“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” (Jean-Jacques Rousseau). This is a fact: Freedom is not universally respected, even in western countries. All the governments – not only in so-called “Muslim” countries – that currently oppose human rights in the name of “cultural diversity” are also against any separation of religions and the state. According to some dictators, freedom of conscience and human rights would be part of “western values” which ought to be rejected as unsuitable for their countries. The same rulers enforce laws punishing blasphemy and defamation of religions; they also prohibit or restrict freedom to join a trade are officially recognised by public authorities. In Belgium and the Netherlands this system is called Verzuiling: citizens are divided into “pillars” (“zuilen”, “spiritual families” or “Weltanschauungsgruppen”) which are supposed to support the common values of society. Basically, this is communalism: public authorities recognise equal rights for communities as opposed union or any independent association. Humanists do not call into question “cultural diversity” but they do not consider freedom of conscience and human rights as “western values”. Instead, Humanists believe that human rights are universal values that should be implemented in every country in the world, in spite of “cultural diversity”.

Humanists are interested in the following articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948):

Article 18: 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 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Whereas those two articles insist on freedom of religion for believers, “regardless of frontiers”, they fail to mention the right for non-believers to express views that call into question religious beliefs. Moreover, freedom of conscience – which includes equal rights for non- believers and believers - is not safeguarded in countries where public authorities support religions on the one hand and prohibit or restrict non-believers’ rights on the other hand. The right for individuals to hold opinions calling into question religious beliefs is denied when public authorities promote and support religions.

Therefore, the question of government interference in private opinions concerning religion is raised nearly everywhere in the world. No country seems to be spared. Even in countries such as France or the USA, secularism is at stake although separation is enshrined in the law. The fight is not over.

For political and historical reasons, a majority of countries have not enshrined complete separation of religions and the state in their constitutions. In those countries, there are still state religions, or a number of established churches, which receive public funding and to equal rights for individual citizens. Secular activists had to take into account this situation and build Humanist associations in conformity with “Verzuiling” regulations. However, Val R. Lorwin, an American sociologist, warned: “Zuilen not only support common values, they also separate citizens; they are compartments as well as pillars”. A dangerous aspect of “Verzuiling” has recently emerged, which could lead to an implosion of society. Muslims – who make up the majority of migrants in those countries – are often discriminated against because of their alleged “lack of common values” with the rest of society. Under that pretext, Dutch politician Geert Wilders has recently considered deporting millions of European Muslims and robbing them of their nationality as a serious option.

Regardless of their different views on Verzuiling or on the public funding of “spiritual families”, all Humanist organisations were set up in defence of human rights, which includes the right for Muslims to “manifest their religion or beliefs in teaching, practice, worship and observance”. In the light of this recent development, and in order to avoid a biased debate on Islam as if it were the only danger, we believe it is time to launch an international campaign for the establishment of mutual independence of the state and religions and any philosophical groups, whether religious or non-religious, as part of a programme for developing Humanist organisations.

Basically, Humanism does not limit itself to secularism. Humanism is generally seen as a “life stance” which includes secularism as well as rationalism. Secularism is not an opinion or a philosophy promoting materialism or atheism. Secularism is the right for individual citizens to express their opinions, notably on religious beliefs. For secular activists, groups of citizens such as religions or “spiritual families”, including atheists, should not be recognised by public authorities. Secularism does not seek to promote any sort of “state philosophy”. The purpose of secularism is not to become another “Church without a God”. Secularism seeks to promote freedom of conscience as an individual right for every citizen.

In the first place, freedom of conscience requires a clear difference between the public sphere (government, public funds) and the private sphere (the individual citizen). Considering this necessary difference, John Locke, the founding father of modern democracy, wrote:
“I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the controversies that will be always arising between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a concernment for the interest of men's souls, and, on the other side, a care of the commonwealth” (Letter Concerning Toleration – 1689).

In 1791, the First Amendment to the US Constitution established what President Jefferson rightfully called “a wall of separation” between religions and government:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. Clearly, the First Amendment associated the “wall of separation” with the right of individual citizens (“the people”) to assemble and to petition the government. That principle of complete separation was also enshrined in the Japanese Constitution (1947) which provided that government was based on the “will of the people with whom resides sovereign power” (Article 1):

Article 19: Freedom of thought and conscience shall not be violated.

Article 20: 1) Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all. No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority. 2) No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice. 3) The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity.

No religious education and no public funding for religious activity! As for the building of a “wall of separation”, Japan seems ahead of France and the USA. Bolivia recently adopted the same provisions in its Constitution and the Nepalese Constituent Assembly is heading in the same direction. The pillar or the wall: Isn’t that the question?

Author, translator (Thomas Paine, Robert G. Ingersoll, etc.), member of Libre Pensée and secular activist, Sam Ayache is the head of IHEU
delegation at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris.