Volker von Prittwitz
Civil Religion
From Twin
Tolerations and Laicism to Emphatic Pluralism
Traditionally, there are considerable tensions
between religion and the open society: Religion usually is not aligned with
open processes, pluralism and equality; it is rather determined by the requirement
to accept a certain transcendent truth, the omnipotence of a transcendent power
and the requirement to submit to this power. Religions usually explain history,
even personal lives and events, as transcendently predetermined. Often they do
not comply with social und even juridical norms of the open society, such as
the fundamental equality of men and women. And sometimes religious authorities
propagate world views that complicate or obstruct a peaceful co-living, for
example by praying the withdrawal from society, eschatologically motivated
self-destruction, violence or even terrorism.
Once traditional religions get power, they
traditionally tend to sanction, to marginalise, or to taboo deviations from
their proclaimed truths or norms. Therefore, the closed logic of one religious
truth and the logic of the open society of legitimated pluralism and open
processes traditionally contrast sharply with one another.
In spite of these tensions, religions can
comply with demands of the open society if their representatives and adherents
accept procedures and norms of peaceful co-living. Some religiously stabilised
values, such as cardinal virtues like honesty or truthfulness, support any
society, i.e. also open societies. Certain religious values, particularly the
equalization of every person vis-à-vis God in the Abrahamic world religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islamism), are similar to basic values of the open society
(equality before law). That's why there is a discussion about to what extent
religious values have historically been a precondition for the upcoming of the
open society (An-Na'im et al. 2007; Stein 2007; Joas 2007).
Indeed, in modern societies socio-political
activities, such as taking care of marginalized (ill, poor, homeless) persons,
usually are realized by welfare state institutions. However, religious
organisations usually maintain substantial influence in this area.
Finally, religious organizations and persons sometimes support certain civil
rights even more strictly than other actors do – see the case of church asylum
in some European states where churches try to protect the asylum right of
certain refugees of their one.
Laicism and Twin
Tolerations
Compared with the outlined broad array of
relations between religions and open society, the current debate about laicism
versus twin tolerations (Stepan 1996, 2007; Minkenberg 2007) is focusing only on certain fundamental
power aspects: Laicism, particularly in the form of the French model,
propagates separating state and religions strictly. As a result of this
separation, state has a strict monopoly of public power while religions are
strictly limited to the private sphere. In contrast, Alfred Stepan
recommends under the headword twin tolerations to consider religions and
states as twins who should tolerate each other. In this approach, a certain
scientific approach (looking at religions and states as in principle even,
interlocked actors) is connected with a normative conclusion (recommending
reciprocal tolerations).
Although the twin tolerations approach seems to
comply with common sense and enables comparative studies on different power
relations between religions and states, it has one fundamental bias: The core
model of the approach is based on a pre-modern feature of a society where the
emperor (secular power) was confronted with the pope (religious power). In contrast,
the open society historically came up as a means to overcome the deep societal
crisis resulting from religiously motivated or religiously legitimated civil
wars in Europe. That's why open societies must not be conceived as a
confrontation (or reciprocal tolerations) between religion and state. A modern state have to be understood as an institutional
complex that allows open and fair access to everybody including different
religions.
Laicism on the other side, it's true, points at
guaranteeing general access (and other rights) to every citizen. However,
religious organisations do not have all civil rights every citizen has.
Religions here suffer from a certain form of discrimination. Furthermore the
model of Laicism does not reflect religious elements within concepts such as state
or republic. That's why none of both delineated approaches should be
considered to be sufficient for evaluating the relationship between religions
and open society.
Civil Religion
If we come back to what we have discussed in
the beginning of this article, we detect another criterion for evaluating the
roles of religions in an open society: Does a religion accept the basic
procedures and norms of the open society or is it oriented to get dominance or
even to destroy the fundamental logic of pluralism and openness? In the latter
case, we speak of power oriented, non-civil religion. In case a religion
complies with the basic procedures and norms of an open society, we speak of
civil religion. For religions of this type operate in a civil manner, like good
citizen do, i.e. without violence, accepting open procedures and pluralistic
patterns of interests and values.
This adjustment to the open society, however,
is only one basic element of civil religion. Going back to Jean Jacques Rousseaus writing contrat
sociale (1756), the French term religion
civil (in English civil religion) includes not only the requirement
of respecting basic norms of peaceful co-living in a republic. The right of
every person to unscathed life, human dignity and fundamental social
equalization, regardless of gender, faith, religion, nationality, culture,
income or other conditions, is also a core element of civil religion. Beyond
the adjustment to norms and procedures of the open society, hence civil
religion symbolizes and emphasizes basic values and procedures of the open
society.
Just this part of the term civil religion,
emphatic pluralism, has risen up during the last decades in some world
religions, particularly in the Lutheran Christian religion. What has first
spread under the headword ecumenism (Ökomene)
only amongst different Christian denominations,
meanwhile has widened beyond the Christian religion. So, under the headword World
Ethos, a project is going on to delineate common ethics of all world
religions based on strengthening the necessity of peace and dialogue between
religions (Hans Küng). That is: Religion, that
since ancient times had been associated with hierarchy and a unified world
view, now is opening up to pluralism and heterogeneity. Basic norms of
equality, human rights and finally pluralism are going to become core issues
not only of political philosophy and the law of nations but also core issues of
(civil) religion. Hence, we are experiencing the upcoming of religiously
stabilized pluralism. Before the background of this fundamental new
development, the question what freedom of religion could mean, have to
be discussed in a new way.
