2019-04-07
In this blog I compare the American model of so-called secularism, as expressed in the First Amendment, with republican secular legislation in two other countries: France and Mexico.
Sommaire en français Dans ce blogue je considÚre les différences entre le modÚle américain de sécularisme et le modÚle de laïcité dans deux autres pays : la France et le Mexique.
As explained in my previous blog âThe US Constitution is Not Secular,â the First Amendment of the US Constitution does not implement secularism but rather religious neutrality (a.k.a. nonsectarianism) which is a component of secularism but is very incomplete because it lacks the essential secular principle of separation between religions and State. Although Thomas Jefferson interpreted the Amendment as implementing a âwall of separation of church and stateâ in an 1802 letter to Danbury Baptists, that principle is not encoded in the text of the Amendment.
This exaggerated support for freedom of religion is a threat to other freedoms and constitutes an unwarranted religious privilege.
There is another aspect of the First Amendment to the US Constitution which is problematic: it gives apparently absolute value to freedom of religion. This is excessive. No rights are ever absolute because different peopleâs rights inevitably come into conflict from time to time. This is precisely what happens in state institutions, where the freedom of public servants must not be absolute because it may conflict with rights of users of public services. This exaggerated support for freedom of religion is a threat to other freedoms and constitutes an unwarranted religious privilege.
In other words, the First Amendment implements an incomplete form of secularism—I would call it pre-secularism or pseudosecularism—and gives exaggerated priority to religious freedom over other freedoms. It was ratified in 1791, over two centuries ago, and is a product of its time. The nonsectarianism which it enacts was certainly very progressive at the time, because most European states were monarchies with an official State religion. However, since then, other countries have done better.
France
Consider France. Below are a few examples of French legislation.
- DĂ©claration des droits de lâHomme et du Citoyen, 1789 (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789)
Article 10: « Nul ne doit ĂȘtre inquiĂ©tĂ© pour ses opinions, mĂȘme religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas lâordre public Ă©tabli par la loi. »
(âNo one may be disturbed because of his/her opinions, even religious, provided that their expression does not trouble public order as established by law.â) - Loi de sĂ©paration des Ăglises et de lâĂtat, 1905 (Law of Separation between Churches and the State)
- Article 1: « La RĂ©publique assure la libertĂ© de conscience. Elle garantit le libre exercice des cultes sous les seules restrictions Ă©dictĂ©es ci-aprĂšs dans lâintĂ©rĂȘt de lâordre public. » (âThe Republic guarantees freedom of conscience. It guarantees the free exercise of religion, subject only to those restrictions enacted below in the interest of public order.â)
- Article 2: « La RĂ©publique ne reconnaĂźt, ne salarie ni ne subventionne aucun culte.[…] » (âThe Republic does not recognize, pay or subsidize any religion.â)
- Article 28: « Il est interdit, Ă lâavenir, dâĂ©lever ou dâapposer aucun signe ou emblĂšme religieux sur les monuments publics ou en quelque emplacement public que ce soit, Ă lâexception des Ă©difices servant au culte, des terrains de sĂ©pulture dans les cimetiĂšres, des monuments funĂ©raires, ainsi que des musĂ©es ou expositions. » (âIt is forbidden, in the future, to raise or affix any religious symbols or emblems on public monuments or in any public place whatsoever, with the exception of the buildings used for worship, burial grounds in cemeteries, funerary monuments, as well as museums or exhibitions.â)
- Constitution of 1958 « La France est une RĂ©publique indivisible, laĂŻque, dĂ©mocratique et sociale. » (âFrance is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social republic.â)
- Loi n° 83-634 de 1983 sur les droits et obligations des fonctionnaires (â1983 Law on the Rights and Obligations of Public Servantsâ) « Le fonctionnaire exerce ses fonctions dans le respect du principe de laĂŻcitĂ©. » (âThe public servant carries out his or her duties in accordance with the principle of secularism.â)
It should be emphasized that although the French words « laĂŻque » and « laĂŻcitĂ© » are often translated into English as âsecularâ and âsecularismâ respectively, the translation is inaccurate because there is no strict equivalent in English. The French words imply a more complete definition, including the important principle of separation between religions and State, a principle which is often missing when the English words are used. To be more accurate, I would translate « laĂŻcitĂ© » into English as ârepublican secularism.â
A number of observations about the legislation cited above:
- The 1789 declaration protects freedom of religion, as does the American First Amendment, but puts a reasonable and necessary condition on that freedom. Thus, although contemporary with the First Amendment, the declaration is better because it is more nuanced, avoiding absolutist language.
- In the 1905 law—which is arguably the most important secular legislation in human history—the separation principle is so central that it is the title. Notice that the word « Ăglises » is plural, thus implying that all religions are separated from the State.
- The Constitution of 1958 declares that the republic is « laïque », thus further emphasizing the separation principle.
- The 1983 law requires that public servants respect the principle of « laïcité ». In practice, this implies, among other things, that they must not display obvious religious symbols.
[…] support for republican secularism is very strong among the French, just as it is among Quebecers.
A recent poll in France found that some 87% of the French approve of the 1905 law. The same poll also found that 75% of French Muslims support the ban on the Islamic veil (of course all religious symbols are banned) worn by public servants and 66% of Muslims oppose any modification of the 1905 law. Thus, support for republican secularism is very strong among the French, just as it is among Quebecers.
Mexico
As another example, let us consider the Mexican Constitution of 1917.
In the Constitution of 1917, the word âlaicoâ or âlaicaâ is mentioned four times, in articles 30, 40, 115 and 122. The text specifies that public education âse mantendrĂĄ por completo ajena a cualquier doctrina religiosaâ (âwill remain completely alien to any religious doctrineâ). In reference to the national government, the Constitution states that it will be âuna RepĂșblica representativa, democrĂĄtica, laica y federalâ (âa representative, democratic, secular and federal Republicâ). The Constitution further declares that the governments of the various states and of Mexico City will each be ârepublicano, representativo, democrĂĄtico, laicoâ (ârepublican, representative, democratic, secularâ).
It is my understanding that, when used in a political context, the Spanish words âlaicoâ and âlaicaâ have the same meaning as « laĂŻque » in French: that is, republican secularism, including the essential principle of separation between religions and State.
[…] the American model of so-called secularism is an incomplete, somewhat antiquated, 18th century version. […] The ignorance and chauvinism of those who hold dogmatically to the American model are reactionary and regressive.
The bottom line is this: the American model of so-called secularism is an incomplete, somewhat antiquated, 18th century version. It was a step forward at the time. But today, although it obviously remains superior to all forms of theocracy, it is nevertheless inferior to other, more complete forms of secularism. Furthermore, if the American model is falsely vaunted as superior to those others, the result is to impede secularism by holding it back to an outdated version. This is precisely what is happening in reaction to efforts by Quebec to apply secular measures in that province. Currently, Draft Bill 21 proposed by the Quebec government is the target of inflammatory, toxic and even hateful attacks from the mainstream media, and especially English-language media. The ignorance and chauvinism of those who hold dogmatically to the American model are reactionary and regressive. Journalists, politicians and commentators in the Anglo-American world, especially in English Canada and in the USA, need to learn a little humility.
Next blog: La CCDP endosse la maltraitance religieuse des fillettes