Secularism as a Core Value of a Just, Fair and Pluralistic Republic

(An article, www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/09/pakistan-girl-shot-activism-swat-taliban, shook me and I found it difficult to accept that there are people who can treat others so brutally because of religious views and convictions).

The Public Sphere and religion should be mutually exclusive. 

This separation of the Public Sphere and religion is called secularism, defined as, “that which seeks the development of the physical, moral and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life – which inculcates the practical sufficiency of natural morality … which selects as its methods of procedure the promotion of human improvement by material means and proposes these positive agreements as the common bond of union, to all who would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service.” – George Jacob Holyoake, Principles of Secularism # 17, 1846.

The framers of the US constitution also had a secularist position, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” – First Amendment (1791).

The French Constitution (1958) states "The Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion." This arose out of the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen’ (1789), which states that, “No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order” related to Article 4 of the same Declaration, “Liberty is the power that belongs to man to do whatever is not injurious to the rights of others.”  

In France, secularism is called "laicite," and this is “a concept denoting the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs.” - René Rémond, Religion and Society in Modern Europe, (Blackwell Publishers, 1999).

“Laicite” is based on the concept of dividing Private Sphere in the formulation of conscience and the Public Sphere, where all citizens interact with each other evenly and share the same human dignity, equality before the law and advancement of freedom, regardless of religious, ethnic or cultural identities.

"French political leaders, though not prohibited from making religious remarks, refrain from it. Religious considerations are generally considered incompatible with reasoned political debate."

This protects both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. The 18^th Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Article 8 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights of 1981, “Freedom of conscience, the profession and free practice of religion shall be guaranteed. No one may, subject to law and order, be submitted to measures restricting the exercise of these freedoms.”

In the Public Sphere, the attitude and consequently the assumptions should be that all human beings are: 

1. Considered to be both individuals and social creatures without regard to religious convictions.

2. Able to live a principled and productive life through making free and voluntary decisions; and

3. Capable to come together with others to engage each other reasonably and innovatively, for the common good.

This gives a very strong legal and moral effect to fundamental rights or freedoms – conscience, expression and association.  

This is in contrast to the religious attitude about life that humanity is inherently flawed, weak and is in a state of perpetual dependency through grace and faith.     

Thus, secularism deliberately excludes religion from the Public Sphere. No state institution, office holder, law or policy should make any reference to or fund religion and religious views. An officially sanctioned religion and religious views in the Public Sphere are “divisive, benighted and intolerant.” 

Secularism is not hostility to and does not intend to destroy religion but it is: 

1.  A demarcation and separation between the pluralistic Public Sphere and the Private Sphere where one finds religion, 

2.  A recognition of the independence of the Public and Private Spheres, and 

3.   An acknowledgement of a pluralist and diverse society: 

a. To disallow any attempt to use State power and public resources or platform to advance, promote or impose one version of a religious view and convictions and cultural practices over others. "The mixing of government and religion can be a threat to free government, even if no one is forced to participate.... When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion, it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." - Justice of the US Supreme Court Harry Blackmun, Majority Opinion, Lee v. Weisman, 1992; 

b. To disagree on the notion of what is absolute about religious views and convictions and cultural practices; 

c. To allow each other to promote and express their own religious views and convictions and cultural practices in the privacy of families and voluntary associations; and 

d. Not to give specific priority or preference to religious figures and views, as they should be treated just like everyone else on matters of public interest and rational common good like any other social community. 

A secularist is therefore a person who is of the view that religion is not necessary or irrelevant to public life because he/she finds it potentially divisive and conflictual for the public sphere even if he/she acknowledges or affirms the existence of a deity.

We should sincerely respect those who belong and do not belong to any organized religions and denominations and do not hold any religious view if it gives meaning and purpose to their own personal and private lives.  

The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right…. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society…. [T]he equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us…

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison in his ‘Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments.’ (1785).

Just because we have theocracies in Iran, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East, an official religious denomination in Britain and a state religion in Israel, it does not make it fair and just in a pluralistic and diverse society. 

The violent conflicts in Somalia, Mali, Uganda and Nigeria are a result of wanting to use religious views in public affairs against another or alternate views.   

"There is little doubt that religious liberty is best exercised within the setting of the secular state. This does not mean the state should be hostile or indifferent to religious bodies, but rather that it must exhibit what has been called a "benevolent neutrality." ... Freedom of religion also implies the right not to have or profess a religion. This is sometimes overlooked. It is a sad commentary on religion that religionists, probably quite well-meaning at times, have throughout history tried to force fellow human beings into a required religious mold. Apart from the very wrong theological assumptions involved, this is a flagrant violation of the dignity of the human person. Coerced religion is demeaning and of little value.” - Bert B Beach, Seventh Day Adventist religious liberty executive, "Bright Candle of Courage," 1989, pp. 14-15, quoted from Menendez and Doerr, "The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom" (1991). 

