertson openly influenced the 2000 Republican Presidential primaries [14]
“Religion consequently became a central feature of American politics, and the
debate about the appropriate role of religion in politics spurred broader
discussion about the appropriate role of religion in public life.” “By a series
of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the
political arm of conservative Christians. -Episcopal minister and former
Republican senator John Danforth 2005”. “Liberals regularly contend that one of
America’s two great parties is bent on creating a theocracy -backed by a solid
core of somewhere between a quarter and one-third of the population. -The
Economist 2005”[15]
6) Religious organizations are active also in the private
sector, in businesses. Michael Lindsay, a sociologist of Rice University,
wrote, “The past 30 years have seen a revolution. Evangelicals … have
penetrated almost every area of the American establishment … Evangelical
businessmen from networks such as the Business Leadership and Spirituality
Network …trying to incorporate Evangelical principles into the operation of
their business”[16].
The Economist reported on August 25,
2007, “Marketplace Chaplains USA employs 2100 chaplains in 300 businesses in 46
states”.
As to the public attitude towards the Church’s involvement
in public service, “Currently, 69% of Americans say they favor allowing
churches and other houses of worship, along with other organizations, to apply
for government funding to provide social services such as job training or drug
treatment counseling. Just 25% oppose allowing faith-based groups to seek
government funding to help the needy.[17]
Although, “63% of Americans believe that the will of the people, not the Bible,
should exert the greater influence on
American law and government.” [emphasis
added]. And “Surveys conducted by the National Constitution Center show that …
25 percent believe that Christianity was established by the Constitution as the
official government religion”[18].
“a solid majority (61 percent) of respondents say that a democracy cannot
survive without a widespread belief in God or a supreme being”[19] It is thus clear that most Americans cannot
bring themselves to say, the will of the people should be the only influence
on law and government.
“Higher education also increasingly became a political
flashpoint. Conservative activists attacked the university as being unfriendly
to conservatives and too protective of ‘dangerous’ liberal professors. In
response, several state legislatures considered ‘academic bills of rights’
which would entitle students to an education free of ‘political, ideological,
or religious orthodoxy.’ Meanwhile,
inspired by identity politics, religious groups increasingly asserted their
place on campus as just as legitimate as those of racial and sexual
minorities.”[20]
Attack on liberal academia and education is typical to all religious
establishments around the world.
The judiciary was not immune from invasion by religion. Witnesses
and jurors take an oath on the Bible so as not to perjure by invoking the fear
of God; a paradox to the fact that courts deliver judgment in the name of the
people. The wall behind the bench in courts of many states is adorned with the
inscription “In God we trust”, where the rule of law is dispensed instead in
the name of the People. These practices in courts of law may suggest that
Americans trust God more than they do laws, hence the superiority of Bible over
laws. As to jurisprudence, “Justice Abe Fortas wrote, ‘From colonial times,
however, there has been in this country general acceptance of the principle
that while ‘conscientious objectors’ are not exempt from the draft, they should
not be forced into combat service. The special treatment of conscientious
objectors was natural and necessary corollary of our dedication
to religious freedom (emphasis added) … The Draft Act of 1940 … granted
exemption from combat to any person who by reason of ‘religious training and
belief’ (emphasis added) was conscientiously opposed to war in any form.”[21]
This is the utmost example of the legal (state) acceptance of the superiority
of religion over public law and public interest, especially in such an
important issue as the national defense. Justice Scalia reinforced that thought
further, “Catholic office holders should resign if asked to uphold any public
policies that contradict church doctrine”[22].
Scalia’s statement confirms that the US secularism is a one-way street in so
far as the separation of Church and state is concerned as it relates to Article
VI of the Constitution, namely, civil servants may refuse to serve for
religious reason, while the state may not refuse employment for the same
reason. Starting with the “Lemon case” in 1971, the Supreme Court abandoned its
earlier stricter interpretation of the First Amendment, applied an “excessive
entanglement” test (the so-called Lemon test: the degree of involvement of
religion in the contended public question), and approved public funds for
attendance in religious schools, for religious education (Washington Post, June 30, 2002). “Chief Justice William Rhenquist,
in a Supreme Court minority opinion, has written, ‘The wall of separation
between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which
has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly
abandoned.”[23]. “In the 1983 case of Marsh
v. Chambers, the Supreme Court squarely addressed the question
of whether it was a violation of the establishment clause for either Congress
or the several state legislatures to provide for and pay a chaplain whose
responsibility it would be to open their sessions with prayer. By a 6-3 vote,
the Court found the practice to be constitutional.”[24]
It appears that with these judgements the Supreme Court gave a green light to
do away with the separation principle. How different is that from “fetwa”
issued by a Muslim religious leader according to Shari’a law?
The U.S. foreign policy is not spared from religious
infliction either. The U.S. did not establish diplomatic relations with Vatican
until R. Reagan did in 1984. Since then, it became a ritual for the presidents
to pay a visit of respect to Pope. The Bush Administration discontinued the US
contributions to the UN Family Planning Program, in 2002, because the US is
prohibited by statute to support abortion. The Commission for International
Religious Freedom was established in 1998 for the Department of State to report
to the executive and Congress on the status of religious freedom in other
countries. The objective is to use freedom of religion as an avenue to spread democracy
worldwide; how believable would such policy be if its practice at home is
failing? The State Department spokesman Evan Owen said “the department often
takes religion into consideration …. I can’t imagine an agency that has a
broader portfolio.” … “We have an ambassador for religious freedom; we have an
office for international religious freedom. We publish two reports a year on
religious freedom. We maintain lists of countries of particular concern for
religious freedom.”[25]
True to form according to which secularism is applied at home, USAID actively
funded renovation projects for mosques or Korans in Islamic countries which
ironically wage terrorism in the name of God. Such policies are obviously
motivated by the same flawed view of supporting or forming “moderate” groups as
an anti-dote to extremism. Yet, Islamic leaders proclaim that there is no
moderate or militant Islam, there is only Islam, and that Islam literally means
peace. A ludicrously simplistic and naïve, but expensive, propaganda campaign
was initiated by Bush administration in the Muslim world to show the religious
tolerance in the U.S. This idiotic propaganda campaign must have contributed to
the hardening of Muslims in the US and having no intended effect in Muslim
countries, particularly because of the bigotry of this propaganda in the
presence of missionary activities in those countries. One of the pillars of the
US foreign policy has been the defense of the state of Israel. Although there
is a good reason for this policy in international law (the right to survival of
any state), the U.S. does not fully believe in international law, she uses it
selectively. For example, the conspicuous reason of the Government's Middle East policy, as revealed by President
Carter, was the U.S. Christian fundamentalists' influence predicated by the biblical belief that apocalypse will witness the second coming of the Messiah and the
ultimate peace.[26] “While periodic, and not
altogether successful, efforts at disestablishment have produced a
distinctively American style of religious governance—one that is not widely
shared throughout the world—it is difficult not to see the adoption of an
explicitly establishmentarian position by American foreign policy makers as
opportunistic and naïve. Established religion is, by definition, not accepting
of “pluralism, freedom, and democracy.”[27]
United Kingdom: U.K. is an odd case, as it is in many
instances, not having a constitution per se, but the Crown having a religion.
Be that as it may, “Muslims in Britain have essentially created ‘a home
away from home’ by bringing sharia law with them into the country. As Machteld
Zee has observed, ‘it must be recognized that there are, in fact, two separate
legal systems now functioning, one of which currently operates in the shadow of
the law’. Many Muslims relate to British society on their own terms so Islamic
norms, not those of the lex loci, are the ones that are considered binding.
Perhaps the most visible expression of this legal culture, and hence the issue
which receives the most attention, is the estimated 85 sharia councils
operating across the UK.”[28]
“New Labour’s policy of multiculturalism—or, put very
crudely, the promotion of diversity for its own sake—is now thought to have
encouraged the growth of segregated communities leading parallel lives and thus
is widely regarded as having been disastrous for social cohesion in Britain.”[29]
France: The French, in 1789, after a long history of
theocratic rule -even in the presence of Enlightenment-, realized that their
livelihood did not improve over several centuries under the divine law despite
the Enlightenment. People took matters in their own hands, declared the Rights
of Men and a republic. Yet, it was not until after over 100 years of
alternating between monarchic and republican rules they enacted a law in 1905
for a true separation of religion from state. In its Articles 1 and 2,
the State guarantees freedom of thought and worship, discontinues church ownership
of real properties, the employment of clergy and any financial support to
Church from public funds.
In today’s practice, however, “… new cultural and religious
demands are emerging in France, and clashes with secularism (are) occurring in
workplaces and public institutions, particularly schools”[30].
Sarkozy created the French Council of
the Muslim Faith to deal with the increasing number and demands of
Muslim citizens. He gave laicism –a product of France- a flaccid redefinition,
“state neutrality regarding beliefs and non-beliefs”, in an address to the
Council of Representatives of Jewish Institutions. Such actions taken by the
French government for the sake of appeasement of Europe’s largest Muslim
community may be a sign of the start of a “secularization” process in the
cradle and the bastion of laicism.
