In this issue a number of writers examine how secularism is interpreted and implemented in their countries. Obviously, there are different traditions. The USA has one kind of secularism built into its constitution, and yet, paradoxically, it is one of the most religious countries in the developed world. France also has a fiercely defended laicité that is still under constant attack. India has a nominally secular constitution, and yet enables religiously based family law. Norway is not formally secular: it has a state church, and yet it also supports Humanism, resulting in the strongest Humanist movement in Europe.

So there are many patterns of secularism, but countries without secularism are a disaster. Across a large swathe of the Middle East and beyond, we find countries whose state religion is Islam, and many of them try to implement at least some aspects of Islamic Shari’a law. We find built-in inequalities between men and women and between Muslims and non-Muslims. Some have laws against atheism, blasphemy or apostasy from Islam. Laws against apostasy are particularly pernicious where the state holds that anyone born of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim. This denies the right enshrined in United Nations human rights instruments to freely choose a religion or belief and it also denies the right to change one’s religion or belief. Shari’a law as commonly interpreted has many incompatibilities with universal human rights. Saudi Arabia even denies the right to practise any religion other than Islam.

But Islam is not alone in posing a threat to human rights and secularism. Throughout the Middle Ages Europe suffered under theocracies run by the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Although the Reformation broke the hegemony of the Catholic Church in Western Europe, and the Enlightenment eroded its strength still further, it has extended its reach throughout much of the rest of the world. It has also found new methods to boost its power. The Church used to have control over the territory of the Papal States. When it finally lost them, the fiction was maintained that Vatican territory still constituted a country. The Holy See is recognised as a nation state and many real countries send ambassadors there. Its special status at the United Nations enables it to meddle in international deliberations in a way that is not available to other religions or to organisations representing non-believers such as IHEU.

Another Vatican ploy to strengthen church control has been to negotiate concordats with individual states. These are special treaties that give significant privileges to the Catholic church. The Vatican has negotiated many such concordats. The object of all of them is to increase the wealth, influence and prestige of the church and to erode some of the universally recognised human rights. You can find out more about concordats by visiting the website of Concordat Watch [1], which gives details of all concordats and the problems associated with individual cases. It is noteworthy that The Vatican had no compunction about negotiating concordats with fascist states in the 20th century: Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany, Salazar’s Portugal and Franco’s Spain. Some of these, including the one with the Nazis, are still in force. Because of the way these treaties are structured it is quite hard for countries to discard them.

In the UK unelected bishops of the established Church of England sit in Parliament, and thus have a direct role in legislation. But in other parts of Europe and within the European Union, churches, particularly the Catholic Church, are often consulted behind the scenes before bills are presented to the legislature. The churches in general have fought hard against equality and human rights for all, and are still fighting to maintain discrimination against homosexuals. Homosexuals suffer also under Islam; some Islamic countries demand the death penalty for homosexuality.

India offers the apparently good example of a secular democratic republic. But there are defects here as well. The caste system of Hinduism imposes huge disadvantages on most of those judged “untouchable” by higher castes, even though untouchability is prohibited by law. India is not the only country to practise untouchability, as can be seen from the section on this subject in this issue of International Humanist News, but its entrenchment in religion gives untouchability a credibility that makes it much stronger in India than elsewhere.

If we look at the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [2], we see that Article 28 states that children have the right to an education. This article is rather vaguely worded, although it does mention the need for literacy and for access to scientific and technical knowledge. Articles 13 and 14 state that children have the right to freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Nevertheless, millions of school children worldwide are suffering from intensive religious indoctrination, often provided by the state.

In general, states that give a privileged position to religion are doing so at the expense of human rights. Religious leaders often interpret a desire for secularism as an atheistic attack on all that is good. While many supporters of secularism may indeed be atheists, many others are religious believers. In the words of Abdel- Fatah Amor, the former UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief: “There are only two problems: when the state owns religion and when religion owns the state”.

A truly secular state allows free choice in matters of religion or belief. Secularism, rightly understood, far from being against religion, provides the only possible level playing field for all religions and none.

Religious believers have nothing to fear from secularism apart from loss of the ability to impose their belief system on others.

1 http://www.concordatwatch.eu/
2 http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

Diana Brown is Editor of this edition of International Humanist News during the temporary absence of Sangeeta Mall.