"The manifest object of the men who framed the institutions of this country (the USA), was to have a State without religion and a Church without politics -- that is to say, they meant that one should never be used as an engine for the purposes of the other.... For that reason they built up a wall of complete and perfect partition between the two.” - Jeremiah S Black, Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, from a 1856 speech on religious liberty, in Essays and Speeches, 1885, p. 53, from Menendez and Doerr, "The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom."

How do we build a community and society that is just, fair and plural? We should acknowledge that every human being deserves dignity non-discriminately and unconditionally without consideration of matters religious. Secularism ensures religious and denominational organisations are voluntary private associations. 

In his book, “Beyond Religion,” the Dalai Lama argues that in today’s global society, where people of many different religions and the non-religious live and work together, it is vital to have a common humanity. Such a common humane system cannot rest on the doctrines or assumptions of one or any particular religion or cultural practice if it is to be truly universal: 

I firmly believe that ethics can…emerge simply as a natural and rational response to our very humanity and our common human condition.” (p 13) 

Although humans can manage without religion, they cannot manage without inner values . . . . As I see it, spirituality has two dimensions. The first dimension, that of basic spiritual well-being – by which I mean inner mental and emotional strength and balance – does not depend on religion but comes from our innate human nature as beings with a natural disposition toward compassion, kindness, and caring for others. The second dimension is what may be considered religion-based spirituality, which is acquired from our upbringing and culture and is tied to particular beliefs and practices. The difference between the two is something like the difference between water and tea. Ethics and inner values without religious content are like water, something we need every day for health and survival. Ethics and inner values based in a religious context are more like tea. The tea we drink is mostly composed of water, but it also contains some other ingredients… and this makes it more nutritious and sustaining and something we want every day.… While we can live without tea, we can’t live without water. Likewise we are born free of religion, but we are not born free of the need for compassion.” (pp. 16-17)

According to Sally Dougherty, the Dalai Lama recognizes that many religious people feel that morality necessarily depends on religious ideas but he does not feel this is necessary. He thus bases his morality on two fundamental principles. 

She recognised in the Dalai Lama’s book that the first is our common or shared humanity, which includes the fact that all people seek happiness and try to avoid suffering, a trait we share with many other sentient beings. 

The second is the understanding of inter-dependence as a central aspect of reality. “From these two principles, we can learn to appreciate the inextricable connection between our own well-being and that of others, and we can develop a genuine concern for others’ welfare. Together, I believe, they constitute an adequate basis for establishing ethical awareness and the cultivation of inner values. It is through such values that we gain a sense of connection with others, and it is by moving beyond narrow self-interest that we find meaning, purpose, and satisfaction in life.” (p. 19)

“The important point about the principle of compassion, as a basis for the exercise of justice, is that it is directed not toward actions, but toward the actor. Compassion demands that we condemn wrong actions and oppose them with all means necessary, while at the same time forgiving and maintaining an attitude of kindness toward the perpetrators of those actions.… It is right to do this because, again, all human beings are capable of change.” (p. 63). 

Dougherty notes that in emphasizing compassion, the Dalai Lama holds that it is not a religious practice but a quality rooted in our very humanity – in fact, even “many animals can appreciate it and certainly mammals have a capacity for it.” (p. 45). As an example, he notes that many people engaged in humanitarian work are not motivated by religious beliefs but simply by concern to help their fellow humans. 

One challenge is that we usually confine our compassion to a narrow group, so that an us-vs-them dynamic tends to arise. We can deliberately break down this type of exclusivity by reaching out to others: “Using our intelligence and our conviction of its necessity and value, we gradually learn to expand and extend our concern, first to our close family, then to all those with whom we come into contact, including especially our enemies, then to our entire human family, and even to all beings.” (p. 55)

She further advises that, “the Dalai Lama is encouraging a conversation about how to build a moral framework together based on the common humanity that all people today, whatever their religious or secular beliefs and convictions, can recognize as valid and useful. Let's take part in this discussion, both in our own minds and by exchanging ideas.” – paraphrased from and quotes by Sally Dougherty, “A Human Basis for Ethics” (Theosophy Northwest Views, March 2012 Volume 15 Issue 1).

