Secularism is the theory of seeking to conduct human affairs based on secular, naturalistic considerations. It is mainly defined as separating religion from civic matter and the state. Religious pluralism indicates secularism as neutrality on issues of faith as opposed to total opposition of religion in the public place as a whole (Holyoake, 1871).
Secularism is any movement in community-directed away from otherworldliness to life on earth. In the 1600s, in Europe, there was a strong tendency for religious people to despise human affairs and meditate on God and the afterlife. As a result of this medieval tendency and secularism, during the Renaissance, exhibited itself in the development of humanism, when people started to show more interest in human cultural achievements and the possibilities of their fulfillment in this world. The movement toward secularism has progressed during modern history and has often been viewed as anti-Christian and anti-religious (Pew Research Centre, 2011). During the 1960s, however, some theologians began advocating secular Christianity. They highlighted that Christianity should not be concerned only with the sacred and that otherworldly but that people should find the opportunity to promote Christian values in the world. These theologians kept that the real meaning of the message of Jesus could be found and achieved in the everyday affairs of the secular living (Pew Research Centre, 2015).
The regulation of religious diversity- marked by greater and lesser degrees of religious intolerance and discrimination-has served as a fundamental element of Canadian society since its inception. Canada was formed by colonial expansion into the territory of indigenous peoples through treaties and land seizures accompanied by-laws regulating even banning indigenous religious practices and suppressing indigenous cultures and spirituality. Experts have not concluded the nature or degree of secularization in Canada. Still, Canada’s social order over the last 60 years has changed dramatically in its direction. Secularization defines the state, market, university, arts, medicine, science, and social welfare agencies. As a result, public religion is more frequently described as a problem than a solution today. Lingering Christian privilege is more judged to be an injustice than the normal state of affairs. The close identification of mainstream Canadian nationalism with Christianity has been relativized and even problematized. Religious attendance and membership have declined dramatically, and the number of Canadians claiming “no religion” on the Census form has climbed steadily. Religions have not disappeared, but their public presence and power have declined so that even believers act in public institutions as if God does not exist. Although the population has remained chiefly Christian, Canadians have increasingly imagined their state and society to be secular and have created a de facto separation of church and state. Although many arrangements and institutions of Christian Canada have survived as an example, several provincial governments still fund Roman Catholic schools.
Similarly, Canadians have increasingly adopted multicultural, civic nationalism that does not privilege any ethnic identity. The rise of multiculturalism and secularism in the 1960s and 1970s coincided with Canada’s ‘human rights revolution’ a dramatic spread of rights-oriented political culture along with a growth in a human rights regime that included various codes, tribunals, and commissions, as well as legislative initiatives, court decisions, and popular movements. The new culture of human rights promoted both secularism and multiculturalism because all three activities supported the theory of the equal moral worth of all citizens and the state’s neutrality in the face of now-irrelevant identity makes like ethnicity, race, religion, and gender. After 1960, the dominant model of Canadian public life has rested increasingly secular and multicultural social order rooted in expanding human rights. It was this novel definition of rights along with a newfound commitment to protecting them that in large part guided and sped up the secularization of Canada’s political culture as well as public institutions and policy.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s attempt to address religion in Canadian public life highlight how secularism, multiculturalism, and human rights culture have shaped and will continue Canada’s future and the place of religion in it. It also shows how public institutions may respond to the shifting social order (Seljak, 2016).
Since the 1960s, the number of Canadians has increasingly been free to decline to practice any religion at all. Since the 1960s, the number of Canadians who claimed “no religion” on the Census form has slimed steadily from less than one percent to 12.3% in 1991 and 23.9 in 2011. Only a minority of those say they do not see their form of religion listed among the choices presented. Others define themselves as spiritual seekers with no institutional affiliation or loyalty to a specific tradition. These so-called “spiritual but not religious” Canadians refuse to concede authority over their personal lives to religious leaders and instead take on and discard spiritual identities, beliefs, values, and practices to suit their needs. This new autonomy both outside and inside traditional religious communities has also sped up the growth of religious diversity both among and within religious communities. These trends towards increasing individualism in patterns of contemporary creed belief and practice present the courts and tribunals with new challenges. For example, the Commission’s research and consultation report observed five present tribunal applications in 2011-2012 involved applicants who identified with more than one creed. There was an increasing tendency among applicants to elevate what may appear to be more isolated beliefs and opinions to the level of a declaration (Seljak, 2016).