A Pew survey of 2017 in fifteen European countries reported
that a median of 39% of people consider churches and religious organizations
too involved in politics. A median of 46% is found to have favorable views
about religious institutions, while 29% have negative views. A median of 64.73%
believed religion should be kept separate from government policies, while
31.93% did not. A median of 53% viewed themselves as “neither religious or
spiritual”, 24% “both religious and spiritual.[31]
While surveys show that we cannot get a snapshot of what we are looking for in
abstract figures, they show us nevertheless, in this particular case, that a
large minority of Europeans have also become religious.
Turkey: Ottoman state donned the religious
mantle militarily (not by heritage), after about 250 years into the Empire, when
it subjugated Egypt in 1517 at the height of its power. Sultans ruled then
onwards as Caliphs (spiritual head of the Muslim world) leading the Empire to its
decline, for about three hundred fifty years, till its demise in the early 20th
century. Approximately in its last fifty years, in an attempt to reverse
the decline, the Empire became a constitutional monarchy in 1876, i.e., a
secular and dualist state. Both the Sultanate and Caliphate were abolished, and
the Republic was founded in 1923. Article 3 of the Constitution of 1924
provided that sovereignty belonged unconditionally and unreservedly to the
people. Article 70 enumerated several human rights as ‘natural rights of
citizens’, and Article 75 ensured non-discrimination for religious,
denominational, or philosophical beliefs. An amendment in 1925 introduced
laicism, which survived several subsequent amendments. The 1981 amendments made
the first three Articles immutable, Article 2 of which provides “The Republic
of Turkey is a democratic, laic and
social State governed by the rule of law, respecting human rights …” (emphasis
added).
One peculiarity of the Turkish Constitution is that while
enshrining laicism it also provides for a Religious Affairs Administration
within the government. The original purpose of this peculiarity (which has been
changed in the last few decades to a diagonally opposite purpose) was to keep
only the majority’s religion under government supervision for the transition
from Caliphate to democracy. This Administration eventually evolved to employ
tens of thousands of Imams (many more than doctors in the country) in over
80.000 mosques in the country and abroad and enjoyed in 2010 an appropriation
of about 1,5 billion dollars (at the rate of the time) from public funds. This
budget allocation was more than the sum of the budget of several public service
ministries of the country, or of all its public universities combined, and
continues to grow. This allocation is in addition to funds raised by the
tax-exempt foundation of that Administration. The Administration’s Journal
(published with all that public funds) wrote, “Islam is not only a religion, it
also directs and determines the social, cultural, political life of all Muslim people” (April 1, 1979); “The
state is a means to keep religion upright” (April 1, 1979);
“Social and political structure of the country has to follow the
Koranic guidance” (Feb. 15, 1979) (emphases added). These are clearly
anti-laic statements by a government agency established by a laic constitution. ID cards issued to citizens indicate the religious identity of the individual.[32] And, many Imams in the
Administration’s employment deliver anti-laic (thus unconstitutional) sermons.
Religious indoctrination started in schools in 1949 after
the pluralist politics was introduced in 1945. The current president of the
country said, first as mayor of Istanbul
then as PM, “Thank God almighty, I am a servant of Shari‘a”; “Sovereignty belongs unconditionally and without restrictions
belongs to people is the biggest lie, sovereignty unconditionally and without
restrictions belongs to God”; “Our reference is Islam, our sole objective is an
Islamic state … 1.5 billion Muslims await impatiently the awakening of our
people”; “You cannot be Muslim and secular at the same time”; “We will
definitely change the laic system”[33]. He addressed the national parliament in
1995, “The Constitutional laic provision that religion cannot be mixed with
politics is a primitive rule”. In 2009, his reaction to a European Human Rights
Tribunal upholding a Turkish court decision to ban turban in public schools and
public offices was “Who are these people, this matter can only be decided by
the canonical law, and by the clergy”. His intention to rule in the name of God
and the entire Muslim world, instead in the name of the people, cannot be any
clearer.
The Constitutional Court, in a historic judgment in 2008,
duly found the ruling party in breach of the Constitutional requirement of
laicism. After all, the party in power was the reborn form of the earlier
several political parties closed by the Court (since 1960) for the same
constitutional breach. That party is still in power.
With regard to religion’s influence on foreign policy, the
government, for the first time in the Republic’s history, made it a priority to
have close commercial and political ties with Islamic countries. The government
appoints imams and security details to almost every Turkish Embassy and
consulate around the world. The Turkish government tries to gain inroads to
International Islamic Organizations as well, e.g., capturing leadership in The
Organization of the Islamic Conference, whose ecumenical objectives are lurking.[34] In line with that policy, the
government insists on the acceptance of Turkey to the EU membership with the
EU’s political and economic rules, but with social rules of Islam. The intent
is not to Europeanize Turkey but to Islamicize Europe. The objective is the
prestige of being a part of Europe and the leader of the Islamic world at the
same time.
The only country, other than France, founded with a real
separation principle has now clearly closed the circle and adopted secularism, with
aspirations of returning to the glory of the Ottoman Caliphate, unaware of the
fact that the constitutional secular period was the “fin d’Empire”, the period leading
to the end of glory.[35]
India: India
always enjoyed multi-culturalism instead of the mythological character of a dogmatic
monodeist religion in the country. The great diversity of deities in Hinduism
and Buddhism allowed India not to experience any serious religious intolerance
or a theocratic oppression in her history. The constitution of 1949, as
amended, provides in its Preamble “We, the People of India, having solemnly
resolved to constitute …”; in Part III Section 15 “The State shall not
discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,
place of birth or any of them.”; in Section 25(1) “Subject to public order,
morality, and health and to other provisions of this Part, all persons are
equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess,
practice and propagate religion.”; Section 27 “No person shall be compelled to
pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated for payment
of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or
religious denomination.”; Section 28(1) ”No religious instruction shall be
provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds”.
This text, although not perfect, is a more detailed formulation of the
separation concept than its French and Turkish counterparts.
Nevertheless, media reports indicate that the competition
between political parties introduced the exploitation of religions for
political purposes also in India. Helas, the plurality of beliefs did not help
establish checks and balances between them, as may have been expected. Instead,
the plurality fueled competition for power between belief groups. “Departing
from the disestablishment model, the state has chosen to interpret secularism
as the responsibility to ensure the protection and equality of all religions
and provide for regulation and reform, rather than the strict separation of
religion and state. … Additionally, the state is involved in administering
religious trusts, declaring holidays for religious festivals, preserving the
system of personal laws for different communities, undertaking the reform of
religious law, and besides all this, secular courts interpret religious laws.”[36]
Japan: Japan
is historically an absolute monarchy, although it became a constitutional one
as of 1890. After its defeat in WWII, its constitution was rewritten literally
under the instructions of the occupying general Gen. McArthur. Hence, it
reflects to a great extent the American political concept, and even the
language. The Constitution of 1947 provides in its Preamble “We, the Japanese
people, … do proclaim that sovereign power rests with the people and do firmly
establish this Constitution. Government is a sacred trust of the people, the
authority for which is derived from the people, …”. Article 14 reads, “All of
the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in
political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social
status or family origin …”. Articles 19 and 20 guarantee freedom of religion,
and 20 (3) adds, “The State and its organs shall refrain from religious
education or any other religious activity.”
Japan adjusted itself to this historical oddity. She leaves
the constitution untouched but continues to observe national traditions that
are the products of belief diversity. Shintoism, the main religion in Japan, is
inherently a non-doctrinal religion.[37]
Buddhism, the next largest faith in the country, is also a mythological worship
to several deities without a scripture, doctrine, or institutional presence. There
are hundreds of, and increasing, denominations. It is reported that about 400
new religions appeared in Japan since WWII. For any socially dissatisfied group
forms a new denomination. In this socially oriented polytheistic belief system,
morality is oriented by and towards the benefit of a given community. Consequentially,
political groups are in fact the products of faith groups; thus, they
participate in politics and elections as a social group. Therefore, it can be
said that in the idiosyncratic case of Japan not religious groups per se, but
the viewpoints or convictions of social groups participate in politics.
Unwittingly, this is closer to true separation than the secularism practiced,
say, by the U.S.
Therefore, two non-doctrinal polytheist societies, India,
and Japan, produced two different political results. In India politics became
confrontational and nationalistic despite the secular constitutional provisions.
In Japan politics is participatory and social despite the US modeled constitution
characterized as secular.
2. Deficiency and failure of
secularism in achieving the separation of religion and state
The foregoing short review indicates that countries where
constitutionally secular democracy and its practice claim achieving the
separation of Church and state facts do not corroborate that claim.
The first obvious indication of the failure of secularist
system is the ubiquitous increase of religiosity in secular democratic countries
correlates with an increase of religion in politics. Rev. Fritz Ritsch wrote in
Washington Post, March 2, 2003, “For decades we took it for granted that
Christianity and citizenship were inextricably linked … For too long, we, too,
preached American triumphalism. … With God on our side, there did not seem to
be much need for self-examination and humility. … The dominance of the
religious right in political affairs makes it appear that a Christian worldview
dominates American politics. … Theirs [Bush religious supporters] is a zealous
form of nationalism, baptized with Christian language. The German theologian
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was martyred by the Nazis, foresaw the rise of a
similar view in his country, which he labeled ‘joyous secularism’. Joyous
secularists, said Bonhoeffer, are Christians who view the role of government as
helping God to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. … Despite our secularism,
the United States has rarely been so publicly and politically ‘Christian’ as it
is today. Or perhaps it is because of our secularism”. Amen.