Those intending to be or currently involved in public service and civic responsibilities should be assessed NOT on their private and personal religious convictions and affiliations or lack of them BUT on their common human values: 

1.  Merit (relevant qualification, skills and experience), 

2.  Prudence (being judicious) and 

3. Excellence in character, i.e. a noticeable and evident sense of integrity, an exemplary and excellent discharge of duty to what is expected in a particular position, and an attention to service as an opportunity to create a positive impact in fellow human beings’ lives. 

The religious or non-religious, all human beings are unique and special expressions of their own individuality. Each human being, religious or non-religious, is a mortal being with an indwelling usefulness awaiting internal discovery and external actualisation. 

Human words and actions should be determined on the consequences on one’s own individual life and on the lives of others or the public interest. 

The secular State is an instrument run by a diverse body of elected and appointed officials, who are of varied religious and non-religious affinities, affiliations and practices. The State is a functional body for the common interests of citizens of the diverse religious and non-religious.     

"True understanding of the 'other' must proceed from a genuine recognition of and respect for the other's reality. It must proceed from a state of mind where the urge to reduce the other into one's own framework is no longer the dominant mode of thinking…On that level, all differences break down. Whether one is rich or poor, educated or illiterate, religious or nonbelieving, man or woman, black, white, or brown, we are all the same. Physically, emotionally, and mentally, we are all equal. We all share basic needs for food, shelter, safety, and love. We all aspire to happiness and we all shun suffering. Each of us has hopes, worries, fears, and dreams. Each of us wants the best for our family and loved ones. We all experience pain when we suffer loss and joy when we achieve what we seek. On this fundamental level, religion, ethnicity, culture, and language make no difference. Today's great challenge of peaceful coexistence demands that we remain in touch with this basic part of our (human) nature." - the Dalai Lama, 'Toward a True Kinship of Faiths.’ 

In closing, let us invoke a quote from the late Justice Ismail Mohamed in the State v Makwanyane and Another, CCT/3/94, South Africa, Constitutional Court, 6 June 1995, a secular State should be built on humanistic principles whose expression is the ethos of “an instinctive capacity for an enjoyment of love towards one’s fellow men and women; the joy and fulfillment involved in recognising their innate humanity; the reciprocity which this generated in interaction within the collective community; the richness of the creative emotions which it engendered and the moral energies which it released.”   

"It is a necessity that religion and government remain separate lest one religion becomes dominant and assuring their own advancement while making sure that the other should not succeed by manipulating the law of the land in their favor and causing additional suffering to humans who may not share their religious views." – Anonymous.

In the Public Sphere, the attitude and consequently the assumptions should be that all human beings are: 

1. Considered to be both individuals and social creatures without regard to religious affinity, affiliation and practices.

2.  Able to live a principled and productive life through making free and voluntary decisions; and

3. Capable to come together with others to engage each other reasonably, discernly and creatively, for the common good (“life, health and prosperity”) in the family, community and nation. 

We should sincerely respect all human beings regardless of religious affinity, affiliation and practices as long as one’s choices give meaning and purpose to their own personal and private lives within the confines of the fundamental human rights and freedoms.

Humanistically, living morally (i.e. according to the universal "Moral Law") or conscientiously means we exercise our humanity in a better, helpful and meaningful way. By definition, "morality” is:

1. Do no harm (physically or emotionally) to the well-being of one self or others;

2. Integrity - live honestly, speak truthfully and act usefully, meaningfully and productively;

3.  Exercise compassion; 

4.  Reject the false, wrongly motivated and hurtful;

5. Willingly value excellence; and

6. Warmly reward productive effort (value “the fruit of meritorious deeds”) within your capacity.

In Plato’s Republic, moral law or morality is defined as, “The precepts of the (moral) law are these: to live honestly, to harm no one, and to give to each his fair due.”

These are the aspects of the universalistic "Moral Law" and they best answer the question, "What is good or bad, and right or wrong?" This requires no authority, tradition, convention or dogma but a learning, grooming, upbringing and continuous training for a utilitarian basis of moral or ethical conduct.

The word ‘morality’ is derived from Greek ‘mores’ which means “well-settled principles and methods” or “good customs” based on the Cosmic Principles to preserve life and make it grow, rise in triumph and glow. 

In Greek, ‘morality’ has to do with “responding to situations in the appropriate way” or ethical uprightness i.e. without defect or excess. 

By definition, law is a codification of moral values to increase the good of the self in relation with others and to reduce harm against self and others. The standard of value of morality is life “because life is the origin of moral judgements and progress.” 

