What I was speaking about [in Turkey] was how Americans understand the separation of church and state, and I went all over the country speaking to various audiences about this subject, and they were absolutely fascinated. There are those [in Turkey] who want to see more religion in public life; they thought the American way was admirable in that extent.
Of course, there were others, particularly women, who were absolutely terrified by this because they immediately think of the Iranian example as the sort of thing they can expect to happen in Turkey if the Kemalist secularism of the past 90 years or so is rolled back.
What I ended up having to say to these audiences again and again is that I doubted very much that the American way would be applicable.
So let me begin with two propositions. The first one is that in the American experience, the separation of church and state, which by and large we acknowledge as a rough-and-ready principle, does not necessarily mean the separation of religion from public life.
Another way of saying this is that America has a strong commitment to secularism, but it is secularism of a particular kind, understood in a particular way. Second, that the United States has achieved in practice what seemed impossible in theory: a reconciliation of religion with modernity, in contrast, as I say, to the Western European pattern. In the United States religious belief has proven amazingly persistent even as the culture has been more and more willing to embrace enthusiastically all or most of the scientific and technological agenda of modernity.
Sometimes the two reinforce one another. Sometimes they clash with one another, but the American culture has found room for both to be present. The complexity takes a particular form: that politics and culture are designed around an interplay of competitive forces, which is, I think, the key to understanding a lot about the United States.
The Constitution was based on the assumptions that in any dynamic society there would be contending interest groups, and [that] one could best counteract their influence by systematically playing them off against one another.
That was the reasoning behind separation of powers, behind the federal system. There are supposed to be countervailing forces holding one another in check. There is supposed to be common and constant tension. Socially and culturally speaking, the country has evolved in a similar way, not intentionally but with similar effect.
No one at the time of the American founding envisioned the nation as a great bastion of cultural pluralism, in which a wide variety of cultural forms and religions would coexist.
They probably would have found the idea unintelligible, but it turned out to be one of the most salient features of American life. Privileged groups of all type try and claim exclusive or excessive credit for lots of things. The laws of the United Kingdom have evolved in a context where most people have been Christian and influenced by their own versions of Christianity.
But as two High Court judges succinctly put it "The aphorism that "Christianity is part of the common law of England" is mere rhetoric. Britain isn't a perfectly secular democracy, but neither are we a mono-faith theocracy. If we are to be a nation that welcomes and protects people of all faiths and none, we must continue along the path of secularism and pluralism, rather than harking back to an imagined Christian past. Secularism is a pretty simple concept, and most people are more or less secular-ish.
A huge part of our work is countering the misconceptions, and deliberate misrepresentations, of Secularism. You can help this work by sharing this page or supporting the Society. We campaign for the law and the administration of justice to be based on equality, respect for human rights, and on objective evidence.
Public services that are intended for the whole community, especially those funded by public money, should be provided in a secular context. We campaign on a wide range of topics where religious privilege impacts public life.
For over years we have campaigned for disestablishment, the separation of the C of E and state. Meat from animals not stunned before slaughter is being sold in parliament, the National Secular Society has found. An independent faith school has failed three consecutive inspections due to its "narrow" secular curriculum. A bill to end the duty on non-faith schools in England to hold daily acts of Christian worship has progressed in parliament.
The National Secular Society has supported plans to end discriminatory admissions policies for some faith schools in Suffolk. The Armed Forces must dismantle their institutional Christian privilege if they are truly committed to inclusivity, says Megan Manson. Paul Stanley's work shows how much more inclusive and engaging school assemblies could be without the anachronistic legal requirement for religious worship, argues Sue Garratt.
The national conversation following the brutal killing of David Amess suggests an unwillingness to tackle the Islamic extremism behind it, argues Stephen Evans. A case in Leicestershire shows the mess faith groups make of admissions and why secular accountability is necessary, argues Alastair Lichten. Ahead of parliament's first consideration of assisted dying for six years, Stephen Evans calls on secularists to help ensure that religious objections don't stand in the way of necessary reform.
You can support the NSS by buying from our Shop. All rights reserved. National Secular Society. Donate Join us. What is Secularism? Secularism is a simple proposition. Find out what it means. The principles of secularism which protect and underpin many of the freedoms we enjoy are: Separation of religious institutions from state institutions and a public sphere where religion may participate, but not dominate.
Freedom to practice one's faith or belief without harming others, or to change it or not have one, according to one's own conscience.
Equality so that our religious beliefs or lack of them doesn't put any of us at an advantage or a disadvantage. Separation of religion from state The separation of religion and state is the foundation of secularism. Secularism protects both believers and non-believers Secularism seeks to ensure and protect freedom of religious belief and practice for all citizens. Religious Freedom Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others.
Secularism is about democracy and fairness In a secular democracy all citizens are equal before the law and parliament. Equal access to public services We all share hospitals, schools, the police and the services of local authorities. Macron himself acknowledged that France had failed its immigrant communities, creating "our own separatism" with ghettos of "misery and hardship" where people were lumped together according to their origins and social background.
The president has announced measures aimed at "freeing Islam in France from foreign influences", which include associations having to sign a contract respecting "the Republic's values" in order to obtain subsidies. In terms of secularism as it was written into French law, Macron's hardline stance when it comes to the recent freedom of expression row is a totem of how the French state refuses to be the conduit of religious demands.
And it does so more steadfastly than, say, in the US where religious groups have more influence over American policy. France also has a strong attachment to secularism, which is widely supported both those on the left and right.
Download the Euronews app to get an alert for this and other breaking news. One might want to promote what I call a seculocracy , which means a state where the laws are based on a secularist ideology or worldview just as we sometimes call a state based on a religious ideology a theocracy. Or in the language of the U.
Constitution, secularists might argue for a state where their views on significant political, social, and moral questions are established in law. One might believe and argue publicly that this is the best way forward for modern democracies.
However, this position faces a major problem: while one is perfectly free to hold this position oneself, and to argue for it publicly, and even to argue that other religious worldviews are irrational, or that the secularist view is superior or whatever, one must recognize that in a free society many will argue just the opposite.
In a free society, any type of restriction or suppression of a view before a public debate is held violates the basic principles of democracy and freedom. As a possible way around this problem, one could instead adopt the approach that one can give good reasons for excluding religious views from politics, and so the secularist view should then dominate, or win by default.
But one must be very careful if one adopts this response. I agree that when one presents arguments in the public square, especially arguments that would shape society and culture, one needs to give rational arguments.
But the religious believer will argue that religion has a rational side to it, has a long tradition of reason, and that we can appeal to this rational tradition as the philosophical justification for our religious beliefs.
For example, one might argue that God exists, and is the creator of life, that life is extremely valuable, that the fetus is an innocent human life, and should be protected in law. And arguments like these would not just assert the existence of God, but argue that it is rational to believe in God the actual argument could be assumed in the public debate, but would be available in other venues, such as academia.
As I pointed out, he is free to believe that such arguments are not rational, but not free to restrict those who do not agree with him.
One cannot restrict a belief in a free society just because one disagrees with it politically, nor even because one thinks it is irrational. I would accept that in a democratic society we should try to be as reasonable as we can, should especially try to give reasons that would persuade others, so I would agree that one should not appeal to religious texts, or authorities, or to private experiences, in public arguments, as long as secularist-type arguments that are based on similar sources are also restricted in the same way.
But again this argument is not sufficient to rule religious arguments out of public life. That is to say, reason can be used to establish the rationality of basic religious premises and conclusions.
0コメント