Many observers attested to an increase in religiosity
world-over after the end of colonialism following WWII, particularly after the end
of cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Global spread of liberalism, basically from the West, instigated the resurgence of religiosity especially in countries searching for a cultural identity or political power.[38] While social phenomena like the
pluralist and liberal activism in democracies revived the reactionary
conservative sentiments, secular domestic and foreign politics fanned the fire
of religiosity. Sociologist Peter Berger, who coined the term
“desecularization” for the resurgence of religiosity is of the opinion that "The world today,
with some exceptions …. Is a furiously religious as it ever was”[39]
Secularism is inconsistent with true democracy, for which
the “separation” of Church and state is sine-qua-non. “Secular democratic
states” emphasize freedom of religion but overlook non-interference of religion
in state. The combination of secularism and democracy is not a viable compromise.
Democracy, in the hands of secularists, took in an elephant as roommate that
eventually will leave no room for itself to survive. “Trust in critical thought
and unquestioning belief cannot co-exist. You cannot go in two different
directions at the same time.”[40] What are the secularism’s
obstructive practices against the success of true separation?
a)
Politics
in multi-party system:
Adversarial nature of politicking provides fertile ground
for corruption of the multi-party democracy. Democracy spread faster after WWII.
Religion slowly became a fair game for political competition in the emerging
democracy’s free and pluralist environment.[41]
Politicians lead the state. The electorate leads the politicians. As there are
always and everywhere considerable number of devoutly religious electorate,
politicians not only see the need to show allegiance to religion, but they do
not hesitate also to exploit religious feelings of electors in a bid to outdo
their opponents. In this corruptive process, politics and religion become
allies. Court cases, elections, legislation (like abortion right), scientific
research (like stem cell research), and education (like creationism) become tainted
with religious tones. Once the politics is religious, the state is guided more
by religious “beliefs” than by “reason”. While politicians continue to fight
for victory, religion becomes the real victor. Religion becomes the real
political power, while politicians struggle for power. Some political
philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries, like
Bentham, Schumpeter, and Rorty expressed in fact the view that religion
influences political parties which in turn distorts the democratic process.
Pluralism’s real function is to achieve dialogue thus
balance and peace in the democratic system. In James Madison’s understanding,
pluralism is the check on possible tyranny by majority. However, plurality, one
of democracy’s features, has the potential of creating group rights, especially
when nationality, race, culture or religion, or majority/minority
differentiations are present. Such identity politics occasionally leads up to inter-group
conflicts, even hostility. These considerations are particularly important in
the accelerating trend of migrations caused by any of the political, economic,
social-unrest, or climate-change reasons. Religion in particular, like patriotism, ethnicity and nationalism, is ever- and omni-present for identity politics.[42]
Such irresponsible actions of politicians as exploiting
religion weaken the unity based on citizenship vastly needed by the government
for ensuring the security of the nation. For example, the preposterous action
of replacing the trust in the state regime and symbol with that in God in the
Pledge of Allegiance and the national currency must have been instrumental in
establishing the current dangerous relation between religion and
patriotism/nationalism/exceptionalism in the large minority of the U.S. Such
trend can potentially erode the republican regime and democracy at its
foundations. During the Republicans’ rule in 2016-2020 period Republicans
became more (A)vengelical (pun intended) for having been governed by the ever
first black president for the preceding eight years. This divisive strategy
also charged with violence, which is called “nuclear option”, may not remain
within the bounds of the set political strategy but could in fact end-up with
nuclear effects on democracy. The U.S. as the most religious country among the
most developed and democratic states is the best example of secular, but not
adherent to a true separation of church and state. The American political
character is “secularism”; it is the reflection of the religiosity of its
people.[43] The duality of
“secularism” is ingrained in the American social and political fabric. [44]
Religion, thus, defeats democracy at democracy’s own
platform, by exploiting democracy’s principles like pluralism or freedom of
conscience. “Secular democracy” ironically feeds fodder to the process of
religion-in-politics, a process that could potentially devour democracy.[45]
Such problems inherent in democracy remain to be resolved before democracy as
we know it, with the separation of church and state, disappears for good.
b) Allowing religions the guardianship of morality:
There is the argument that the formation of the working class
and of urbanization as a result of industrialization starting in the 19th
century adversely affected morality, and that religion would be the guardian of
morality. Considering that the secularity concept emerged during the same
period, the deterioration of morality argument may not be a coincidence. The need
for guardianship for morality must have been another ploy by the religious
establishment for not losing its grip on power during the social and political change
brought about by industrialization.
Innumerable examples may be shown of the intolerance of
religions to societal changes, like in abortion in some Christian societies and
divorce in some others, in alcohol consumption, adultery and chastity in Islam,
etc. For example, homosexuality was accepted for millennia as one of humans’
natural oddities without causing any social division. Irrational and strict
norms of morality and values imposed over the centuries by religions found
their way to legislations. In the
meantime, rationality and liberalism of democracy made homosexuality openly and
socially acceptable. Religious establishments, considering themselves as the
defender of moral values, fought back the “destructive forces” in the social
fabric (while their priests continued sexually abusing the choir boys). Every
force creates a counterforce. Liberals had to up the ante and succeeded in
making the same-sex marriage legal, which even some progressives considered
unnecessary.
There is no defensible argument for entrusting the
leadership in morality with religious establishments while the scriptures of
all three main religions contain many passages unacceptable to people in
general, and as proven by despicable acts of many clergy.
c) Relegation of public service to religious establishments:
Democratic governments must stay true to democratic rules
like equality, individual freedoms, etc., as well as to its general duties like
public safety and many public services. However, the so-called democratic “secular
state” sometimes makes holes in the wall of separation by shifting its duty of
social service over to religious establishments as a matter of convenience.
Ironically, religions take advantage of these holes to infiltrate politics,
which we may call humanitarian holes.
“Secular governments”
shirk a major public duty, on grounds that too much social service creates a
socialist government, a big government, and inefficiency in services.[46]
“Secular governments”, with this action and without considering an unintended
but important consequence, take religious institutions as co-governing bodies
alongside the government. They overlook the fact that social assistance is
closest to the heart of people, more so than democracy or voting rights and
liberty. Hence, the state diverts loyalty of people it needs for establishing
its own authority, towards religious institutions; consequently, religious
establishments gain power by gaining the appreciation and loyalty of the people,
especially of the needy. Government thus shares with the Church the public
service, the public loyalty and even the public stage.
This practice became so common that it led some democratic
countries to allow the church to levy a mandatory tax on citizens (Austria,
Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden). The Second Vatican Council of
1962-65 clearly confirmed this phenomenon. The final declaration from the
Council while stating the depoliticization of the Church confirmed at the same
breath the Church’s “social ministry” over people under the principle of
“freedom of religion”. As such, the Church confirmed internationally its
authority on matters of human rights, and of economic and social justice.
d) Religion as foreign policy tool:
i) US: The most important world event in the period after
WWII was the ideological war between capitalism and communism. One propaganda
tactic used against communism, besides the economic and some regional military
challenges, was to attack the atheism of the communist system while
concomitantly encouraging religiosity in and around the communist bloc. The US
Government’s “Green Crescent” project in the periphery of the Soviet Union was
designed to embolden Islam as a bulwark against communism. The plan succeeded in
strengthening religiosity in the area but failed promoting democracy in the
Soviet lands.[47] Its effect on the demise of communism
is doubtful when compared with the debilitating effect of the arms race on the
Soviets, and with Gorbachev’s courage to change the Soviet policy towards peace
and prosperity. All the while, the resurgence of religiosity in Turkey, the
establishment of Shi’ite rule in Iran, and the resurgence of Taliban in
Afghanistan in 1970s, 80s and 90s respectively, were the consequences of the ill-conceived
“Green Crescent” policy.
The religious propaganda policy was used also to prop up the
U.S. domestic support for the Cold War. This policy must have contributed to
the renewed religiosity in the U.S. because during that period televangelism
and megachurches mushroomed all over the country, halls were filled with
anti-communist sermons. Some heartland and Bible belt Americans still think
today it was the American religiosity that brought down the atheist Soviets,
not the arms race or Gorbachev’s reversal of policy.
After the demise of communism, the US got involved in the
globalization of democracy. This time around her adversary was radical Islam.
Although it is too early to determine whether she won the war, nevertheless she
partook in the drafting new Constitutions in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, unlike
the earlier case of drafting the Japanese Constitution where at least the
American style of secularism was introduced, this time she acquiesced the
conformity of laws with the Islamic traditions (Sharia). That imposition
succeeded in the polytheistic Japan but surrendered to the fundamentalism of
Islam. Not only accepting, also investing in the spread of Sharia became part
of recent U.S. foreign policy.[48] Surrendering to religious
forces is like winning the battle but losing the war. I guess the argument
would be, the war was not against Islam but against terrorism. But it is also
argued that terrorism is caused by Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, by its own
admission there is no moderate Islam, there is only Islam.
One byway used in the U.S. foreign policy is the missionary
activities of American religious organizations abroad.[49]
The US provides some humanitarian aid to distressed peoples around the world to
be distributed by religious organizations, as noted above. It is common
knowledge that one main function of any religious organization is to proselytize.
This aid policy benefits such organizations to be received by local populations
with open arms for their stealth activity of missionizing. Accordingly,
religious organizations benefit from federal financial assistance and official,
sometimes diplomatic, protection in their overseas operations. In reality, however,
missionary activities cause the hardening (not to say fundamentalism) of the
local religion as a defense mechanism to protect itself for survival. This is,
metaphorically, fighting the dragon with one hand and feeding it with the
other.
