Workshop Review
Religion and Secularism
17-18 June 2008
This workshop was held in conjunction with CRASSH, Cambridge’s Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities. It also received financial support from the British Academy for travel from overseas.
The papers were given by scholars from Russia, France, the US and the UK; of these some were more empirical and others more philosophical, but all were rooted in pressing contemporary issues. The papers on or related to France, by Philippe Raynaud, Cécile Laborde and Emile Perreau-Saussine were the most philosophical and historical in tone and content, providing a vast overview of the history of church-state relations and how that history is so difficult to map onto contemporary situations in which non-Christian religion and non-European immigration has transformed society and culture. Laborde set out a modified utilitarian framework drawing on John Rawls and the legal philosopher Cass Sunstein aiming ‘to apply the republican ideal of non-domination to the practical treatment of cultural and religious differences in societies with well-established cultural and religious majorities and recently established immigrant minorities’.
Philippe Raynaud argued that French laïcité was a form of Catholic-laïcité – not exclusively or even mainly an anti-Christian or anti-religious policy, but fundamentally a compromise between the Republican ethos and the Catholic one. He argued that laïcité could not have been as successful as it has been if it had been merely anti-religious.
Emile Perreau-Saussine offered a comparison between France and the UK, arguing that there was a convergence between the two models, in terms of Church-State relations. On the one hand, he argued that the UK was becoming less nonchalant about religion, and that Nicolas Sarkozy was opening up laïcité to adapt it to the spirit of the times.
The papers on Russia were notable for the light they cast on a rapidly changing situation which has deep historical roots yet is also looking to uproot certain practices and institutions which have grown from those roots. In particular it was striking to hear about the tacit or not-so-tacit alliances between elements in the Orthodox Church and the more authoritarian strands of Russian politics, and the lack of an institutional framework for a regime of religious management which de facto has given over substantial prerogatives to the Church. In the case of Islam Dr Yemelianova panted a picture of gradual ‘folklorization’ of Islam as the state. Taking advantage of the issue of terrorism weakens independent Muslim institutions and reverses the gains that had been made by Muslim institutions of education and religious observance during the post-1989 period.
On the UK, the workshop heard an account by Julian Rivers of the ways in which the combined forces of European Human Rights legislation and judicial interpretation plus administrative regulation is transforming the traditional place of the Church in English law and eroding certain prerogatives, especially in the fields of gender and family relations. Rivers expressed concern less about these changing boundaries than about the way in which areas of social negotiation were becoming increasingly subject to juridical and administrative control, raising questions of what is meant by equality more than questions of narrowing religious prerogatives.
The workshop was brought into touch with the changing nature of secularism ‘on the ground’ by the refreshing participation of Mustapha Chaudhry, Secretary of Reading Muslim Council but also the coordinator for Slough and Reading of the UK government’s ‘Preventing Extremism’ programme. This is a programme which seeks through partnership with organizations from civil society and especially those with links to the Muslim population of England, to prevent or pre-empt the spread of extremist ideas, especially those advocating violence, among Muslim youth. Mr Chaudhry explained with admirable lucidity the pressures he was under in this position, but also the reason why participation in such a programme was consistent with his commitment to his religious heritage.
Finally, the participants heard a masterly synthesis from José Casanova. For Casanova there are three main models of secularism – the United States, France and India. He elaborated on this point and successfully fitted all the case studies at the workshop into the framework. He also explained that secularism does not remove religion from the public sphere but rather finds a place for it in a public sphere no longer governed under the auspices of religious legitimation.
The papers were given by scholars from Russia, France, the US and the UK; of these some were more empirical and others more philosophical, but all were rooted in pressing contemporary issues. The papers on or related to France, by Philippe Raynaud, Cécile Laborde and Emile Perreau-Saussine were the most philosophical and historical in tone and content, providing a vast overview of the history of church-state relations and how that history is so difficult to map onto contemporary situations in which non-Christian religion and non-European immigration has transformed society and culture. Laborde set out a modified utilitarian framework drawing on John Rawls and the legal philosopher Cass Sunstein aiming ‘to apply the republican ideal of non-domination to the practical treatment of cultural and religious differences in societies with well-established cultural and religious majorities and recently established immigrant minorities’.
Philippe Raynaud argued that French laïcité was a form of Catholic-laïcité – not exclusively or even mainly an anti-Christian or anti-religious policy, but fundamentally a compromise between the Republican ethos and the Catholic one. He argued that laïcité could not have been as successful as it has been if it had been merely anti-religious.
Emile Perreau-Saussine offered a comparison between France and the UK, arguing that there was a convergence between the two models, in terms of Church-State relations. On the one hand, he argued that the UK was becoming less nonchalant about religion, and that Nicolas Sarkozy was opening up laïcité to adapt it to the spirit of the times.
The papers on Russia were notable for the light they cast on a rapidly changing situation which has deep historical roots yet is also looking to uproot certain practices and institutions which have grown from those roots. In particular it was striking to hear about the tacit or not-so-tacit alliances between elements in the Orthodox Church and the more authoritarian strands of Russian politics, and the lack of an institutional framework for a regime of religious management which de facto has given over substantial prerogatives to the Church. In the case of Islam Dr Yemelianova panted a picture of gradual ‘folklorization’ of Islam as the state. Taking advantage of the issue of terrorism weakens independent Muslim institutions and reverses the gains that had been made by Muslim institutions of education and religious observance during the post-1989 period.
On the UK, the workshop heard an account by Julian Rivers of the ways in which the combined forces of European Human Rights legislation and judicial interpretation plus administrative regulation is transforming the traditional place of the Church in English law and eroding certain prerogatives, especially in the fields of gender and family relations. Rivers expressed concern less about these changing boundaries than about the way in which areas of social negotiation were becoming increasingly subject to juridical and administrative control, raising questions of what is meant by equality more than questions of narrowing religious prerogatives.
The workshop was brought into touch with the changing nature of secularism ‘on the ground’ by the refreshing participation of Mustapha Chaudhry, Secretary of Reading Muslim Council but also the coordinator for Slough and Reading of the UK government’s ‘Preventing Extremism’ programme. This is a programme which seeks through partnership with organizations from civil society and especially those with links to the Muslim population of England, to prevent or pre-empt the spread of extremist ideas, especially those advocating violence, among Muslim youth. Mr Chaudhry explained with admirable lucidity the pressures he was under in this position, but also the reason why participation in such a programme was consistent with his commitment to his religious heritage.
Finally, the participants heard a masterly synthesis from José Casanova. For Casanova there are three main models of secularism – the United States, France and India. He elaborated on this point and successfully fitted all the case studies at the workshop into the framework. He also explained that secularism does not remove religion from the public sphere but rather finds a place for it in a public sphere no longer governed under the auspices of religious legitimation.
David Lehmann
