The Western Model of Secularism

Every secular state shares one thing in common: it is neither theocratic, nor does it establish any single religion as the state's own. Beyond that minimum, however, the most commonly held conception of secularism — inspired chiefly by the American model — understands separation of religion and state as MUTUAL EXCLUSION: the state does not intervene in the internal affairs of religion, and, equally, religion does not interfere in the affairs of the state. Each occupies a separate sphere with its own, independent jurisdiction. No state policy may rest on an exclusively religious rationale, and no public policy may be based on a religious classification — either would count as an illegitimate intrusion of religion into the state.

The same logic runs the other way: the state cannot give financial or other aid to any religious institution, including educational institutions run by a religious community, but it equally cannot obstruct what religious communities do, so long as they stay within the broad limits set by the law of the land. If a religious institution refuses to let a woman become a priest, the state can do very little about it. If a religious community excommunicates one of its own dissenters, the state can only watch. If a particular religion bars some of its own members from the innermost sanctum of a temple, the state has no option but to leave the matter exactly where it is. On this view, religion is treated as a strictly private matter — not something for state policy or law to touch.

This mainstream conception interprets freedom and equality in an individualist way. Liberty means the liberty of individuals, and equality means equality between individuals; there is very little room here for the idea that a religious COMMUNITY, as such, has the freedom to follow practices of its own choosing, and correspondingly little room for community-based or minority rights. The history of western societies explains why. With the notable exception of Jewish communities, most western societies were marked by a great deal of religious homogeneity — broadly speaking, one religion, Christianity, even though it contained many different denominations. Given this, western secularism naturally came to focus on INTRA-religious domination — for instance, ensuring equality between different Christian denominations — while strict separation of church and state was emphasised chiefly to secure individual freedom. Issues of inter-religious domination, and therefore of minority rights, were often left comparatively neglected. Finally, this mainstream western form of secularism leaves no room at all for state-supported religious reform — a direct consequence of treating separation as mutual exclusion, since the state is not meant to reach into religious affairs in either direction. …