Another avenue used to promote democracy worldwide is the
observance of human rights. These rights are enshrined in many treaties and
declarations, starting with the UN Charter, as one of the main pillars of
democracy.[50] These rights are generally named
as freedom of thought and expression, freedom of association, freedom to
participate in the government, minority and group rights, right to healthy and
safe environment.[51] These international
documents do not mention religion among human rights. However, religionists
piggybacked the freedom of expression to declare religion as a right. Once
again, it is the fusion of religion with politics by confusing minds, by
dissimulation, like it is done for the terms “secularism” and “democracy”.
The inherent exclusionist and divisive character of
religions prevents them from being a unifying element in society.[52] They have an ecumenical
duty and aspiration. Religions concern themselves with loyalty of individuals
to that certain faith, yet religion in no country is homogeneous, it cannot be
a common denominator to help unity. Conversely, citizenship is a common
denominator that achieves unity, for it is one of the state’s fundamental
duties to ensure peace and security among its people. And, when the state
authority fails, for one reason or another, the state falls apart more
frequently than not in religious divides. India, Ireland, Cyprus, Yugoslavia of
the recent past come to mind.
Still ongoing popular uprisings in the Arab world against
autocratic regimes may very well bring Islamic oriented regimes in power in the
amenable environment of pluralist politics. Unlike the fears that the outgoing
autocracies will be replaced by Islamic fundamentalist regimes, it is more
likely that the emerging regimes will be ”secular states” with the help, of
course, of Western secular states. Hence, religion having inroads in state
power both in the Christian and Muslim secular democratic world, ideological
radicalization, thus confrontations between two religious worlds will be more
instead of less.[53] Considering the size of the
Muslim world, this is not a good omen, bringing to mind Huntington’s “clash of
civilizations”.
Have world leaders
who seek audience with Pope ever consider looking at the other side of the
coin? What if the ecumenical character of the Pope were to be duplicated by a
Caliph? What if a high-ranking Imam, or a Mullah, paying an official visit to a
European country with considerable Muslim population said publicly, “political
decisions must be based on Shari’a”, and included kissing of his hand in the
state welcoming protocol?
ii) Vatican and Muslim countries with ecumenical aspirations: Italy granted sovereignty to Pope and the
Vatican City with the 1929 Lateran Agreement, which effectively gave the
Catholic Church an international standing, the status of a state. This
world-changing event was engineered by, of all the people, the
maniacal dictator Mussolini, based on the presumed ecumenical character of
Vatican, which originated from a forged document.[54]
Since then, Vatican signed more than one hundred agreements with over two dozen
countries, in addition to Italy.[55]
We cannot ignore the
role Vatican plays in obstructing a more general acceptance of the separation
principle. Vatican concludes international agreements with countries for the
recognition of legal authority of the Church in matters other than the appointment
of clergy and the management of church properties. These agreements provide for
pastoral services to the military, for religious education in national systems,
in schools, and in theological departments of universities, for tax exemption
of the Church, for religious holidays, for license to broadcast, for the
recognition of canonical marriages. Thus, these agreements called “Concordats”
are formal recognition by sovereign governments to share their government power
with at least one of the three main religious establishments.
During his visit to
President Bush on April 16, 2008, the Pope made Vatican’s position in state
affairs very clear with the following, in-your-face, statement: “moral values
must be the basis of official decisions” (This, of course, must have been very
well received by his host). Another egregious example of Vatican’s intervention
in local politics was in Spain. Vatican openly supported the Spanish clergy to
campaign against the re-election of socialist PM Zapatero during the 2009 elections
in Spain, because of the latter’s liberal decisions and actions. The Pope disdainfully
said, during his visit to Spain, “secularism went too far”. Obviously, the
Spanish secularism and Zapatero’s concession of providing public funds to the Spanish
Catholic Church in 2006 were not enough for the Pope.
Vatican, in its
capacity of state, is a member of most of the international organizations with
a voting right equal to other states. It is important in international
organizations that each participating state represents the interests of their
people. Vatican does not have a population over which it can exercise
legislative powers in the manner known in all other countries of the
international community (460 people as of February 26, 2010, UN Population and Vital Statistics Report
– all of whom may be the clergy, officials, and the service staff, and most if
not all, must hold foreign citizenship). There cannot be any denial, in the
absence of any population to govern, that Vatican’s only representation and
interest must be ecumenical and in the teachings of its own faith.
Nevertheless, it exerts authority on the populations of other countries through
its voting right in international decisions and conventions because
international treaties become the law of the land in all countries that ratify
the treaties. This is the most outrageous international intervention by
religion (and one religion alone) in the national politics of countries. There
is yet a symbolic aspect granted to Vatican. Holy See’s ambassadors, Nuncios,
in many instances, have precedence over other countries’ representatives in
their capacity of “doyens” of the local diplomatic corps. This is an imposition
of a special privilege, be it symbolic, bestowed on religious representation
and on one religion above all others.
Saudi Arabia does
not directly interfere in the political process of other countries, as Vatican does;
it builds the foundation of future political influence in countries by training
the Muslim diaspora in madrassas. Saudis have been active in many countries by
building about 1500 mosques, about 200 colleges, and 2000 madrassas, only
between 1975 and 2000. These activities were well documented in reports made
public after 9/11.[56]
Turks, since the
coming to power of an Islamist party, have also become active in spreading
religiosity internationally. The Government’s Religious Affairs Administration,
besides appointing Imams to almost every Turkish Consulate and by building an
increasing number of mosques abroad, is assigned to make official visits to
foreign countries. Head of that Administration visited China to sign an
agreement for refurbishing mosques in China, for training 50.000 Imams for
China, for publishing Islamic books in Chinese, etc. (an effort to emulate
Vatican). Turkey is opening, with a vertiginous speed, Islamic theology
departments in universities, and Imam schools for foreign students in Turkey
and abroad. An even more subtle and stealthy model emerged in the last decades.
A Turkish Imam, named Gulen, set up shop in the U.S. to oversee a global
enterprise to spread the message of Islam as “peace”. He operates under the
pretense, disguise, and dissimulation of conservative democracy (social
service, rule of law, freedom), interfaith dialogue for peace, universal human
values, tolerance, and education. In doing so he practices a different and
disguised type of missionary activity. This decentralized organization is
reportedly active in well over one hundred countries with more than one
thousand schools and universities, innumerable private organizations and
businesses that provide financial support to those educational activities, and
to many media companies.[57]
e) Intellectual conformism:
A defeatist and apologetic political philosophy emerged to rationalize
the lingering religiosity. Some 1980’s thinkers came up with “Reformed
Epistemology”, meaning that our belief comes not from evidence-based
rationality, but from our innate faculties, hence it is rational. Deism and
Fideism are oft used examples. Wittgenstein suggested another version of that
theory, belief is not epistemic but there is reason to believe, nevertheless.
Other ‘rationalizing’ (pun intended) theories include a
distinction between radical secularism or assertive secularism and passive
secularism. J. Habermas (who seems to have modified his earlier more rational views
after his meeting with the Pope in 2007) coined this phenomenon as
“post-secular” period. This period is explained as the participation of
religion in politics is consistent with the democratic debate. He adds,
however, the political decisions would be taken after “expunging” the religious
contribution or after “translating” it into secular language for the purposes
of state affairs [58]. If we are to understand
from this proposal that religious contributions to politics can be made, but
they may not be considered in political decision-making, then what is the point
other than fueling anti-separation notion and help radicalizing religion? These
arguments are telling us that mixing black and white you get grey, distracting
us from the fact that being grey is neither white nor black; who would ask for
dilution while seeking clarity?
Another argument suggests a distinction between religion in
politics and religion in state (secularism)[59],
or between participation and acceptance of religion in state. Politics being
the motor force behind at least one of the two branches of the state -the
legislature and the executive (sometimes behind all three as well)- how can we
distinguish religion in politics from religion in state? State is run by
politics generated by politicians; if politicians are allowed to bring religion
in politics, they necessarily bring down the wall separating religion from the
state. Going around the wall is no different than going over, under, through, or
tearing down the wall. This argument is consequentially no different than the arguments
in defense of “moral legitimation” versus “constitutional legitimation” of
religion in state.
Benjamin Barber, at the Conference on Dialogues on
Civilizations in Istanbul in June 2008, basically distinguishing between
religion in society and religion in state, expressed the view that a religious
society is vital to democracy.
There are many other arguments forcing the limits of
reasoning. Distinguishing “radical”, “militant”, “authoritarian”, or “rigid”
secularism, from “democratic” secularism, or limiting the secular obligation to
public officials (presumably formal public sphere) and the non-secular thoughts
to ‘informal public sphere’, are some examples. Such expedient thinking -or
mental gymnastics- serves legitimacy to many “secular” autocrats to rule with
impunity in the name of “democracy”.
Tolerance in democracy is another explanation offered by some
thinkers as well as by secularists in favor of defending religion in politics.