Freedom of Religion
in the Open Society
According to twin tolerations approach, the
discussion about freedom of religions traditionally has focussed on certain
areas of religious autonomy. If we take account of adjusting and pluralistic
(civil) religions, questions of religious autonomy towards state become less
important. Vice versa, giving far-reaching autonomy to non-civil religions
whose representatives and adherents fight against the open society, seems to be
naive and not responsible in view of the growing
necessity to protect a peaceful, free co-living of different cultures and
religions. Therefore, beside the traditionally
dominating negative concept of religious freedom (from) also the
positive concept of freedom (to) have to be included into the
discussion.
In general, we differentiate four basic options
to display the term freedom of religion: 1) The individual freedom of
faith and religious profession, 2) The freedom of collective worship and
(religious) cultus, 3) The freedom of symbolizing a
religion in public, particularly in state institutions, 4) The freedom of
pursuing political aims based on religious values and norms. Concerning these
options, tight concepts of Laicism only accept the individual freedom of
religious faith or profession; widened policies of religion also do accept the
freedom of collective worship and religious cults. Anyway crucial is the third
option, wherein a) conflicts between different religions, b) conflicts between
religions and state may be issues. The fourth option seems to be not awkward in
an open society where general rights of participation, such as the right to
establish parties and political associations, are accepted. But in political
practice, there are often restrictions regarding political activities of
religious actors.
Taking into account different degrees of
religious civility, some aspects of the issue can be discussed more precisely,
more distinctly and better understandable: The most awkward question, the
question how to deal with non-civil religions, i.e. adversaries or enemies of
the open society, leads to two basic requirements: 1) to effectively protect
peaceful and free co-living, 2) to preserve open structures (the identity of
the open society) as far as possible. According to the conditions in any single
case, an optimal balance between both demands has to be found wherein free
individual faith should be guaranteed even (religiously or otherwise motivated)
enemies of a free society. In contrast, any try to spread out world views,
norms and operative plans to destroy the open society cannot be allowed. The
headword freedom of religion, so far, should not be a shelter for
violence and suppression.
In the open society, religiously motivated
citizens do have exactly the same general obligations as any other citizen;
there is no juridical or otherwise defined religious autonomy wherein general
laws are not in force. On the other side, complying with general
procedures and norms of the open society opens up a broader array of religious
liberties than hitherto usually discussed: Any person or group that respects
the procedural and normative requirements of the open society, is free to act
anyway and on any place in the open society. Religiously motivated actors in
this sense may use the whole array of human and political rights outside and
inside state institutions. There is no wall of separation between religious
pluralism and state pluralism, hence no cause for any discrimination of civil
religions.
In sharp contrast, there is a distinct tension
between traditional non-civil religions, particularly religiously motivated
aggressive organizations, and the logic and institutions of the open society.
Also those organizations and persons have to be treated without any specially religious discrimination. They rather have to be
confronted with general juridical and social requirements of civility. If they
hurt those requirements, they have to be forced to comply with by social
pressure and strict implementation of general law.
This concept of religion may, at the first
glance, seem to be restrictive because religions now are included into the
realm of general law and responsibility (bound governance). Looking further,
the great advantage, even the necessity of analysing the issue this way becomes
clear: In a world where more and more people of different cultures are living
together, generally respected core procedures and norms are an existential
basis of free, peaceful co-living.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The author: Prof. Dr. Volker von Prittwitz, Free University Berlin www.volkervonprittwitz.de
--------------------------------
Literature and Links:
An-Na'im, Abdullah A/
Gort, Gerald D./Jansen,
Henry/Vroom, Hendrik M. (Eds.) (forthcoming): Human
Rights and Religious Values. An Uneasy Relationship? Amsterdam (Rodopi).
Joas,
Hans (Ed.) (2007): Braucht Werteerziehung Religion? Göttingen (Wallstein)
2)
Declaration to a Global Ethic (Hans Küng):
http://www.weltethos.org/pdf_decl/Decl_english.pdf
Minkenberg, Michael: Religion and Democracy in a Global
Perspective (2007)
http://integration.euv-ffo.de/vmun/daten/mink1.pdf
Prittwitz, Volker von
(2008): Communicating the Open Society communicating_the_open_society.htm
Prittwitz, Volker von (2007): Vergleichende Politikanalyse, Stuttgart (UTB 2871)
Stein, Tine (2007): Himmlische Quellen und irdisches Recht. Religiöse Voraussetzungen des freiheitlichen Verfassungsstaates, Frankfurt am Main (Campus)
Stepan, Alfred (2007) Democracies, The
World Religions and Problems of the Twin Tolerations
http://www.columbia.edu/~as48/Democracy,%20Religion%20and%20Twin%20
http://zfikri.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/alfred-c-stepan-twin-tolerations/