The question “Can politics remain secular” is rather like asking “Does my bum look big in this?” Whatever the answer, the anxiety of the enquiry is evident.
The very asking of this question indicates an unease with the direction of politics; a feeling that a political system predicated on the equality of all, regardless of religion, may give way to a system which favours one set of beliefs over others. Allied to this is a sense that religion will one day supplant economics as the key political division; that gay marriage will one day be considered more important than health policy.
Secularism stands, not just for the separation of state and religion, but also for the relegation of spiritual matters into the private sphere of personal morality. Secularism tries to manage religious differences (which will always be with us) by keeping them out of public discourse. In so doing, the hope is that political divisions based on class and economics - which will be less likely to lead to violence - will take precedence. Any defence of secularism ultimately rests on this over-riding need to avoid sectarian bloodshed.
When one surveys political developments in the last few decades the unease inherent in the question above seems more than justified. All over the world one can see the drift away from secularism towards forms of religious fundamentalisms, Godisms if you will, which lead, inevitably in my view, to violence and division.
One can see this in Israel/Palestine with the growth on one side of a militant Jewish nationalism which explicitly calls for the expulsion of all Gentiles from the Promised Land and on the other side by the increase in support for groups such as Hamas which aim to establish an Islamic state on that same land. One can see this drift towards Godism in the Balkans too, with its fearful wars in the 1990s. For years Catholic, Orthodox and Serb fought each other viciously, respecting no taboo, butchering women and children and desecrating places of worship. One can see it too, in less gory fashion, in the US, with the growing strength of the Darwin-deniers, who would have superstition installed into the science classroom; or in India with the growth of the Hindu fundamentalist BJP.
Looking at all this, the question “Can politics remain secular?” seems over optimistic. Surely the question should be “Can politics become secular?” To assume a non-religious basis for political discourse is to adopt a dangerously Euro-centric view of the world. For it is only in the old continent that the idea of the state belonging to all of its citizens, regardless of belief, seems secure. Elsewhere this notion has either never been widely accepted (as in Israel/Palestine) or, as with the US, is in retreat.
The fundamentalist onslaught has not been felt strongly in Europe but this may not be the case for much longer. The fear is that Europe, where political divisions have traditionally been based on economics and class, may experience sectarian politics, a sort of “Ulsterisation” of the continent. The terrorist outrages in Madrid and London have raised the spectre of communal conflict in Europe, of a dangerous new politics based on the division between Muslim and infidel; where hatred, suspicion and ignorance turn neighbour against neighbour. Instead of economic circumstances, or even nationality, religion could become the great cleavage in Europe as it is elsewhere in the world. The warning signs, such as the murder of Theo van Gogh and the destruction of mosques in the Netherlands, are there for those who wish to take heed.
But the threat to secularism in Europe is peculiar. Elsewhere in the world, where two religions have come into conflict this has tended to lead to an increase in religious identification. Thus in Israel/Palestine in recent years we have seen the increase in electoral support for both the Orthodox Shas and the Islamic Hamas. But in Europe this is not the case. If for instance there was an al-Qaida bombing in Berlin, it is sadly possible that some Germans would react to this by attacking mosques. But it seems less plausible that Berliners would respond to an Islamist attack on their city by flocking to their near-abandoned churches. With so many Europeans having been spared any form of religious indoctrination, the continent is close to becoming post-Christian. Even if people did try to find solace in religion, many of them would struggle to follow the service.
There is no great Christian awakening in Europe today. Rather there is a growing division between the continent’s Islamic and non-Islamic populations which threatens to become the defining issue of our era. However, should this conflict become more intense, we may see an upsurge in Christianity in Europe. We will assuredly hear some people calling for a re-assertion of so-called “Christian” values and for the re-installation of religion into the public sphere.
What is needed now more than ever is the assertion of a strong, confident, secular politics against Godisms of any stripe. It is worth reiterating that any religious trespass into the public sphere - be it the playing of the Angelus on RTE, the Law of Succession for the British throne, or the state funding of “faith schools” - automatically undermines democracy and equality. Any state sponsorship of religion, no matter how benign it may seem, implicitly shows that one set of beliefs is favoured over another, or that “people of faith” are superior to those who chose not to believe. In any truly democratic society there can be only one class of citizen: first. With the sheer number of belief systems only secularism can square the circle of equality in a world of diversity.
Given all this, it would seem natural that the European left would be among secularism’s chief proponents. The whole point of being a progressive after all is to put economics before religion or race, to improve conditions in this life rather than dreaming of something better in the next. Yet when it comes to defending secularism, the left’s spinelessness is infuriating.
Where were the voices of support on the left during the controversy over religious attire in French schools? The majority of leftists, rather than lauding this separation of religion and state, chose instead to throw in their lot with the Godists. Rather than standing up for the French version of secularism, too many on the left wailed at the supposed intolerance of the measure, as if telling children what they could and could not wear at school was somehow abusing their human rights. Too often the policy in question was described as a “ban on head scarves”, as if the hijab was the only article in question. This is not to say that the French example should be followed elsewhere in Europe - the Gallic version of secularism is of an extreme bent - but rather to say that when secularism and Godism clash, the left should side with the secularists.
Why then is the left reluctant to defend secularism? Unfortunately the much-maligned political correctness is to blame here. PC, in so much as it puts sexist, racist, bigoted and homophobic language beyond the pale of acceptable discourse, is a noble idea. But where it goes awry is in the elevation of inoffensiveness to dogma, to assume that someone’s religion is exempt from reasoned criticism. To use an Irish example, it is wrong to refer to Protestants by hate-filled epithets such as “Hun” or “Jaffa”. But this does not mean that the theological tenets of Protestantism can not be critiqued by non-Protestants lest, heaven forbid, someone might be offended.
To engage in political debate, any political debate, is to open up the possibility of offending someone. When discussing taxation, or global warming, or aid to Africa, it is possible that someone will find your view objectionable, hurtful even. But why is it only with religion (and its slippery partner “culture”) that we are allowed to play the “that’s offensive to my people” card and put an end to the discussion? None of this is to argue that the point of politics, or indeed of secularism, is to offend. It is wrong to deliberately hurt someone else’s feelings. But anyone who engages in political debate must accept the possibility that they could end up causing offence. Those who are too meek to accept this should, frankly, retire from the fray. Secularism deserves better than to be damned with faint praise.
Politics will only remain secular if those of us who believe it should do are willing to defend that position. There’s a reason that creationism is encroaching into American high school science classrooms, and it has nothing to do with the deficiencies of Darwinism. It’s because the true believers of creationism want to install their superstition into school curricula more than the secularists want to keep it out. The Old Testament literalists are better funded, better organised and crucially, better motivated than their opponents. So eventually they win (and they don’t care who gets offended along the way). So much of life boils down to simple determination. All else being equal, the hard-working mediocrity will outstrip the talented loafer. Faced by Godist adversaries whose faith drives them on, we must be every bit as determined as they are.
Can politics remain secular? Only if we want it to.