The main tool suggested for tolerance is dialogue. If religions are sincere
about tolerance and dialogue, why do they practice converting believers of
other religions, why do they, themselves, not tolerate other religions? Furthermore,
since proselytizing is changing the religion of someone of another faith, missionaries
must accept religions are in fact subject to personal choice, contrary to the
claim that religion is God’s message, revelation. We can infer (thanks to
reasoning) from this paradox that religion is open to debate. By this
reasoning, if religion is debatable, it is not immutable. However, when it
comes to having a dialogue on religious matters religion becomes undebatable on
concrete facts, because it is abstract. The inerrancy of the scriptures stands
in the way of the religionists in any meaningful dialogue. The scriptural dogma
cannot be open to discussion, without becoming a heretic, irreligionist,
agnostic, atheist, or worse, anti-religion. Does not religion require complete
submission and devotion to its principles lest being labeled as heretic,
sinner, and rather traveler to hell? Religion intrinsically is not open to
discussion. As to separationists, they cannot forego the indivisibility of
people’s sovereignty, without denying democracy. Therefore, the suggested dialogue
ends even before it starts.[60]
The Muslim disambiguation in a dialogue on democracy is an example of the
futility of dialogue. They agree that there are universal values of democracy,
but they argue cultural interpretation of those values may differ because of
civilizational differences. This argument shows instead their choice of staying
out of the universal -or increasingly universalizing- civilization, as such
they are choosing dogma over rationality and freedoms. Church’s position of
conveying God’s words similarly creates an asymmetrical platform for a rational
debate. Where God has spoken people must keep silent and only obey.
Yet, for tolerance to succeed dialogue must be driven by
reasoning, rationality. In a subject as emotional as religion not only the
state but people must be able to carry on the dialogue rationally. The example
of the cradle of democracy does not provide an encouraging environment. “More
than half of American adults believe in ghosts, one third believe in astrology,
three quarters believe in angels, and four fifths believe in miracles. … the
proportion of Americans who reject evolution in any form is higher -by 15
percentage points- than the proportion who believe in a literal interpretation
of the Bible. Something else must be at work, and that something else is the
low level of science education in American elementary and secondary schools, as
well as in many community colleges.”. “(T)he American experiment in complete
religious liberty led large numbers of Americans to embrace anti-rational,
anti-intellectual forms of faith.”. “While an angry public may be the
short-term solution, an ignorant public is the long-term problem in American
public life.”[61]
The conformist and apologetic mental gymnastics by some intellectuals
in an effort to finding an explanation to a problem of democracy only helps
perpetuate the grip of religion on politics under the guise of secularism.
Resorting to some justifications and rationalizations in search of a role for
religion in public domain is nothing short of acceptance of defeat in the two
hundred plus years battle for separation. Conformist and compromising arguments
are none other than an intellectual defeatism conceded to the power of religion
by cloaking the separation with secularism.
3. Some remedies for true separation of religion from true democratic
state
Secularism is based on the “separate but equal” concept, not
on “the wall of separation” concept, so far as religion’s involvement in public
affairs is concerned. Secularism is a compromise reached in the absence of
victory by either side of a power play stretched over centuries. Secularism is
the name given to disguise the compromise of dualism, a dissimulation.
The fact that many states of the world constitutionally naming
themselves democratic and secular does not make them so. A real separation of
Church and state is fundamental for democracy to flourish; democracy is no
democracy without strict adherence to the separation principle. Secularism is a
drag on democracy’s development as some examples, among innumerable ones, given
in the preceding sections of this articles.
A discussion of some basic questions would help further evince
the differences between secularism and meaningful separation of religion from
democratic governance. Whether religion’s place is in the spiritual private or
in the worldly public domain? Whether the mythical and unchallengeable scripture
or modifiable laws enacted by people are more rational for serving their worldly
(and sometimes profane) needs? As democracy means the sovereignty of people, would
people still be considered sovereign if their sovereignty is divisible and
shared with another authority?
When religion is involved in politics and shares authority over
public affairs, there are also some practical questions to ask. Which religion
will participate in governance in a multi-denominational country, or will all religious
groups partake? Would a compromise required by dialogue allow religion to
deviate from the scripture, or would a compromise be considered betrayal of
God’s dictum? If a conflict is litigated under a law based on religious
beliefs, should it be the Church or the courts to deliver judgement?
Let us consider a few of these questions for the sake of
clearing the obscurity of secularism (and in the hope of clearing away the obscurantism
of religion).
a) Is the sovereignty of people
divisible or it must not and cannot be shared?
Since this essay considers only the democratic system for
governance, let us consider the feasibility of divisibility of people’s sovereignty
in democratic government. Democracy embraces pluralism, equality, and freedom for
maintaining unity and peace in the reality of multitudinous of races,
nationalities, cultures, etc. in the society. This combination requires a rational
dialogue and compromise between multiple groups and between them and the state.
Freedom and equality of all groups do not allow a fusion of groups for achieving
unity. National unity is secured by material and worldly power available to
people. Church does not possess such power. Its spiritual power historically
proved it can be divisive instead of inclusive and uniting. Therefore, order
and peace in society can be effectively maintained only by the state as the
custodian and agent of people’s sovereignty. People’s sovereignty cannot and
should not be shareable with any other authority. Shared authority weakens
authority.
Purportedly to get around that reality and to accommodate
secularism, some people, politicians, and unfortunately even some thinkers,
suggest that there are different kinds of democracies. A definition is no
definition if there were more than one for the same concept (except, maybe, for
the definition of elephant by the blind man). Multitudinous of definitions is
what the religionists and secularists thrive on for their dissimulations. If
there were truly several definitions for the same concept, then they are not
definitions but perceptions. Definition ought to be one for everyone to be able
to understand each other; an objective and commonly agreed definition. The generally
acceptable definition of democracy is the rule by, for, and of the people, the
exclusive sovereignty of the people over people. For it to be exclusive and
indivisible it cannot be limited, partial, shared, qualified or conditional
sovereignty of the people. Maybe the best characterization of people’s sovereignty
was made by the founder of the Turkish Republic, Atatürk, “people’s sovereignty
is unrestricted and unconditional”. Among the U.S. Presidents, J.F. Kennedy
seems to be the only one who understood the absoluteness of the separation as
stated in his meeting with the Greater Huston Ministerial Association.
b) Who exercises the moral authority needed in
society?
A rightful argument by secularist or religionists, or by any
one for that matter, is that ethical and moral principles of religions provide uniformity
in tradition and commonality in the value system, thus harmony, within homogenous
societies. However, differences in moral principles in pluralist democratic societies
can be sources of conflicts. The question arises, therefore, who would be the
moral custodian and arbiter of moral norms in a multi-cultural, pluralist
society.
Thomas Paine expressed his view on morality in The Age of
Reason, “As to fragments of morality that are irregularly and thinly
scattered in these books, they make no part of this pretended thing, revealed
religion. They are the natural dictates of conscience, and the bonds by which
society is held together, and without which it cannot exist, and are nearly the
same in all religions and in all societies.”[62]
He rightly observed that morality does not arise from revelations, but from
man’s conscience. Political scientist late Leslie Lipson wrote “In general,
religious views dominate moral values in a culture based on hereafter.” but
“Since the 7th century, progress in moral area was achieved by
humanism, not by rehashing of religions.”[63]
If morality were to be defined correctly, being our actions
not causing harm to our environment, in particular to others, for fear of
bringing disrepute, harm, or enmity upon ourselves, instead doing good to our
surroundings for our own security and happiness, then it is a rational
phenomenon, not a natural one. It is the consequence of humans’ social
character. It arises from the need for peace, self-satisfaction, self-interest;
in Aristoteles’ terms “happiness”. It is a social value system. A hermit does
not need a moral compass. It is as Bentham and Mills defined it, “the greatest
good for the greatest number”. Dewey rightly expanded the concept as being
changeable. (See W. Lawhead, The Voyage of Discovery, Cengage Wadsworth
2007)
Allowing the Church the claim of guardianship of morality
causes division within the society similar to the divide caused by pluralism
discussed above. Social/cultural divisions have even deeper and longer roots
than political ones, thence more potential for conflicts. Only the state has
the legal and material means to avoid violence, compared to the spiritual and
immaterial (pun intended) means of religions. As Leslie Lipson wrote, if a state accepts violence it cannot be a civilized one. [64]
Accordingly, moral values are rationally developed by the
people, maintained, and judged by the people as codified in their laws, not in
God’s immutable archaic scripture. Once again, there is no basis nor benefit in
sharing the state’s leadership for a value system needed by the society.
c) Clarity in providing public good by private and public
institutions:
Admittedly, one objective of both religion and state is common,
to serve social justice. That is one reason they meet in the political arena.
However, while this particular objective is common to both entities, their legal
and constitutional status in providing that service is not equal. There are
many institutions in the private domain serving the public good, but this does
not qualify them to share the authority to govern constitutionally vested in
government, because they are financing the public service with private funds
and are not accountable to the public for the service or for the financing. The
state’s duty to serve public good is financed from public funds, hence it is
accountable for the service and the funds. The Church acting under the holy
protection is not subject to any kind of review; it has the same status as
other private sector institutions volunteering for public service.
This means there is a need to distinguish humanitarian grant
from the humanist responsibility. In L. Lipson’s succinct and eloquent
definition, humanitarianism is benevolent help to men, humanism is a service to
elevate humanity. The former is an elective human act, the latter is a mandated
government service. Consequently, religious institutions should not be asked to
disburse public funds for any purpose. Any public assistance provided by the
Church must be sourced from and clearly identified as private donations.
d) Rational or ideological
foreign policy?
