Pseudo-secularism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pseudo-secularism is the state of implicit non-secular trends in the face of pledged secularism. The term is used by groups who perceive a double standard exhibited within the established secular governing policy towards culturally different groups.
Some examples of allegations about Pseudo-secularism are (note, that these give the complaints brough forth, not necessarily a balanced representation of all issues involved.):
Contents |
[edit] In Germany
In Germany the state collects taxes for two Christian groups, while other religious or atheist groups have to collect their membership fees without the help of the state. Furthermore, there are religion lessons at school given by the state, but only for those two Christian denominations. Critics want the German state to stop supporting religious groups in this way.
[edit] In India
Since an amendment in 1976, the constitution of India describes the country as 'secular', an generally most mainstream political forces describe themselves as 'secular'. Its important to note that in the Indian context the term is mainly used as an opposite of 'communal', rather than describing the role of state-religion relations. The Hindu nationalist movement, who are frequently accused of being communal by leftwing and pro-Congress forces, claim that their opponents are 'pseudo-Secularists'. The claim is that the opponents of the Hindu nationalist movement are not truly secularists since they, in the eyes of Hindu nationalists, favour minority communities over the majority Hindu community. A major issue raised by the Hindu nationalist movement are separate legal codes for religious minority communities. Also, the Indian Government subsidises the travel of Indian muslims to Saudi arabia to visit Mecca; and there has been many instances of muzzling of the press and media to appease Muslims, not to speak of changing laws to satisfy Muslim ulema.
[edit] In the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, which has no codified constitution, the role of religion in the state machinery is well-established, although this is increasingly being viewed as anachronistic, given the relatively unreligious population, with, for example, the overwhelming majority of people claiming to be religious not engaging in regular worship. Examples of the relative deference to religious interests include the default allocation of over 20 seats in the upper House (House of Lords) to Christian bishops; an increasing level of state funding of religious schools, many of which will exclude both pupils and teachers not belonging to the prescribed faith; and a legal obligation on terrestrial television broadcasters to broadcast a minimum number of hours of religious programming. Increasing pressure from religious groups in the years 2000-2005 has led to the introduction of new laws promoting the interests of religious groups, such as a law banning incitement to religious hatred – a law which fails to protect other minorities (for example, homosexuals) from incitement to hatred. In addition, it is still illegal by case law to commit blasphemy in the United Kingdom, although nobody has been prosecuted for this crime since the mid-1970s.
Groups such as the National Secular Society have been campaigning for a stricter separation of religion and state in the UK since the late 19th century, asserting that British taxpayers' money should not fund religious schools; that bishops should not sit by default in the House of Lords, and that followers of humanism and atheist philosophies should be accorded equal rights to followers of faith-based philosophies. By contrast, the Church of England (and other religious associations such as the Muslim Council of Britain) argue that religion deserves a special place in society and that policy-making should reflect this. It is of interest to note that as of 2005, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has repeatedly been described as a proto-Catholic, has a Catholic wife, and chose to have his children educated at a strongly Catholic school, The London Oratory; many pro-secular commentators have argued that it would be difficult for a leader with strong personal religious beliefs to actively pursue a secular agenda.
[edit] In the United States
In the United States, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has been judicially interpreted as calling for the separation of church and state.
However, because the nation's population is overwhelmingly Christian, the judiciary has allowed for some exceptions. For example, American currency bears the national motto "In God we trust", the Pledge of Allegiance was altered to include the phrase "under God," both Congress and many state legislatures have legislative chaplains, and many courts have a crier or clerk who opens proceedings with the phrase, "God save the United States and this honorable court."
[edit] In Iraq
The recent Iraqi Constitution seeks to be ultimate law in Iraq, but also calls for the Supreme Federal Court to be made up of judges who are experts in Sharia (Islamic Law). It also supports a right to freedom of belief, but simultaneously makes Islam the national religion.
A similar seeming contradiction is found in the Constitution of Afghanistan, where civil law and Sharia coexists.
[edit] In Norway
Norway is one of the most secular countries in the world, with a low percentage of the population actively participating in religious affairs.[1] The state religion of Norway is Lutheran Christianity, and 86% of Norway's population is a member. In order to form a government, 10 out of 19 members of the Norwegian Council of State have to be a member of the state church. Rising controversy about this pseudo-secularism has ended in various measures being taken, including the school subject 'Christian education' being renamed to 'Christian knowledge and religious and ethical education'. The religious neutrality of this subject is contentious.[2]
[edit] Notes and references
- ^ Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 7 2005, Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies, A First Look, Gregory S. Paul Baltimore, Maryland.
- ^ Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1155/2003
