100 Treatises

Why Religious Freedom Requires Secularism

The fundamental source of modern religious freedom is, ironically enough, secularism. From history we know that social and political ideas of religious pluralism or the idea that the state should not interfere in religious practice arose in Europe because of the crippling effect of religious wars, as well as secular rulers’ desire to consolidate their power away from religious authorities (for example, Henry VIII).

However, these are historical phenomena that could easily have passed as society and culture changed. So the real lasting basis for religious freedom must come from more timeless characteristics of society and state.

Religions have conflicting truth claims, and yet they all claim to have the only and absolute truth. This is a fundamentally irreconcilable situation when it comes to state policy. Therefore, if the state is going to make any coherent policy, equitably, in a society of multiple religions, it must be non-religious in nature. It cannot allow its decisions to be influenced by any particular religion. This is called secularism.

So we see that secularism, in spite of itself, actually is the only basis for the protection of religion. This does not mean that secularism inevitably leads to religious protection. Rather, we can say the following: state secularism does not demand religious protection, but religious protection demands state secularism.

Does Religious Freedom come from Religion itself?

Here is a quote from an article on the Swiss minaret ban, by Rob Schwarzwalder (Senior Vice President of the Family Research Council) in Human Events:

All Americans should sustain our historic conviction that any true religious or ethnic bigotry is morally wrong.  All persons are made in the image and likeness of God and should be free to worship as they wish.

In a letter to a Quaker group written during the first year of his presidency (1789), George Washington captured this well: “The liberty enjoyed by the people of these States, of worshipping Almighty God agreeably to their conscience, is not only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights.”

Schwarzwalder’s statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the basis for religious freedom. Religious freedom does not naturally arise from religion itself. By its very nature, religion necessarily rejects all other truth claims. Therefore, if anything, religion acts as a check to religious freedom, since it makes no sense to permit untruths and false beliefs to be held when you know what the truth is. The default and logical position of religion, given what religion claims, is to enforce conformity and thus to deny freedoms or rights to those who do not accept the “truth,” as well as to push the truth onto them.

Many American Christians seem to believe that religious freedom actually arises not from religion (Islam, for example, is an inherently intolerant religion (never mind the fact that many different religious communities have been traditionally tolerated in Muslim societies)), but from a religion—Christianity. Thus the basis for religious freedom and tolerance is the Christian religion itself and its supposed values of peace, love and acceptance, as well as the fact that “all persons are made in the image and likeness of God.”

Hogwash. If religious tolerance so naturally arises out of Christian belief, why was it that when Europe was at its most Christian during the Middle Ages, it was also at its most intolerant? Why, in the age of Christianity when Church leaders enjoyed greater prestige, legitimacy and power than secular rulers, was Europe riven with religious war, purges of Jews, and puritanical oppression? If Christianity so easily gives rise to the acceptance of religious differences, why did the Conquistadores and Christian European colonial powers savagely impose Christian belief and practice on Native American and African populations?

The First Amendment: Then and Now

Of course, the quote from George Washington is consistent with this delusion. He said “the liberty… of worshipping Almighty God agreeably to their conscience…” What if someone does not want to worship Almighty God? Are their rights still protected? What if someone wants to worship not his Almighty God, but another, less mighty god? What if someone wants to worship a waterfall?

Obviously, the founding fathers valued “religious pluralism” or “religious freedom,” as they understood it. And they understood it within the framework of Christianity, especially Protestantism. When they spoke of these themes, they were thinking about the Christian denominational diversity that marked American society at the time. When we talk today about religious pluralism, we are thinking of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists and Hindus. But they were thinking of Quakers, Baptists, Anglicans, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and Methodists—all Christians. That is indicated by the fact that Washington said one should have the freedom “to worship Almighty God,” but made no mention of the freedom to not worship any god, or to worship a non-Christian or non-Abrahamic god.

One cannot have it both ways. Religious freedom means freedom for all religions. Restraints on religion (such as banning child sacrifice) are determined on a secular basis, for secular reasons, not religious ones. But aside from some basic secular principles, all religions are to be seen as equal, and are to enjoy no special influence over government. Religious freedom may have arisen out of a desire to better handle a diverse population, but it is sustained because of the secular values of a secular state and secular public realm.

MORE ARTICLES:

Secular Reason: The Mother of Moral Absolutes

Religion Leads to Moral Relativism