During his initiation in the Temples of ancient Egypt, Plato was asked what morality is and he said, “It is the rule of right, and the duties which the conscience imposes, and which (a human being) cannot violate without shame and disgrace.” 

According to G. de Purucker, “morality is that instinctive hunger of the human heart to do righteousness, to do good to every (human being) because it is good and satisfying and ennobling to do so.” – “Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy” (Wisdom Religion Press, 1996).  

Do our moral sentiments spring from innate intuitions (e.g., ubiquitous evolved responses) or from conscious dictates (e.g., religious doctrines, ethical principles). There’s data to support both sides, and therein lies the reason for the ongoing debate. It’s not simply one or the other. It is true that the challenges of human social life, among which is the question of when to feel compassion and act altruistically, have existed for much longer than we’ve had the cognitive wherewithal to engage in rational analysis. So, it makes good sense that we have moral intuitions that automatically guide our actions. We never would have made it out of the “ancestral savannah” if we didn’t.

Of course, the more recent ability of the human mind to engage in abstract reasoning opened up additional ways for us to embrace (or avoid) ethical actions. The result is that we’re of two minds – an intuitive one and a deliberative one. The trick is to realize that they’re both attempting to solve the same problem – how to navigate the social world optimally. Neither “mind” is more moral than the other, and that’s the most important fact to understand in learning how to live more ethically. You can’t always trust your intuitions or your rational mind. Both are capable of leading you astray.” – Professor David DeSteno, author of the book, “Out Of Character: Surprising Truths About the Liar, Cheat, Sinner (and Saint) Lurking in All of Us” and the director of the Social Emotions Lab at Northeastern University (http://sinaiandsynapses.com/2012/04/09/the-science-of-compassion-a-conversation-with-professor-david-desteno/).  

Related to morality is conscience. The word “conscience” comes from the Latin ‘com’ (with) + ‘scire’ (to know), meaning, with knowledge of the universal laws (self-evident laws of nature discoverable by reason) and underlying principles of any process of life and its creation and sustenance. 

Legally, the “moral law” is defined as “the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which … human reason (has) to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions.” – Sir William Blackstone.

This is what is called “objective morality,” i.e. a morality based on the facts of reality. It’s a morality whose objectivity is the facts of reality as a source of making a moral value judgement.

This is compared to moral relativity or absolutist morality i.e. habits, beliefs or authoritative claims limited by racial, ethnic, religious or cultural considerations.

The word “conscience” is ‘matzpun’ in Hebrew. ‘Matzpen’ (the same letters) means ‘compass,’ and ‘tzafon’ (the same root) means north, whereas ‘tzofen’ (still the same root) is ‘code.’ The letters permuted to ‘nafatz’ means, “to disperse, scatter, break into pieces, detonate, shatter, explode.” If we adhered to the code of our conscience, which is supposed to show us where we are at any given moment — like a compass always pointing to the true north, then we would not be dispersed, and would not be a liability that may possibly explode the order of our society.

We are all full human beings who should have "inherent human worth, causation and responsibility." 

From this perspective, the family, voluntary associations and education system provide the necessary ground to develop individual conscience (moral compass) and a sound sense of discernment and judgement resulting in a strong character, while formalities are meant to be the vehicle of such an essence for individual growth and development.    

Pointed questions: 
1. What do you do when evidence and reason contradicts a dogma and doctrine? 
2. What do you when critical thinking leads you to question the tenets of a dogma and doctrine? 
3. Is faith or belief in the absence of, or contrary to, evidence not an acquired cognitive impairment (ACI)? 
4. Is faith or belief not a willing abdication of that which makes us human, i.e. reasoning, discernment and critical thinking as moral and causative agents?”

It is therefore neither the role nor the concern of the State and the Public Sphere to enforce or impose religious affinities, affiliations and practices.

State involvement in religious matters 

How then do we create a fair, just and pluralistic republican nation and public life in light of human diversity? 

The highest common denominator (HCD) that should bring together all humanity (religious and the non-religious) is the need to acknowledge and proclaim the:

i. Life: respect of the inherent dignity and worth of any human being;
ii. Liberty: respect of the unfettered freedom of every human being if not harming anything or anybody; 

iii. Property: respect of the lawful property of others;

iv. Reliance on rationality to understand and deal with matters and concerns of the Public Sphere;

v. Organization of the Public Sphere to be based on human inherent worth, causation and responsibility; and

vi. Development of the Public Sphere to be based on merit (developed ability or skill), willful effort and results.

Institutionally, the State establishes, administers and enforces the law. Law are “the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people whether in the form of legislation or of custom and is recognised and enforced by judicial decision. 

