Fitting Sacred Into Secular

In theory, secularism seems to have a clear meaning and purpose. Yet in practice, governments that seek to legislate within a secular framework differ in their application and interpretation of secular values. This leads to conflicts with religious groups and religious minorities that bring into question the ability of a secular society to remain free and pluralistic. In particular, tensions between Muslim minorities and their home countries have developed with varying responses by secular governments.

A recent example comes from France’s burkini ban. The ban’s origins lie in the principle of ‘laïcité,” or secularism, which the Third Republic incorporated into its legal system in 1905. Though some scholars, such as Robert Zaretsky of Foreign Policy, suggest that the creators of the law sought solely an American-style separation of church and state, succeeding governments in France have pushed forward with a far more restrictive vision. In 2004, the French government passed a law banning religious symbols in schools. In 2011, the government banned face coverings in public. The law mostly affects Muslim women, who must pay a fine if caught wearing the Islamic veil in public; in extreme cases, individuals have assaulted these women because of their public use of the veil. Other European nations have since joined France in restricting the use of such attire, and the European Court of Human Rights upheld the French ban in 2014. The recent burkini bans, which remain in force in some areas, thus act as a continuation of a pattern in France: the sacrifice of certain religious freedoms in the name of an overbearing secularism.

Yet France’s restrictions pale in comparison to those enacted by the Chinese government. China and the Chinese Communist Party remain officially atheist, a policy that has placed significant penalties on any form of religion or religious worship. Recently, Chinese authorities placed significant restrictions on the Uyghurs, a Muslim minority in China. Chinese officials banned the burqa in Xinjiang province, an area of the country with a significant Uyghur population, and imposed a ban on fasting for Ramadan in the province for students, teachers, and civil servants. President Xi Jingping has also remarked that Chinese individuals should “shun the practise [sic] of Islam” in favor of Marxism. Chinese officials have justified these actions by pointing to significant unrest in the region, ignoring the fact that this unrest originates in what the Uyghurs see as unfair treatment by the Chinese government, including restrictions on their culture. Despite these claims and evidence that their actions have pushed some Uyghurs towards extremism and violence, the government once again enacted a Ramadan fasting ban for civil servants, students, and teachers this past June.

The current climate calls into question whether the nature of a secular state precludes coexistence with a vibrant and open religious society. Not all secular states require such prohibitions on the practice of religion. South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution includes provisions guaranteeing freedom of religion, including prohibitions on the restriction of cultures, and the government has made significant efforts to reverse legal restrictions remaining from apartheid. A recent examples relate to Islamic marriages. During apartheid, the government specified that marriages completed under the guise of traditional authorities could not receive the same legal recognition as civil marriages. Since 2000, the parliament of South Africa has fought against these restrictions, passing a law to recognize the validity of indigenous marriages and appointing over 100 imams as marriage officers, thus ensuring that they could conduct marriages legally equivalent to civil marriages. However, recent attempts to incorporate traditional Islamic marriages have yet to pass the parliament, in part due topush back from certain Muslim groups who feel that the law singles out Muslim marriages as purveyors of gender inequality. The matter appeared before a high court earlier this month, and the justices will determine, for now, whether or not the government should give legal recognition to Islamic marriages.

These three examples illustrate three different approaches to idea of secularism. South Africa shows that secularism need not exclude religious displays or restrict the freedom of practitioners. Other governments seeking to instill secular values should recognize that public religious displays and devotion do not represent a threat to society but instead add to the exchange of ideas and beliefs that must exist in any legitimately secular state.