Dear Editor,
The Guardian article referred to by Dr. Henry Jeffrey ` The spectre of secularism’ (SN, 4/19/2017) was written by the British philosopher, Julian Baggini, more than five years ago, to consider the fears in Britain of the rise of secularism and the apparent retreat of religion. Baggini made reference to John Rawls’s all perspectives and world views, “religious or non-religious” which can be presented in the public sphere with the proviso that it be done, continues Baggini, “in terms we can share and understand,” and not in ways that are “tied” to specific “comprehensive doctrines” or worldviews.
It is in this context we have the Rawls’s quote elaborated under the idea of Public Reason in his “Political Liberalism” (1994), and revised in, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” (1997). Though a number of difficulties in his thesis have been highlighted (Greenawalt 1995, Habermas, 2006), Rawls continues to be influential.
Accordingly, he tells us, given the plurality of conflicting “reasonable comprehensive doctrines”- religious, philosophical, moral – citizens can’t reach agreement or “even approach mutual understanding on the basis of their irreconcilable comprehensive doctrines”. Consequently, they have to find reasons they may reasonably give to one another when fundamental political questions are at stake. Public reason, then, is not concerned with attacking or criticizing any comprehensive doctrine, religious or otherwise, “excepting insofar as that doctrine is incompatible with public reason and a democratic polity.”
So, to invoke John Rawls, because I supposedly failed to give reasons or evidence for insisting that it is beyond comprehension and belief that the blitz launched by Faithful Word Baptist Church (FWBC) members in our city schools was without the implicit or explicit knowledge of and permission from ministry officials, is a misreading and a misapplication of the renowned American philosopher. As to the complicity of the Ministry of Education (MoE) in promoting Christianity, one wonders if Dr. Jeffrey can tell us why he allowed Christian-only prayers in public schools, a practice which I am told continues today, and against which the current Minister has spoken, though we are yet to learn what he has done about it.
But we must move forward and recognize that what is at stake is a far more fundamental: coming to terms with the nature of our secular state especially in the context of the guarantee of religious freedom enshrined in the constitution. In this regard, Dr. Jeffrey’s submission (SN, 4/5/2017) is a helpful starting point. Commenting of Ms. Balroop’s decision to allow the missionaries in her school, the former Minister of Education assures us, it was “good”, concluding that, “it may help rather than hinder us from making meaningful our universal commitment to the brotherhood of all mankind”.
What is of concern is the presence of religions, whatever their votaries may believe their virtues to be, in the public space in general and in schools in particular, which Dr. Jeffrey seems to be advocating for the reason he has given. Our concerns rest not only with the extreme expressions of religions which may be filtered out through some bureaucratic process which itself can be highly contentious however benign and impartial it may claim to be, but to all forms of religious expression including school prayers.
I therefore advocate the idea of a “radical” separation between “church” and “state” and stand by the secularism declared by our constitution, where the state cannot be seen, directly or indirectly, to be promoting any one religion over others. Secularism here is not the same as “no religion”. It means that the state itself shall have no religion and that it should maintain absolute neutrality regarding the conflicting truth claims of the competing “comprehensive” religious worldviews.
In a secular polity anyone or group, should be free to hold any religious beliefs he, she or it freely chooses but we have to guard against any group seeking to dominate society or influence public policy exclusively on its non-verifiable beliefs. We cannot, for example, argue against the decriminalization of homosexuality based on the “Word of God”, not only because this will be considered privileged epistemology accessible only to believers but also because religions have a tendency to insulate their beliefs from any kind of critical examination and public scrutiny.
From time to time we have seen media exchanges on corporal punishment in schools where individuals in favour, including churchmen and women, will invariably quote some biblical text to argue for its retention or imposition. For the state to institute a policy based on any kind of revelatory metaphysics, beyond the reach of all excepting believers, will be a violation of the foundation of secularism, in as much as it was a flagrant violation when based on the opposition mounted by religious forces, our government refused to amend archaic laws criminalizing homosexuality.
Since the secular state does not privilege any religion, it stands to reason that secularism is the best guarantee to ensure the equality of and respect for all religions. A.C.Grayling (2013) tells us, “… the secular dispensation is actually a defence of religious organisations, in the sense that a religion-neutral public domain allows for a variety of such viewpoints to exist, whereas the danger of there being a single dominating religious outlook is that others come to be marginalized or even (as history abundantly teaches) persecuted.”
Religious persecution of minorities is not only a historical issue. It is perhaps the most explosive issue facing society today, and secularism, though it may never eradicate all forms of persecution completely, remains the safest option for such minorities, like the persecuted Christian minority is in Pakistan and the Coptic Christians in Egypt who, not surprisingly, are themselves calling for a secular state.
The major religions of the world, even those closely related as in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are not only incompatible but mutually antithetical and their unadulterated and violent expressions are not aberrations but central to their worldviews. From their perspectives, all others are perennially damned. Without the safeguard of a secular polity there can be an open conflagration based on religious differences.
In his second column (SN, 4/19/17), Dr. Jeffrey would have us “wait” to see how the MoE interprets article 145(3) of the Constitution, and depending on this interpretation, whether it would then mean that, “every child must be left to the mercy of its familial religious enclave”. Is Dr. Jeffrey suggesting that the family cannot be trusted with the religious upbringing of the child which, by implication, must be surrendered to some other entity?
Unless the physical health of the child is at risk and there is an evident threat to the fundamental right to life as in the case of Sangeeta Persaud who may have been beaten to death because the church believed that she was possessed by the devil, where it is incumbent on the state to intervene, who else but the family, and family related institutions, should be entrusted with the religious upbringing of the child?
If Dr. Jeffrey is calling for the presence of religion in schools and is suggesting that the religion of the child should not be left to the “mercy” of the family, is he therefore suggesting that we surrender the religious welfare of the child to such entities as may be allowed in the schools? If this is what it comes to, is he not calling for the state to decide what a child should or should not believe?
The religions that are likely to intrude in schools are the proselytizing ones for whom conversion is the main goal. There is no religious expression whose primary goal is “saving souls” that will show any respect for the religious view of say a Hindu child. They will have to believe that this child is in the mortal danger of unbelief if they are true to their own convictions and will have to entertain the design of changing that child to their persuasion. This is the abuse that may hypothetically occur if we allow religions in schools and entrust the child to their care.
The opening sentence of the preamble of the Communist Manifesto begins with the dramatic phrase, “A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism”. Baggini borrows from this opening in the Guardian article referred to above merely substituting “communism” with “secularism” which is what Dr. Jeffrey uses in the penultimate paragraph of his column, “The spectre of secularism”. Baggini wrote to show that the fears of the religious lobby were ill-founded. Dr. Jeffrey, on the other hand, writes to caution us of the excess of secularism.
A spectre is haunting Europe but it is neither communism nor secularism. The real spectre casting its shadow over Europe, and for that matter over all of humanity, the spectre of the most rabid and lethal version of religious fanaticism. It indiscriminately targets children, women, gays and lesbians, women, and people of different faiths. It targets the very secular foundation of European civilization. Never before has such fear spread its tentacles so deeply in Europe. Three cheers for secularism.
Yours faithfully,
Swami Aksharananda