The law, firstly, is a binding norm of action or a constraining and obligatory regulation; secondly, it is the criteria of reasonable and justifiable action; thirdly, it is the best advantage and service of the HCD without disregarding the individual liberty; and fourthly, therefore it results in order and regularity in both the Private and Public Spheres.  

This is the basis for the authority of the State and public institutions in individual and collective people’s lives.

The law is either about the relationships between individuals or institutions (private or civil law) or the relationships between individuals or institutions and the State (public law).

Whether the law is private (horizontal) or public (vertical), private relationships and the public sphere should be based on human dignity (Articles 4, 5, 15 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights of 1981), equality before the law (ACHPR, Articles 3 and 19) and the advancement of freedom (ACHPR, Articles 2, 6, 8-12, 14 and 20) in an accountable, pluralistic and republican society (ACHPR, Article 13).

Human dignity is the unconditional acceptance of the absolute, inviolable and inherent individual worth and positive value of all human beings without regard to the circumstances of birth, conditions of upbringing, social construct or endowment.

The word “dignity” means “the state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect” and comes from Old French “dignete,” itself from Latin “dignitas,” whose root is “dingus” meaning ‘worthy.’

"The German constitution is value-ordered and anchored in the architectonic value of human dignity, whereas the American charter is value-neutral based on an idea of Liberty rooted in personal choice. “The dignity of man shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.” - German Constitution Article 1(1)" – paraphrased, Edward J. Eberle, "The German Idea of Freedom" http://law.uoregon.edu/org/oril/docs/10-1/Eberle.pdf

There may be similarities and overlapping of the law and religious-based morality or the law and individual sense of morality, e.g. theft, murder, etc. These similarities and overlaps should arise out of freewill and not to be enforced by the law or by the use of State resources and public institutions.

When the State and public institutions use constitutional authority and public resources to enforce religious affinities, affiliations and practices, it becomes the basis of an authoritarian and rigidly intolerant social and political system. 

The tolerance of the diverse religious views or lack of should be made possible by the Constitution and statutes so that the State can allow private, personal and voluntary associations on religious and non-religious grounds.

To build a just, fair and pluralistic republic, religious rules, sanctions and exercise should be in harmony with the law, and not vice versa. Therefore, the State should get involved and intervene in religious expressions and associations only when it is enforcing the law and where it considers the law has been violated, for example cases of abuse, inciting or causing the harm of others of a different religious views or lack of them, etc.

If the constitution, laws and the Public Sphere are based on a particular theistic view or a particular body of organised religious views, any person of a contrary or alternative worldview will not receive just and fair treatment. Consequently, there will be discriminatory access to public institutions, resources and offices.

Using State power and public resources to pass judgement on any religious convictions, leads to discrimination, harassment and criminalisation of those not agreeing with the prevailing religious thinking.      

Not subscribing to all or any of the prevailing religious convictions and expression, means one may be treated unjustly and unfairly without due regard to his/her human dignity, equality before the law and the advancement of freedom in a pluralistic and republican society. It is inhuman when any religious view promotes the humiliation and degrading treatment of anyone belonging to another religious conviction or for not holding a religious view.  

It should not be the business or concern of the State and public institutions to promote, advance and defend any religious conviction, norm or practices.

Religious associations should use their own resources and structures to promote their affinities, affiliations and practices on their own merit in the Private Sphere of competing ideas without expecting the State to use its public authority and resources to undermine or destroy alternative worldviews or protect them from public enquiry, scrutiny and research.

Resultantly, religious figures and views should not be given undue authority and preference in the Public Sphere without an equal measure of scrutiny and preference over non-religious personalities and opinions.

Where the religious instruction is to form part of the public education system and mass media, it should academic not confessional, based on fair comparative studies, allowing a robust critique and vigorous free enquiry. The public education system and mass media should not proselytise on behalf of religions or any preferred religious organisation. 

The highest common values and principles of a public education system and the Public Sphere should not be judged by the doctrine of a single religious worldview. This amounts to an imposition of that particular worldview, standards and practices where diversity is a religious and cultural reality.

We can learn from the US Supreme Court when it ruled thus, "The classroom is peculiarly the "marketplace of ideas." The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth "out of a multitude of tongues, (rather) than through any kind of authoritative selection." – Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 US. 589 (1967).

Similarly, the public education system, public facilities and media institutions should be platforms to build a just, fair and pluralistic republican society and of religiously unconstrained exchange of views. Such platforms of the Public Sphere should not give preference to any particular religious view nor allow any form of proselytising, endorsement or promotion.