Another source of the new religious diversity in Canada has been the influx of non-European, non-Christian, or both. This new pluralism has meant that human rights complaints have become more complex because religious discrimination claims are frequently connected to race and ethnicity. Secularization is a process that preceded the new religious diversity in Canadian society has provided the most significant challenge to traditional protections of freedom of religion. It has meant a decline in the public power of Christian institutions and a reduction in the power of Christianity to function as the basis for public morality, which has had two significant consequences for the Commission. First, more Canadians have embraced secularism, the idea that Canada is a secular society, and express uneasiness with public expressions of religion or recognition of group rights for religious communities.
Moreover, even active members of religious communities tend to insist on the relegation of religion to the private sphere of personal interiority, family relations, and local association. It means that those who wish to protect religious freedom and accommodate the spiritual difference in public life may face real opposition from many Canadians who argue that religion should be confined to the private sphere. Many Canadians remember the injustices and human rights violations tied to public religion in Canada’s past. However, Commission also notes that some Canadians have adopted an anti-religious sentiment based on stereotypes of religion as inherently illiberal and violent. Acceleration of individualism is essential as the direct consequences of secularization for the changing Canadian social order are its indirect effects, specifically the weakening of the authority and relevance of the mainline religious communities and leaders. It has given individuals greater freedom to choose the nature and level of their spiritual practice (Seljak. 2016).
Today, post-secular Canada would look something like what people are trying to describe when they use “open secularism,” or at least what Canada would look like if the concept were actualized in public institutions and culture. The culture of such a regime would be made by a “twin toleration,” that is, the state would recognize and respect religious actors and institutions in public life. Religious actors and institutions would, in return, acknowledge and respect the religious neutrality of the state and the rights of other religious communities.
Canadian identity and nationalism would become detached from anyone kind of religion and secularism, making adherence to any religion or none irrelevant to one’s ability to participate in public life. Third, faith would take on an increasing variety of forms, which is to say there would be a more excellent representation of the world’s many religious traditions. Greater diversity within that tradition, more individualistic interpretation of those traditions, more hybridity between them, and the appearance of religion in novel forms and for a. The connections between the religious and the secular world become less clearly defined. Our conceptualization of what counts as religion and secular would require radical thinking. Furthermore, since no arrangement will settle all questions about faith in public life, we can expect negotiations, compromises, conflicts around reasonable accommodation of religious needs. They are balancing competing for human rights regarding individuals and groups to become a semi-permanent feature of Canadian public life (Seljak, 2016).
At present, post-secularism is primarily defined as unfavorable, as what is not. It represents the total negation of the secular social order that avoids returning to a pre-modern arrangement. In other words, a post-secular regime would offer an alternative solution to the problems that secularism hoped to solve, especially the injustices attached to religious privileges and the rejection of religious liberty and the equal worth of every citizen while avoiding the contradictions of closed secularism. It includes making absolute truth claims on behalf of one secular ideology or other, relegating religious people to second class status in the public sphere, and ignoring many expressions of religion that do not fit secular, that is, privatized model (Cragun, 2012).
The boundary between religion and the secular of life is contested in many parts of the world. During the late 20th century, controversies over the legalization of same-sex marriage, euthanasia, freedom of speech, and conflict around abortion rights have all faced highly on political and national issues. Set against a backdrop of the back of religion to normal life. These disputes have given rise to the notion that secularism will be in a state of crisis, moving towards some form of the post-secular condition. The definition of secularism is itself also contested. The precise nature of the religious spheres of life is subject to interpretation, and secularism can manifest in many ways. It includes from exclusivist forms of secularism in countries such as France and the United States to inclusive secularism with the case of India. People who support a role for religion in public life argue that faith gives a range of valuable public goods and provides individuals a sense of meaning and identity. On the other hand, secularists argue that the separation of church and state gives the best framework for keeping the rights and freedoms of entire citizens regardless of their religion and belief (Cragun, 2012).
