(This is an archived extract from the book Patterns of Power: Edition 2)
People are more likely to feel that they are being fairly treated if a government has explicit policies for treating all ethnic groups equally and allowing freedom of belief. Political neutrality can take different forms:
· A government can be tolerant towards all religions and none, although it bases its values on its own religious principles; Ronald Dworkin referred to this stance as “tolerant religious”.[1] Political parties with names such as ‘Christian Democrat’ might fall into this category.
· It can be secular, in the sense of being without religion, and be similarly tolerant towards all; this is described by Ronald Dworkin as “tolerant secular”, and it means that the civil law does not discriminate against any religious group or curtail religious practices. That, according to some, was the intention behind the wording of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.[2] The need at that time was principally to gain the support of the different sects within Christianity, but it also caters for the protection of other religious groups including Jews and Muslims.
· It can attempt to make religion subordinate to the State, which is a policy that was practised by Kemil Atatϋrk in Turkey for example, and resulted in the term ‘secularism’ being interpreted by the Muslim world as “an attempt to destroy Islam”.[3] A similar policy, as adopted by the Shah of Iran, led to a religious backlash which resulted in the Ayatollah Khomeini coming to power in 1953 to establish an Islamic State.[4]
The evidence suggests that tolerance towards religion is a more viable policy than attempting to suppress it.
© PatternsofPower.org, 2014
[1] Ronald Dworkin described "Two Models" of government tolerance towards religion in chapter 3 of his book Is Democracy Possible Here? He pointed out that there is disagreement over whether the American Constitution could be described as "tolerant religious" or "tolerant secular" (pp. 62-64). The Virginia Law web-site posted a brief synopsis of Dworkin’s argument on 19 April 2006, a week after he had lectured on the topic, under the title Dworkin Explores Secular, Religious Models for Society; this was available in May 2014 at http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2006_spr/dworkin.htm.
[2] Karen Armstrong, in The Battle for God, p. 85, wrote:
“In 1786, Thomas Jefferson disestablished the Anglican Church in Virginia; his bill declared that coercion in matters of faith was "sinfull and tyrannical," that truth would prevail if people were allowed their own opinions, and that there should be a "wall of separation" between religion and politics. The bill was supported by the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians of Virginia, who resented the privileged position of the Church of England in the state. Later the other states followed Virginia's lead, and disestablished their own churches, Massachusetts being the last to do so, in 1833. In 1787, when the Federal Constitution was drafted at the Philadelphia Convention, God was not mentioned at all, and in the Bill of Rights (1789), the First Amendment of the Constitution formally separated religion from the state: "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Henceforth faith would be a private and voluntary affair in the United States.”
[3] Karen Armstrong described Kemil Atatürk's secularisation of Turkey as "aggressive" in her book The Battle for God (p. 191).
[4] Karen Armstrong described the resurgence of fundamentalism in Egypt and Iran, and the process whereby that led to revolution in the latter (ibid., pp. 225 – 232).
Her book was written long before the uprising in Egypt as part of the 'Arab Spring', which resulted in the installation of a “moderate Islamist government” – as described in an article entitled A long march, published in the Economist on 18 February 2012; this article was available in May 2014 at http://www.economist.com/node/21547853.