the secular state and religious pluralism n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The secular state and religious pluralism PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The secular state and religious pluralism

The secular state and religious pluralism

148 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

The secular state and religious pluralism

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. The secular state and religious pluralism METROPOLIS / Ottawa / September 23, 2009 Micheline Milot, Ph.D.

  2. OUTLINE • Secular governance • General characteristics • Canadian characteristics • Religion in the public sphere • Current religious diversity issues • Topics of debate • Public policy: recognition issues

  3. 1. Secular governance • Frequent associations • French model • Religion confined to private life • Individuals must be secular like institutions

  4. Four principles of secularism • Two principles of law • Freedom of conscience and religion • Equality/non-discrimination • Two ways of applying them • Neutral state • Separation of church and state

  5. Historical goals • Social peace • End of systemic discrimination • No second-class citizens • Being different without being ostracized

  6. Freedom of conscience and religion • Right to believe what one wants to believe • Right to express one’s beliefs or non-belief • Right to change religions or not belong to any …without fear of impediment or reprisal

  7. Consequences of freedom of conscience • Recognition that there are different ideas of what constitutes a good life in a society that accepts pluralism • Prevention from being discriminated against on the basis of beliefs In a free and democratic society, people do not believe the way others want them to believe.

  8. Equality • Between people – believers and non-believers alike • Between religious traditions • Between men and women • Political rights independent of religious affiliation or non-affiliation • Does not mean uniformity • Treating everyone the same can be unfair

  9. Neutral state: Two dimensions • The state respects all ideas of what constitutes a good life (believers and non-believers) • Linked to the person’s moral dignity • The state does not decide which beliefs are “normal” or “acceptable” • The state has no theological jurisdiction Limits: Actual breach of the rights of others or attack on security, public order or physical integrity

  10. To what does neutrality apply? • The establishment of policies and statutes • Institutional regulations • Respect for others and their differences • Respect for guaranteed rights and freedoms • Impartiality of decisions made or services provided by government employees

  11. Separation of church and state • Need to ensure neutrality • Independence of the state from faiths and of faiths from the state • Political order is free to develop collective standards in the general interest of the population • Religion, like any other form of association, is part of common law

  12. Canada • Importance of freedom of conscience and equality • Neutrality of the state is paramount • No state religion in Canada • Preamble to the Constitution (“supremacy of God”): no meaningful scope • = implicit secularism

  13. 2. Religion in the public arena • “New” visibility • Integrated into common institutions (not separate institutions) • Different perspectives: private life vs. public life • Perspectives on culture sometimes based more on community than on individuals

  14. Reasonable accommodation • Compatible with the neutrality of the state • Not aimed at changing the general workings of institutions • To eliminate indirect discrimination • Or to not impede freedom of conscience and freedom of religion

  15. Public expression of religious affiliation: Debate • Fear of communitarianism, which would be detrimental to integration • Supposed refusal to share common values • Risk of regression and imposition of archaic values (equality of men and women) • Consequences of prohibiting the expression of religious affiliation

  16. Threat to integration? • Process of generalizing believers to a community presumed to be closed • Presumption that individuals are driven entirely by the standards of the group with which they identify

  17. Opposing argument • Accepting public expression of religious affiliation can prevent withdrawal into a closed community that becomes radical in reaction to the lack of recognition

  18. Religion = common values? • Religion is presumed to have an all-encompassing hold on believers, but… • Believers prioritize religious values differently than the secular majority • Believers do not reject “modern” values (apart from some rare exceptions) • Identity has many dimensions and draws on a range of values

  19. Democratic and legal rights: Dangers? • By and large, religious expression is lived on modern terms • Selecting or distancing oneself from certain standards • Diversity within each tradition • Personal direction, not a political desire to impose the same standards on all members of society

  20. Religious signs in government employees • Aim: to not exclude common institutions • Do not have to choose between religious affiliation and a job • Presumption of impartiality

  21. Limiting factors • Do not compromise the effectiveness, security and rights of others • These three factors = evaluation of undue constraint on reasonable accommodation

  22. Equality of men and women at risk? • The law prohibits unequal treatment based on sex • Equality of men and women is not necessarily compromised by individual expression of religious affiliation • Religious patriarchy exists; the state must not attempt to step in and take its place • Strengthen awareness of rights

  23. Real equality • Equality of political and legal status for women • Equality of resources to live one’s life • Equality of opportunity (employment, education, justice, health care, housing)

  24. 3. Factors to be considered • Distinguish between the fundamental principles of equality and elements that are incidental • Interconnection of different forms of inequality (economic, stigmatized groups, etc.) • Evaluate the risk of a sense of rejection • Initiatives that do not cause harm to others

  25. Prohibition of the expression of religious affiliation • Done through social exclusion • Form of discrimination, racism • Not all religions have rules on what followers can and cannot eat or wear • Forces individuals to renounce (their faith or their social integration) • Homogeneousness is an unrealistic measure of unity

  26. Targets • Aim for integration rather than uniformity • Remain vigilant in order to prevent discrimination • The need for mechanisms to eliminate discrimination is more pressing where there is diversity • Be aware of the impact of the customs of the majority and of their adverse effects