Questions of conceptual definition introduce Debates around secularism. For example, the term “secularism” is a relatively straightforward one to define. At its most basic level, secularism outlines a normative commitment to maintain neutrality on the part of the state toward necessitating religious affairs that the state neither favor, disfavor, promote, nor discourage any particular religious viewpoints and brief over another. In institutional terms, this is understood as a commitment to upholding the separation of church and state.
Several factors shape the precise form taken by secularism in any given context. These include a range of cultural, social, and political conditions and the specific features of the historical and national circumstances of the country in question. In Western Europe, secularism was bound up with a series of historical processes culminating in creating the territorially sovereign state, the rise of nationalism, and popular sovereignty. There were so-called religious wars from the 15th to 17th centuries Central to much of this. One effect was to create a new set of ideas about the relationship between spiritual and temporal sources of authority that prohibited rulers from intervening in the internal affairs of other states. Another critical effect was creating a particular view of religion as constituting a threat or a problem to be solved (Kettell, 2019).
Most European countries have adopted an accommodating position involving the nuanced, pragmatic, and flexible relationship between the state and religion. Christianity retains a privileged public role in several European states. An excellent example of this is the case of the United Kingdom. Although the United Kingdom is mainly secular at the level of culture and society- the latest figures from British Social Attitudes have found that 52% of adults now describe themselves as being “non-religious.” it maintains close institutions links to Christianity through the formally set up Church of England. The United Kingdom’s reigning monarch is continuously the head of the church, and Anglican bishops keep holding reserved seats in the legislature’s upper chamber. This situation is unique among advanced liberal democracies (Stepan, 2000).
The U.K. context is in contrast to the situation in France. A well-known struggle against the power of an oppressive Catholic Church came to an end during 1905, the legislation on the separation of the churches, to a model of secularism characterized by a public area free from any overt displays of religious expression and influence. Within the scope of secularism, the French state keeps religion in a position of subordination, providing significant financial support for religious organizations but reserving the right to intervene in religious affairs to uphold the broader values of the republic. In 2004, the French government announced a ban on religious symbols and clothing items in public schools. It was needed to ensure that all citizens obtained an equal education without external coercion. A complete ban on wearing the Islamic veil in public spaces was introduced in 2011.
The same type of secularism practiced in France is also discovered in Turkey. The first president of the republic introduced secularism here, the nationalist ruler Kemal Ataturk, who in 1923 established secularism as a part of a project of modernization. The explicit target in this context was to change Turkey into a “Western-style” state and create a public sphere free from religious influence (Kettell, 2019). Set against the historical backdrop of the Ottoman Empire, in which religion has been a prominent political and social force, the Turkish secular arrangements included a variety of constitutionally enshrined controls and restrictions on religious practices, mainly including the role of religion in the public sphere (Quong, 2004).
The constitutional separation of state and church in the United States has set the framework for a series of legal disputes over the role of religion in the public sphere, leading to several high-profile court cases around the use of religious symbols and ceremonies in state buildings’ land, and offices. Key examples here include claims brought by secularist campaign groups opposed to displaying a cross-shaped section of steel found in the wreckage of the World Trade Centre in the partial state-funded National September 11 Memorial and museum. Eliminating the phrase “under God” from the pledge of allegiance and “In God, We Trust” from U.S. currency is a good illustration of this campaign as well.
Debates around the merits or otherwise of a role for religion in the public area tend to be polarized between supports of a secular state, who support a public sphere free from religious influence, and those who are against that religion should play an active role in public life. Although there are various arguments on both sides of this debate, the fundamental claims focus on several core themes. Arguments in favor of secularism center on arguing that a secular state offers the best mechanism for guaranteeing the rights of freedoms of all citizens irrespective of their religion or belief. In contrast, arguments favoring a role for religion in the public sphere are typically based upon the claim that religion provides a public good. It denies faith that a part in the public square is undemocratic, illiberal, and infringes religious freedoms (Zuckerman, 2008).