All international
activities of religious establishments are modern-day missionizing.[65] They are performed most of the time in the
disguise of humanitarian assistance, such as medical help and education, or to propagate
peace. The real but cloaked purpose of the mission is to win hearts for
ultimate proselytizing. (The premise of proselytizing must be that believers of
other religions can and must question their religion and be open to conversion.
Don’t missionaries think that the same doubt should apply to their own religion
too?) Hypocrisy alone should be enough to denounce missionary activities,
rather than facilitating them.[66]
The use of religion’s network in foreign countries for foreign policy
implementation is a very irrational and irresponsible action for ideological
backlash it creates.
The administration
of foreign affairs, which takes its legitimacy and strength from domestic unity,
can be conducted successfully only by the state, not by the Church which lacks
that legitimacy and strength. Two most important tenets of the administration
of foreign policy are the interests, thus support, of citizens, and being
truthful, thus trustworthy towards foreign counterparts. Any foreign relation
even remotely tainted with religious tones would be received with suspicion at
best, with retort at worst, as some US past projects overseas have proven. Any
and all foreign relation must be thoroughly clear from even the slightest
religious semblance.
e) Can tolerance and dialogue keep religion out of politics
in a secular system?
Today’s practice in all democracies is a dualism called
secularism. As Rawls and Audi observed, people are trapped between compliance
with religious and civic obligations, where the two conflict. Popper and
Habermas suggest resolving that conflict with civil discourse and reason which will
help us find the right balance between belief and rational governance.
For such a dialogue to start, religionists would be expected
to have an open mind to the superiority and sovereignty of men on the one hand,
and separationists to have an open mind to the superiority and sovereignty of
God on the other. Having an open mind is certainly necessary for engaging in a
dialogue. Yet, the only possible results of such a dialogue are either no
conclusion or a compromise. A compromise is no persuasion, it is another
product than the one sought by either side of the dialogue. It can be, at best,
an interim solution, a modus operandi. Such is the goal, be it a compromise, in
matters of operational and time sensitive nature. But persuasion is necessary in
matters of principle, lest both sides in the dialogue modify their principle,
hence, a compromise, a new product, other than the principle. This is precisely
what secularism is.
Yet here, we are trying to right the deficiencies (discussed
above) of that compromise conceded to in the absence of persuasion. That
compromise did not end divisions and conflicts, which are a drag on social progress.
“It would be nice to be able to say that religion is everywhere a force of
peace. Unfortunately, it is not.”[67]
How, then, can a dialogue proceed?
First, religionists claim to speak for freedom, democracy,
tolerance, peace, sharing, values, etc., but never about people’s will, which
is the foundation of democracy. Religion, believing only in God’s sovereignty, does
not accept people’s sovereignty. A so-called secular state, which allows
religion to influence its political system, cannot be a state where people are
sovereign to govern, a democracy. Therefore, it is fundamental for the
democratic state that the religious establishment declare unequivocally the
sovereignty of people in all political and state affairs.
Second, religionists define secularism as being
anti-religion. Proponents of reason and rationality are not out to disprove the
scriptures. The rationalist is aware that religions and religiosity are not
going anywhere, for they fulfill the innermost needs of the human species.
Writing about the persistence of belief Peter Berger notes, “It would require
something close to a mutation of the species to extinguish this impulse for
good.”[68] Religion is deterministic,
belief and tradition based, and static; rationalism is progressive, doubt and
challenge based, and practical. Though two diametrically opposing concepts,
religion and state need not be exclusive of each other, nor need they be
complementary of each other. Rationality is not exclusionary; it does not need
to disprove and dislodge belief to make room for reason. Rationalists recognize
the human’s emotional need for spirituality, and reserve it to the individual’s
domain, without allowing it to encroach upon the public domain to impose some mythical
power. Religion and state can co-exist on either side of an impenetrable wall
of separation. They can exist in their own sphere (minding strictly their own
business); they are separate in an absolute sense, without equivocation, condition,
or restriction.[69] State must persuade the
Church of this policy and guarantee to people its incontrovertible application.[70]
Third is rather a hope that scholars in this dialogue stand
the ground in defense of separation, instead of trying painstakingly to find
convoluted explanations for foreign policy expediencies, domestic political
competitions, or extreme liberalism in the name of freedom of expression.
Tolerance and compromise do not serve the objective of real, meaningful,
absolute separation that would allow the state to govern and serve the people
more effectively. Conversely, compromise creates a breeding ground for
confusion, disagreements, division, hence inefficiency, dissatisfaction in
governance. People do not unite and form a state to have an unstable society
and government. “A democratic administration cannot function in a
non-democratic society”.[71] Since democracy means
self-governance, scholars would do great service to democracy by talking firmly
about people’s sovereignty, not God’s sovereignty. Democracy needs their
support and defense for the sole, unambiguous, incontrovertible, unconditional,
and unlimited sovereignty of people in governance. After the first secularist civil society organization in the
U.S., the National Liberal League of 1884 closed its doors in 1919 there has
been about half a dozen secularist societies actively defending and promoting
the separation of church and state in the last few decades. Their laudable
efforts proved to be insufficient to fend off the surge of religionism, as this
essay tries to iterate. The founding in April 2018 of the Congressional
Freethought Caucus, however, right where the U.S. political heart beats is a
hope of a possible prop for the imaginary wall.
Fourth, two distinctions must be made in this dialogue: One
is between the participation of the religious establishment in politics, which
should be avoided, and the participation in politics of individuals with
religious convictions, which is unavoidable.
The other is between the state committed to the real separation
principle, and citizens committed to that principle, knowledgeable and rational
citizens.
The first distinction is important for accepting the
unavoidable reality of religious convictions of people joining in the political
dialogue, while the involvement of religious establishment in state affairs is
disallowed. Critical thinking, reasoning, and responsible citizenship would be
expected to counterweigh all irrational opinions in a public debate leading up
to political decision making. Notwithstanding, if rationalism and humanist
ethics do not prevail over religious considerations, then we can say, truthfully,
it is not the religious establishment that sets the policies, but the irrational
or religiously thinking people do. It is not, in that event, the interference
or participation of religion, or God’s dicta, in the public domain. It is the
expression of people’s mind, people’s choice, the true exercise of freedom of
speech by people. This subtle distinction between the participation of religion
per se and the opinions of religious people defines the distinction between
secularism and the separation principle. Not God’s voice, but people’s voice
prevails in state affairs, may the result be a non-democratic state. The
advantage of this clarity is that a pretense of separation in the form of
secularism can no longer be claimed.
As to the second distinction, the inscription of the
separation of Church and state in laws or even in Constitution does not
guarantee its application, as proven by the practice of present democracies.
People, a great majority of people, must be adherents of this principle of
democracy to the point of internalizing it, identifying themselves with it, for
it to be “real”, legitimate, lasting, and strong. This degree of belonging highly
depends on how informed and knowledgeable the citizens are. The level of
knowledge of the people is a very important, if not the determinant factor, in
their choice of democratic or religious state. Belief does not require justification,
reason, evidence, or proof for its edicts; unquestioning belief triumphs where
ignorance, poverty, and insecurity prevail. Civil discourse, as proposed by
Popper and Habermas, would be possible in a well-informed, rational environment.
Good reasoning, good judgement would be possible where masses reach a
qualitatively as well as quantitatively significant level of information,
knowledge, education in civil, civic, public, humanistic fields. The necessary knowledge must be provided by a
strong humanistic education policy, and by keeping people well informed of
political, social, civic, all national matters by a transparent government and
responsibly acting press.
Of three possible solutions to govern people peacefully towards
progress two have been tried in the past: union of religion and politics, power
sharing between religion and politics, and complete separation between the two.
We seem to have left the union of the two in history as it did not serve well either
peace or progress. The current power sharing of secularism shows progress is
made without peace. This leaves us with the third solution for progressing in
peace, an earnest adherence to a real and true separation of religion, a true
democratic system.
August 2021
END NOTES
[1] Introduction
to Political Philosophy, W. Ebenstein, Rinehart Co. 1952, p. 113
[2] The Illusion of
Self-governance, sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com
[3] J. Habermas, Between
Naturalism and Religion, Polity Press, 2008.
[4] “What
we need to try to eradicate is not religious belief, or faith, it is
ignorance.” (Lawrence M. Krauss, Should Science Speak to Faith? Scientific
American, June 19, 2007, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-science-speak-to-faith-extended/)
[5] S. Jacoby, Freethinkers,
A History of American Secularism, Metropolitan Books 2004 p.317
[6] Jimmie Carter, Our
Endangered Values, America’s Moral Values, Simon & Schuster 2005, p.113
[7] D. Milbank, Washington
Post, February 11, 2005
[8]
Reagan’s legal policy adviser, and general counsel for Christian Legal, Stephen
Galebach wrote in Washington Post on
March 14, 2004, “The expanded church autonomy doctrine has offered wrongdoers a
law-free zone within churches. Prosecutors settled, instead of indicting, have
been loath to find mens rea, or criminal intent, in any bishop or church leader
for aiding and abetting. Prosecutors and judges who have given a break to the
church through the years have done us greater harm”.
[9] Secular Coalition website,
https://secular.org/issue/religious-coercion/
“In at least one telltale instance last April, officials of
the Department of Defense began promoting an aggressive Christian group that
promises to bring its views in a "crusade" to Iraq. Operation
Straight Up "is working to help military children and families become
stronger through faith-based entertainment," wrote The American Forces
Press Service in April.” (Thomas D.
