We often think that the countries of the West share similar principles of democracy and freedom. When we look closer, we see that these words can mean very different things in different places. The differences between presidential and parliamentary democracy are real and important. The differences in freedom are real and important as well. Here, I will look at the difference between the religious liberty of the Anglosphere and the public secularism of much of mainland Europe.
Prerequisites: None.
Originally Written: January 2022.
Confidence Level: This is not my area of expertise, but I find it to be an interesting comparison.
The US law guarantees religious freedom guaranteed in the Constitution, while French and French-derived law has secularism (Laïcité) in the Constitution. These are not the same thing.
The Anglosphere tradition of religious liberty was founded by John Locke in A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689). It is not a single argument. It is a collection of arguments for religious liberty. All of the arguments encourage England to have more religious liberty, but they don’t all agree on how far that liberty should extend: to all religions that accept tolerance, to all religions that aren’t loyal to a foreign political power, to all Christians, or to all religions. Religions are a part of public life and will (and should) have a major impact on society, but every individual has the right to choose which religion he or she wants to be a member of. Advocates of religious liberty have been skeptical of atheism, believing that good morals are built on religion and are necessary for a good society. Atheists have nevertheless received protection from religious liberty, in addition to numerous religious groups.
The founding document for the French tradition of public secularism is the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789). It was written during the French Revolution in contrast to the privileges of monarchy, nobility, and clergy that had existed under the Ancien Régime. Included in this declaration is the following:
No one should be worried about his opinions, even religious, provided that their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
– Article 10.
This is a very different notion from religious liberty. Religion is a private opinion. The public sphere is inherently secular and established by law. Private religious practices are tolerated, as long as they do not impose too heavily on the public sphere. This idea was expounded on in the 1905 Law on the Separation of the Churches and the State and in the 1946 Constitution of the Fourth French Republic. These ideas spread across much of mainland Europe during the 1800s and early 1900s.
The most famous debates over religious liberty and public secularism involve burqa bans. Most European countries (including Turkey!) have restrictions on where you can/cannot wear burkas. These laws are (usually) not Muslim-specific. France, in particular, bans any conspicuous religious symbols from all public buildings – including schools, libraries, and hospitals. This includes burqas, but also Jewish yarmulke/kippah, Sikh turbans, and large crosses. In the Netherlands, this ban also extends to public transportation. A legal restriction on religious clothing in public spaces is unthinkable under US constitutional law.
There are more important effects of public secularism than restrictions on religious clothing. Almost all religious buildings in France are owned by the city council. They are obligated to maintain the buildings, but not to subsidize the religion meeting there. The secular government has control over the places that religions meet.
The ideas of public secularism and religious liberty are distinct. Religious liberty is dominant in the Anglosphere. It assumes that most people are religious, but will disagree about which religion is correct. Religions will be a dominant force in the public sphere and individuals have the right to choose between them without being influenced by the government. Public secularism is more common in mainland Europe. It assumes that the secular power of the state dominates the public sphere. People can be religious if they want to be, but it should be done privately. The state has the power to restrict public expressions of religious devotion.
Hi. Interesting and very accurate.
My question is : when Church leaders are campaigning against secularism, do they understand that secularism isn’t the opposite of religious freedom (I mean in a wide sense the right to believe and practice one’s religion) ? And do you think that the Anglosphere will ‘evolve’ towards secularism ?
I think that Church leaders understand that secularism in France is very different from restrictions on religious freedom in China or the Middle East. For most of the Church’s goals in France today, secularism and religious freedom are similar. The biggest challenge is that getting permission to build new temples is harder – although I don’t know if the Church wants to build a second temple in France in the foreseeable future. If Church leaders still have hopes of someday building Zion, at many locations throughout the world, then France’s secularism would be a major problem.
I don’t think that the Anglosphere will evolve towards secularism legally. Constitutional questions are really hard to change. The issue is probably too subtle to be a major point of a political campaign. In the US, both parties’ political coalitions currently include important religious blocks. Anglosphere legal traditions value precedent more than most other legal traditions, so it’s unlikely to come from the courts either. Courts do overturn longstanding precedents sometimes, but usually only after decades of concerted political and legal efforts.