Do secular societies provoke religious extremism?

Despite their well-known indifference to ideology and apathy towards philosophy, Australians have become surprisingly animated when it comes to the subject of religion. In the minds of many its presence or absence will decide the fate of the nation. The proponents of theistic religion claim that it explains the origins of mortal life and reveals the destiny of human beings, provides the foundations for moral reasoning and ethical deliberation, and gives insights into how communities can peacefully coexist. Theistic religion’s opponents argue that belief in a transcendent being or life beyond death lacks any evidentiary basis, defies the dictates of reason, impedes scientific advance, encourages discriminatory attitudes, further divides an already fractured humanity and leads to violence.

Although competing denominational loyalties have occasionally fuelled sectarian feuding, especially over education funding, Australians have never resorted to force in either asserting or resisting religious claims. We have attributed this civilised response to the embrace of a sensible political settlement. We respect the right of individuals to hold and profess a range of views in their own homes or in private gatherings of like-minded people. They can discuss and even propagate their views in public until they attempt to impose them on others by coercion.

This generous approach to belief is reflected in the Australian constitution which precludes the Commonwealth from declaring an official religion or establishing a state church. As a result, Australian society is characterised by practical pluralism rather than strict secularism. But this has not prevented committed polemicists and lobbyists campaigning vigorously for a form of secularism that is, in my view, inconsistent with traditional understandings of the word secular and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Their demands are antithetical to the promotion of political diversity, intolerant to a range of alternative beliefs, and counterproductive in serving only to encourage the desire among some for a theocratic state.

Whereas the word secularism once meant ‘without denominational content’, it has become synonymous with atheism, agnosticism, humanism and anti-religious sentiment. Secularism is, in the hands of some interpreters, a multi-layered ideology with distinct political objectives. It is not content to co-exist with religion; it must banish religion from the public square with the barely hidden hope that sacred texts and religious teachings might disappear altogether. Quite apart from the obvious existence of secularising trends in Australian popular culture and clear evidence from census data that religious affiliation is steadily declining, the death of God and the demise of religion cannot come quickly enough for some. It is the belligerence that marks this kind of secularism – a secularism that is growing in voice and volume – that has produced an equal and opposite reaction in a number of religious communities.

Some groups will, of course, simply ignore the secularists and continue to seek a broader social accommodation of religious ideals while promoting the necessity of their doctrines to human flourishing. Other groups will conclude that if the state refuses to acknowledge the authority and sovereignty of God, the group’s members are justified in rejecting the body politic and shunning popular culture.

But the groups that ought to cause most concern are those offended and affronted by what they regard as the materialist atheism that lurks behind much that goes by the name of secularism. Such groups exist within all major religious traditions. They contend that their religion is disrespected, their sensibilities are disregarded and they are the focus of disapproval. Defining doctrines are held up to public ridicule by those claiming that truth can only be known through reason while discounting the possibility of revelation.

I detect a growing tendency in various religious communities to confront any aspect of popular culture that leaves little or no room for God. This response becomes acute when secularists want to deprive religion of a future and deny religious communities any hope. I am wholeheartedly against theocratic states, official religions and established churches. But I am also opposed to avowedly ‘secular’ states because experience has shown that a state which claims to be neutral or non-religious can easily and quickly transform a society into one that is anti-religious and hostile towards believers.

For instance, the controversial decision of the French National Assembly in February 2004 to adopt a law banning “symbols and clothing that ostentatiously show students’ religious membership” in public schools is an example of aggressive and arrogant secularism. The wearing of the Muslim headscarf by women – the main target of the legislation – was as much a cultural symbol as a religious one and might, in a spirit of fraternity, have been overlooked or accommodated. The policy was widely interpreted as imposing a new limit on religious freedom in France and implying an official lack of respect for the beliefs of one religious community.

I personally do not accept that the health and well-being of a society are protected and preserved by ignoring or eradicating the religious ideals and aspirations of the people from which the state gains its mandate to govern. Nor is it self-evident to me that secularism is entitled to stand in judgement of religion any more than the state has a right to dictate attitudes and actions to faith communities. Secularism does not occupy a sanctified or privileged place from which bias, prejudice or ignorance are banished simply because it dismisses belief in God. Nor can the state assume wisdom, insight and understanding on the basis that it feels no obligation to embody divine laws. Secularism does not exist in a vacuum: it is a product of fallible reason and faltering experience. It has philosophical origins and a historical pedigree. Its tenets are far from self-evident to everyone.

Because the state is not competent to involve itself in every sphere of human life and public discourse, it must leave sufficient room within the public square, and indeed within itself, for religious matters to be discussed and potentially divergent views to flourish. This is the kind of society that Australia has been and needs to remain if we want to deny extremists any pretext for abandoning dialogue in favour of violence.

Professor Tom Frame is Director of St Mark’s National Theological Centre in Canberra and Head of the School of Theology at Charles Sturt University.