Williams, Faith-Based Spending Goes Relatively Unchecked, Nov. 23, 2007,
Truthout website)
“According to
documents obtained by the watchdog group the Military Religious Freedom
Foundation, and made available to Truthout, David Kistler, President of
Hickory, North Carolina-based H.O.P.E. Ministries International, embarked on a
"DC Crusade" along with dozens of members of the evangelical
organization for two weeks that included two days inside the Pentagon
proselytizing and preaching the "gospel" to government employees and
"saving souls." (Jason Leopold, Pentagon Chaplain Accused of
Aiding Proselytizing, Aug. 30, 2007, Truthout website)
[10] Peter Berger, The
Desecularization of the World: A Global Overview, in The Desecularization
of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, W.B. Eerdmans Publishing
1999 p.9
[11] Senate Finance Committee
website
[12] Public Law 82-324 Chapter
216 Joint Resolution [H. J. Res. 382] to provide for setting aside an
appropriate day as a National Day of Prayer. Resolved by the /Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
the President shall set aside and proclaim a suitable day each year, other than
a Sunday, as a National Day of Prayer, on which the people of the United States
may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as
individuals. Approved April 17, 1952.
Public Law 100-307 100th Congress An Act May 5, 1988, to
provide for setting aside the first Thursday in May as the date on which the
[S. 1378] National Day of Prayer is celebrated. Be it enacted by the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the joint resolution entitled "Joint Resolution to provide for
setting aside an appropriate day as a National Day of Prayer", approved
April 17, 36 use I69h. 1952 (Public Law 82-324; 66 Stat. 64), is amended by
striking "a suitable day each year, other than a Sunday," and
inserting in lieu thereof "the first Thursday in May in each year".
Approved May 5, 1988.
[13]
Matt Cherry, Robertson Caught Admitting
Political Goals, Secularist Humanist Bulletin, Vol. 13 Number 4.
[15] Kevin Phillips, American
Theocracy, Viking 2006 p.218
[16] Michael Lindsay, Faith
in the Hall of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite, Oxford
Un. Press, 2007
[17] 2017 Pew Research
Center Survey, “Americans are divided on the extent to which the country’s
laws should reflect Bible teachings. Roughly half of U.S. adults say the Bible
should influence U.S. laws either a great deal (23%) or some (26%), and more
than a quarter (28%) say the Bible should prevail over the will of the people
if the two are at odds, according to the February survey. Half of Americans,
meanwhile, say the Bible shouldn’t influence U.S. laws much (19%) or at all
(31%).
More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) say churches and other
houses of worship should stay out of politics. An even higher share (76%) says
these houses of worship should not endorse political candidates during
elections, according to a 2019 survey. Still, more than a third of Americans
(36%) say churches and other houses of worship should express their views on social
and political matters. (The Johnson Amendment, enacted in 1954, prohibits
tax-exempt institutions like churches from involvement in political campaigns
on behalf of any candidate.)
Only about a third of Americans (32%) say government
policies should support religious values. Two-thirds (65%) say religion should
be kept out of government policies”.
[18] Susan Jacoby, The Age
of American Unreason, Pantheon Books, 2008 pp. 201, and 299.
[19] George Gallup, Jr., Religion
and Civic Virtue at Home and Abroad, The Templeton Lecture on Religion and
World Affairs, Volume 4, Number 1, June 1996
[20] Damon Mayrl, Introduction,
the Social Science Research Council, Apr 20, 2007
[21] Abe Fortas, Concerning
Dissent and Civil Disobedience, The New American Library 1968, pp. 98, 99
[22] Susan Jacoby, The Age
of American Unreason, p.198
[23] Jimmy Carter, Our
Endangered Values, Simon & Schuster 2005, p.60
[24] Dave Roland, Legislative
prayer, First Amendment Center web site, September 16, 2002
[25] Pew Research Center Press
Release, November 16, 2009
[27] Winnifred Fallers
Sullivan, The extra-territorial establishment of religion, March 22, 2010,
http://tif.ssrc.org/2010/03/22/extra-territorial
[28] Patrick S Nash, Sharia
in England: The Marriage Law Solution, Oxford Journal of Law and Religion,
Volume 6, Issue 3, October 2017, Pages 523–543, 12 October 2017,
https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwx052
[29] Dame Louise Casey’s
report, December 2016, https://academic.oup.com/ojlr/article/6/3/523/4469414?searchresult=1
[30] Min. des Affaires
Etrangeres Press Release, Secularism in France, May 2007, Infosynthese, La
France a la Loupe
[31] Being Christian in
Europe, PEW Research Center Report 2017
[32] Ayşen Candaş Bilgen, Is ‘Muslim’ Democracy
Synonymous with ‘Constitutional’ Democracy? ResetDOC, 30 October 2008
[33] Milliyet daily, Nov. 21, 1994, Nov. 19, 2005, and
Aug. 29, 2005
[34] The final declaration of the Standing
Committee for Economic and Trade Cooperation of OIC Conference in Pakistan in
1976 stated: “The constitutions of the Islamic countries should be restructured
according to Islamic principles and the Arabic language should be spread among
the people.
Civil code should be replaced by
Sharia law.
Women should obey Islamic code.
Necessary economic and political
steps should be taken to establish modern Islamic states based on the Sharia.
At every level of education
Islam must be taught as a mandatory subject.
At secondary schools students
must memorize the Koran.
The five principles of Islam
should be memorized by every Muslim.
In order to accomplish these
goals, Islamic schools must be established in every country.
In order to establish an Islamic
Unity, all Muslim states should first recognize and accept their Islamic
identity and form a confederation under the guidance of a commonly elected
Caliph!” (Birol Yesilada, Islam, Dollars
and Politics: The Political Economy of
Saudi Capital in Turkey, Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the
Middle East Studies Association in Toronto, Canada, November 15-18, 1989).
[35] A lot had been written
about the creeping transformation of the Turkish state from a reformist modern
republic to a religionist state. "We
witnessed in 1960s the obliteration of Ataturk principles from minds and
souls.” (Suat Sinanoglu, Türk Hümanizmi, Turkish History Institute, 1988, pp. vii-ix. Translation
by the author).
[36] Zoya Hasan, Gender,
Religion and Democratic Politics in India, Final Research Report prepared
for the UN Research Institute for Social Development, September 2009, p.6
[37] Reimon Bachika, A Look
at Religion in Japan, in Politics and Religion, Department of the
Sociology, Bukkyo University, Kyoto, Japan, Nº 1/2010, Vol. IV, pp 7-23
[38] Jeffrey Key, Ideology, Religion, and Politics: The History of a Changing Concept,
AP Comparative Government and Politics, 2006-2007 Professional Development
Workshop, p.41
“Twenty years ago, most social scientists tended to see
religion as a vestige of a bygone age, an increasingly irrelevant remnant from
a prior epoch of superstition and miseducation. But about 1979 things began to
change. Astonishingly enough, religion took on a new political importance as
phrases like ‘liberation theology,’ ‘fundamentalism,’ ‘solidarity,’ and ‘moral
majority’ were shouted from the political ramparts in countries as diverse as
Nicaragua, Iran, Poland, and the United States.” (N.J. Demerath and Karen S.
Straight, Religion, Politics, and the
State: Cross-Cultural Observations, Paper presented on May 20, 1996, at the
Institute of Oriental Philosophy in Tokyo, https://crosscurrents.org/Demerath.htm).
“What is more surprising is the political
revitalization of religion at the heart of Western society. Though there is
statistical evidence of a wave of secularization in almost all European
countries since the end of World War II - going hand in hand with social modernization,
in the United States all data show that the comparatively large proportion of
the population made up of devout and religiously active citizens has remained
the same over the last six decades.” (Jürgen Habermas, Religion in the Public Sphere, Lecture at San Diego University,
March 4, 2005, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/philafri.8.2.0099, and https://www.sandiego.edu/pdf/pdf_library/habermaslecture031105_c939cceb2ab087bdfc6df291ec0fc3fa.pdf).
"In
its first 34 years of operation as a Court, from 1959 to 1993, the ECtHR did
not issue a single conviction against a state on the basis of the main
religious freedom provision of the ECtHR, Article 9 on the freedom of thought,
conscience, and religion. Since that first ground-breaking case in 1993,
Kokkinakis v Greece, the Court has issued more than 50 Article 9 convictions.
These numbers in themselves suggest a rapidly increasing judicialization of
religion." (Effie
Fokas, Directions in Religious Pluralism in Europe: Mobilizations in the
Shadow of European Court of Human Rights Religious Freedom Jurisprudence,
Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, Volume 4, Issue 1, February 2015, Pages
54–74, Published: 10 March 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwu065)
[40] Leslie Lipson, Ethical
Crises of Civilization, Moral Meltdown or Advance? Sage 1993, p. 144
[41] Ninian Smart, Politics of the World, Krieger, Oxford
University Press 1993, p. 778-779
[42] Susan Jacoby, Freethinkers,
p.2 ; Leslie Lipson, idem, p. 302
[43]“America is neither a Christian nation nor a secular one; it is somewhere in
between”. (J. Meacham, Washington Post, April 16, 2006)
[44] Pew Research released
on November 16, 2009, showed 65% say God’s will is a major reason for American
success;
J. Habermas,
Between Naturalism and Religion, Polity Press, 2008, p.116;
George Gallup, Jr., Religion and Civic Virtue at Home and Abroad,
The Templeton Lecture on Religion and World Affairs, Volume 4, Number 1, June
1996;
The Austrian daily Die Presse on April 17, 2008,
carried Pope’s visit to the US on its remarkably meaningful front page, “Pope
is visiting the land where God resides”;
“The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, introduced into
both houses of Congress on February 11, 2004, "includes the acknowledgment
of God as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of
executing his office." Katherine Yurica, author of the Yurica Report,
reports on this bill that reveals the theocratic intentions of its sponsors
including Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama), Rep. Michael Pence (Indiana), Sen.
