IHEU General Assembly Resolution on Comprehensive Secularism
At the meeting of the General Assembly of the International Humanist & Ethical Union, held at Paris on 8th July 2005, to coincide with the 16th World Humanist Congress, the Indian Humanist Union tabled a resolution on "Comprehensive Secularism". After detailed discussions and taking into account the varying social and terminological backgrounds in different countries, the resolution was passed unanimously.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union, taking into account the currently emerging situation world-wide, resolves that the Humanist movement must make renewed efforts to support comprehensive secularism in all countries, in the sense of separation of religion from state institutions, complete impartiality on the part of the State in its attitude and actions towards different religions and belief systems, and the right and the responsibility of the State to intervene to protect human rights from gross violation, even if based on religious doctrine or enshrined in religiously based civil law. The State must protect the individual's right to leave his or her community without the fear of violence or severe reprisal.
It will be noted that the above resolution enunciates two principles constituting "Secularism" i.e. separation of religion from State institutions and complete impartiality on the part of the State as between different religions and belief systems. It also adds a third principle which makes for "Comprehensive Secularism" i.e. the right of the State to intervene when there is gross violation of human rights. In view of the fact that the IHEU is the umbrella organization for over a hundred Humanist, Rationalist, Freethought and Atheist associations, this Resolution is of significance both in ideological and in practical terms. It also assumes considerable relevance in the background of recent fatwas in various countries which involve gross violation of human rights, as well as in the light of the ongoing debate in the media regarding the general question of the role of the State in relation to 'parallel', religion based 'civil laws'.
Prakash Narain
Trackback URL for this post:
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comprehensive Secularism
In the Australian Humanist No. 85 Autumn 2007, two comments have been made on IHEU's Resolution on Comprehensive Secularism (Paris 2005)and my article on the subject in Australian Humanist No. 83 spring 2006. Victor Bien (Page 15)has summarised the issues in the IHEU Resoltuion and its implications as under:
"1) there needs to be separation of religious institutions from state institutions;
2) 'from'is more apt than 'between' or 'and': thus, we should avoid using the phrases, 'spearation between religion and state' or 'separation of religion and state', since these two place religion and state on an equal footing. The secular view is that the state takes precedence over religion;
3) IHEU call for religion to be prevented from infringing in the affiars of state institutions but not vice versa;
4) Comprehensive Secularism is envisaged as a 'one way separation';
5) IHEU did not support the ida of separating religion from politics, since this would clash with freedom of conscience (and freedom of expression);
6) there was consideration of what is meant by 'gross violation of human rights'- female geniatl mutilitation comes to mind;
7) state action against religions is to be directed against religiously based civil law: this makes it quite clear that any amendment or annulment by the state does not touch religious or cultural ceremonies or identities of any group of people."
John Perkins (Page 19-20) states as follows:
" In this regard e may take note of the resolution on 'Comprehensive Secularism' passed at the 2005 IHEU conference, as reported by Prakash Narain in AH No. 83. Impartiality between religions and seprartion of religion from state institutions are essential elements, but a third component is also nececssary. This a preparedness intervene to protect human rights from violation by religious injunctions. As well as threats to life and safety, the right of children to an education free of religious indoctrination is surely and important part of this. A further aspect of Comprehensive Secularism must be the advancement of the concept of secular multiculturalism. This is the acceptance of the value of cultural heritage, but without suspension of rationality and with the explicit recognition that myths are myths. people naturally react defensively when confronted with their delusions. The practical experience of multiculturalism should be an advantage in delaing with this, in that all cultural myths should be treated with equal incredulity. Internationally the advacement of Comprehensive Secularism will have profound benefits."
I agree with the observations made by Victor Bien and John Perkins who have rightly brought out some additional nuances in the concept of Comprehensive Secularism. John Perkins has specifically suggested some areas which comprehensive Secularism must cover. I agree with him and would like to add that, as put by the IHEU Resolution, the litmus test for intervention by the State, would be whether there is "gross violation of human rights". If 'yes', the State must intervene.
Separation of Religion from State
In USA, UK, France and other countries it is not possible to separate the Religion and State but in India Religion can separated from State. I request the IHEU Organisations and Individual Members to write the President of India (presidentofindia@rb.nic.in) who himself is scientist.
Comprehensive Secularism
It will be seen from the IHEU Resolution that the two principles involved in "Secularism" are the "Impartiaity Principle" and the "Separation Principle" and a third i.e the "Intervention Principle" is required to be added to make for "Comprehensive Secularism". In the Indian Constitution all these three are in corporated but in actual implementation, there is great reluctance on the part of this State to comply with the Intervention Principle. Whenever this happens and the State refuses to intervene despite gross violation of human rights, it should be fought against including through petitions to the President of India, as suggested by V K Vora.