Since
the days of Martin Luther, the Reformation and nearly 200 years before the French
Revolution was there the call for a clear separation between church and state;
an almost integral part to modern democracy, some would argue. While one can
acknowledge that it took those countries who were predominantly Catholic nearly
200 years for this church-state culture to set in, countries in the north of
Europe, Germany and the Scandinavian countries, where the Reformation
flourished, adopted this almost immediately. As a consequence, these northern
European countries remain some of the most secularised countries in the world
today.
One could argue that even to this present day
former Catholic European countries, such as Spain, France and Italy, find
themselves struggling with this clear separation between church and state. For
example, France has decided that it is the philosophy of liberté,
égalité, fraternité, born from the Enlightenment, which citizens of France
have to profess in order to be French; not culture, language or religion.
In banning the public wearing of niqab,
the French authorities ordered French Muslim women to “liberate” themselves
from garments, such as niqab, and thus ensure “equality” with all
other (non-Muslim French) women. That some of these Muslim women freely chose
to wear niqab and that through this banning their “liberty”
was being limited was of no consequence to French authorities.
In Italy, the 2011 case Lautsi vs Italy before
the European Court of Human Rights somewhat described the entire continent’s
rollercoaster experience with religion and secularism, state and church.
Crucifixes were being displayed in public (state) schools and the Lautsi’s took
umbrage because they wanted their children to be (educated) free from religion.
They therefore demanded that the school remove the crucifixes, the school
refused and the matter went to court. The Italian Court found in favour of the
school arguing that the crucifix was a cultural rather than
religious symbol. In other words, an Italian court decided that pivotal to
Italian culture, no matter what the background or region, was the symbol of the
crucifix.
The Lautsi’s then proceeded to the European Court
of Human Rights arguing an infringement on the rights to freedom of thought and
education. This Court agreed with them but on appeal the Italian state won
again given that the Court argued that member countries (of the European Union)
had a differing “margin of appreciation”. In other words, a crucifix meant more
(culturally) to an Italian than it did, say, to a Swede or German and even a
French, given the laïcité principle.
The two cases illustrate the type of debate that
has been on-going in Europe for a few years, maybe even since the founding of
the EU in the early 1950’s; a question not of the separation between church and
state but rather church (religion) and politics, church (religion) and culture.
Is it possible to be European and not realise the
fundamentally Christian roots that Europe enjoys, given that it was once called
“Christendom”? Just like Greece is a fundamental part of Europe? In fact some
would even argue that values such as liberté, égalité, fraternité and
even democracy itself are fundamentally Christian concepts albeit products of
the Reformation. Who would forget the case of Turkey and their wish to enter
the EU? Apparently they were just not “European” (read: Christian) enough.
Secularism has its roots in the Reformation and
subsequently the Enlightenment but secularists in Europe today struggle to
juggle the Christian roots that Europe enjoys, the influx of Islam and the
demands to separate church (religion) from state. For sure, given both cases
cited and how they were concluded one questions whether there is simply a
demand to ensure that Europe keeps Islam in check while maintaining its
Christian roots.
The scenario teaches that there would seem to be a
clear difference between the separation of church-state relations and
church-politics relations. The former seems to be the easier while the latter
poses as a struggle not only in Europe, “exporter of democracy”, but also in
the United States and other democratic countries, including South Africa.
Society-state issues are at play and fundamentally how society has the ability
to shape the state and, almost obviously, vice-versa.
Given the Arab spring and the call for liberté,
égalité, fraternité in these countries as well as the subsequent rise
of Islamic (“fundamentalist”) regimes through democratic means, e.g. Egypt,
Gaza, Pakistan, it would be interesting to see how democracy twins with the
local religious and political culture.
One can easily legislate separation of church and
state but in dealing with political culture, which is often influenced by
religion and which one cannot control, it becomes a bit more complicated.
No comments:
Post a Comment