Richard Shelby of Alabama, Sen. Zell Miller (Georgia), Sen. Sam Brownback
(Kansas), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina).” (Speakers at the Road
To Victory sponsored by Christian Coalition before the 2002 elections,
http://www.theocracywatch.org/separation_church_state2.htm);
The Texas Republican Party Platform, "Our Party pledges
to do everything within its power to dispel the myth of separation of church
and state." (ibid);
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore termed separation "a
fable" and insisted that the phrase "has so warped our society it's
unbelievable." (ibid);
William Pryor, President Bush's stealth appointment for the
11th circuit court of appeals said in a speech that the First Amendment does
not mandate "a strict separation of church and state." (ibid).
[45] Susan
Jacoby, The Age of American Unreason, p.46
[46] Kevin Phillips, American
Theocracy, Viking 2006, p. 234
[47]
“While periodic, and not altogether successful, efforts at disestablishment
have produced a distinctively American style of religious governance—one that
is not widely shared throughout the world—it is difficult not to see the
adoption of an explicitly establishmentarian position by American foreign
policy makers as opportunistic and naïve. Established religion is, by
definition, not accepting of “pluralism, freedom, and democracy.” (Winnifred
Fallers Sullivan, The extra-territorial establishment of religion, March
22, 2010. http://tif.ssrc.org/2010/03/22/extra-territorial/)
[48] Paul Marshall editor, American Response to Extreme Shari’a, Radical Islam’s Rule, Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 2005, p. 205 and 207
[49] See barryyeoman.com/2002/05/stealth-crusade
[50]
1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights; 1950 European Declaration of Human Rights;
1966 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights; 1984 UN
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination
Based on Religion or Belief; 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights; 1998 Oslo
Declaration on Human Rights.
[51]
“ The Social (Covenant's list of) rights includes nondiscrimination and
equality for women in the economic and social area (Articles 2 and 3), freedom
to work and opportunities to work (Article 4), fair pay and decent conditions
of work (Article 7), the right to form trade unions and to strike (Article 8),
social security (Article 9), special protections for mothers and children
(Article 10), the right to adequate food, clothing, and housing (Article 11),
the right to basic health services (Article 12), the right to education
(Article 13), and the right to participate in cultural life and scientific progress
(Article 15).” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/#SociRigh).
[52] Leslie Lipson, footnote 26
[53] G.
Pasquino, Politics of the World, Krieger, Oxford University Press 1993,
p. 820
[54] Crane Brinton, The Shaping of the Modern Mind, Mentor Books 1959, p. 31
[55] Emanuela Scridel, How things work in Europe, ResetDOC, 6 July 2009;
See
also the Website of Concordat Watch.
[56]
J. Woolsey, Saudi Publications on Hate
Ideology Invade American Mosques, Freedom House, 2005.
[57] See: Charter Schools Tied to Turkey Grow in Texas, S Saul, The New York
Times, June 7, 2011; BBC Report, May 26, 2011; Turkey and the Restoration of the Caliphate, J. Levy, March 12, 2011; Meet the Most Dangerous Islamist on Planet
Earth, Canada Press, April 5, 2011; Fetullah
Gulen: US Charter School Network with Turkish Link Draws Federal Attention, M.
Woodall & C. Gatti, Inquirer, March 22, 2011; Gulen Movement an Enigmatic Mix of Turkish Nationalism, Religion,
Education, Tim Steller, Arizona Daily Star, April 25, 2010; Gulen Movement Funded by Heroin via the CIA,
P. Williams, htpp://thelastcrusade.org, June 29, 2010; Objectives of Charter Schools with Turkish Ties Questioned, G.
Toppo, USA Today, August
17, 2010; Fethullah Gulen
Movement, B. Park, MERIA Journal, January 5, 2009; The Rise of a New Ottoman Empire: The Trap of Interfaith Dialogue, A.
Mizell, kurdishaspect.com; Fethullah
Gulen: Infiltrating the U.S. Through Our Charter Schools, G. Rudgers ACT
for America; Charter Schools Controversy
Prompts Audit of State Board, The Salt Lake Tribune, November 30, 2009; Fethullah Gulen’s Grand Ambition, R.
Sharon-Krespin, MEQ, Winter 2009 pp.55-66;
Gulen Movement: Turkey’s Third Power, Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst,
February 2009; Turkish Islamic Preacher –
threat or benefactor? A. Hudson, Reuters, May 14, 2008.
[58] J. Habermas, Notes on Post-Secular Society, New
Perspectives Quarterly Volume 25 #4, Fall 2008
[59] N. J.
Demerath, op.cit.
[60] In 2006, the then Senator
B. Obama put the question in a very clear and succinct terms, “Now, this is
going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy’ of sacred
scripture. ‘But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends
on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.
… At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the
art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live
up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such
uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policymaking on such
commitments would be a dangerous thing.” (Jim Hoagland, Washington Post,
July 2, 2006)
[61] Susan Jacoby, The Age
of American Unreason, pp. 18-23, 46, and 297 respectively.
[62]
Philip Foner, The Life and Major Writings of Thomas Paine, Citadel Press
1974, p. 597
[63] Leslie Lipson, pp. 55 and
180 respectively
[64] Leslie Lipson, p.288
“There are no morals
without discipline, without authority, the only rational authority is the one
the society regulated for its members.” (E. Durkheim, Leçon de Sociologie,
Un. of Istanbul Faculté de Droit No. 111, 1950, p. 88. Translation by the
author)
[65] “The gathering was sponsored by
dozens of national, regional and global mission networks and associations,
representing 100,000 cross-cultural missionaries. The purpose of the gathering
was to celebrate the progress made in missionary efforts since Edinburgh 1910,
assess what remains to be done in making disciples of all peoples, and develop
plans for inter-mission cooperation to fully engage the remaining least-reached
peoples in our generation.” (Yong Cho
and David Taylor, Making Disciples of Every People in Our Generation: The
Vision, Purpose and Objectives of Tokyo 2010. Contribution at the Tokyo
2010 Global Mission Consultation May 11-14, 2010, where over 960 delegates from
73 countries met. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1ddcm59.15)
[66] Recommended reading: D.M. Smolin, Exporting
the First Amendment: Evangelism, Proselytism, and the International Religious
Freedom, Cumberland Law Review 685, 2000-2001;
J. Witte, A
Primer on the Rights and Wrongs of Proselytism, Cumberland Law Review 619,
2000-2001.
[69] Susan Jacoby, Freethinkers,
p. 295
[70] No attempt has ever been
made to find an English counterpart for the French word “laicité”, which is the
real separation of Church and state. Instead, this French term is used in the
U.S. as a foreign concept to the American political system and is related
derogatively to the “bloody” French Revolution (disregarding the fact that
revolutions are more genuine and longer lasting when nourished by blood, as the
U.S.’s own Independence War demonstrated). “Gérard Araud, ambassador of France
to the United States, spoke on French secularism and the growing issue of
right-wing populism in Western Europe and the United States in a lecture titled
‘French Foreign Policy in an Unstable World’ held at the Watson Institute’s
Joukowsky Forum Tuesday. … Araud went on to discuss that American secular
values cannot be adopted by the French due to social and cultural differences.
He noted that American secularism was contrived by the Founding Fathers to
protect religion from the state. But in France, secularism served to protect
the state from religion, Araud added. ‘In France, we are extremely reluctant to
give religion any public space. Religion is private. You never speak about
religion,’ he said. Araud noted that no large crosses or veils are to be worn
in state schools or by civil servants working in state institutions. ‘They want
(the public sphere) to be a neutral space,’ he added.” (Aileen Seo, French
ambassador contrasts cultural role of secularism in France, US, The Brown
Daily Herald, September 14, 2016)
“Olivier Roy, a French political scientist and scholar of
religion, laid out in a 2007 essay what distinguished France's concept of
secularism — or laïcité — from its Anglo-Saxon counterparts. Laïcité is about
the separation of church and state, a concept Americans know well. But in
America, separation was designed to free religion from state interference (and
vice versa), whereas in France separation evolved to exclude religion from
public space and to promote the supremacy of the state over religious
organizations. And the historical reasons for the distinction are clear enough.
As de Tocqueville observed, the American Founders saw Protestant Christian
religion as a support for freedom and civic virtue; French republicans saw the
Catholic Church as having been complicit with the worst features of the 'ancien
régime' and sought to limit its sway over French democracy. In the United
States, secularism implies a freedom for religion; in France, it is a freedom
from.” (Ishaan Tharoor, What it means to be secular in an age of extremism,
Washington Post, September 8, 1916).
[71] Leslie Lipson, p. 262
Posts