At the most elementary level, secularism is nothing more than the separation of church and state. It entails a commitment to a principle of neutrality by the state toward matters involving religion in public life. The condition cannot favor or disfavor any particular religion or belief over another. But the principle of the scope of the public sphere can be understood in very different ways. Many secularists argue the separation of church and state means that religion should exist on the same plane as other political actors. It should not be allowed a privileged role in public life but should be a free and equal participant in political debates. Others, however, take a more restrictive approach. Many who support exclusivist secularism frequently contend that, in diverse and pluralistic societies where citizens hold various competing and sometimes incompatible cultures where citizens have a variety of competing and sometimes incompatible worldviews (Calhoun, 2011).
A related discussion that is often made in support of exclusivist secularism is that a secular state is necessary for ensuring human rights and freedoms, including the release of religion. The central claim here is that secularism has a double-sided quality: simultaneously protecting the faith from the state and religion. Therefore, citizens cannot be subjected to or forced to abide by religious imperatives, laws, or dictates. Religious citizens are free from interference from state officials and thus have the freedom to worship and practice religion freely (Woodhead, 2013).
Evidence exists to agree on the view that secularism offers a way of increasing human rights and freedoms. For instance, Kettell’s (2014) research suggests that countries with a state religion possess substantially lower civil liberties and political rights than countries that do not have a state religion. Secularists who take this position often keep those religious beliefs especially pernicious in this respect because they are grounded in grand cosmic claims about reality, moral endeavor, and the afterlife. It is argued, makes a prime source of social “othering,” generating strong in and out-group dynamics and mentalities that can lead to prejudice, distrust, and violence. On this basis, it is claimed that giving religion a role in public life opens the way to all manner of unwelcome sectarian as well as social divisions. Furthermore, advocates of secularism sometimes also keep that faith is not needed for moral, ethical behavior and that societies and secular groups can be just as influential at engendering trust and social cohesion as religious communities. Research by Zuckerman (2008), for instance, has discovered that secular societies tend to score better on a range of social indicators, such as level of social inequality, family breakdown, violent crime, juvenile delinquency, happiness, and drug abuse, than religious societies (Asad, 2003).
On the other hand, many critics have complained about militant, radical, intolerant, and illiberal forms of secularism that are determined to marginalize force and religion out of public life. Some of the most high-profile assertions here arrived from the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict XVI, as an example, warned on several occasions that radical and aggressive secularism was adding ground in the United States and Europe and that this development posed a grave threat to freedom of expression and traditional social values (Taylor, 2007). In the United Kingdom, the claims that religion is being driven out of public life have led to several high-profile court cases. In 2012, four such matters, including alleged discrimination on religious grounds, were taken to the European Court of Human Rights. Three of the patients were declined, while the fourth involving the case about an airline employee who needed to wear a cross at work was upheld, requiring that the airline’s uniform should be amended to allow for reasonable accommodation (Possamai, 2017).
Reference
Adam, Possamai (2017), Post-secularism in multiple modernity, The Australian Sociological Association, Volume 53, Issue 4, Pages 822-835, Western University of Australia
Asad, T. (2003). Formation of the secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
Calhoun, C. (2011). Secularism, Citizenship and the public sphere. In C. Calhoun, M Juergenmeyerm, & J, VanAntwerpen (Eds.), Rethinking secularism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cragun, R (2012). Research Report: How secular humanist subsidizes religion in the United States. Free Inquiry, 32 (4), 39-46
David, Seljak (2016) , Post-Secularism, Multiculturalism, Human Rights, and Religion in Ontario, Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, Volume: 45, issue 4, Pages 542-565, St Jorome’s University in the University of Waterloo, Canada
Holyoake, G (1871) The Principles of secularism. London, UK
Kettell, Steven, Secularism and Religion (2019), Oxford Research Encyclopedia
Stepan, A. (2000). Religion, Democracy, and the “Twin tolerations.” Journal of Democracy, 11(4), 37-57
Sune Laeggard, Multiculturalism and Secularism: Theological understanding and possible Conflicts (2017), Volume: 17 issue 2, Page 154-172, University of Copenhagen
Taylor, C. (2007). A secular age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Pew Research Center. (2011). Rising restrictions in religion
Pew Research Center. (2015) Latest trends in religious restrictions and hostilities.
Quong, J. (2004) The Scope of public reason. Political Studies, 52, 233-250.
Woodhead, L. (2013). Justice: Rights and wrongs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Zuckerman, P. (2008). Society without God: What the least religious nations can tell us about contentment, New York University Press.
