Text of Article in Belgian newspaper Le Soir - 15 December 2009
The following is an English version of an article published in the Belgian newspaper Le Soir on 15 December 1009. It is jointly authored by the presidents of EHF, IHEU and the Belgian organisations CAL and UVV.
Religion and the state: neutrality is no bar to tolerance
Pierre Galand President of CAL (Centre d’action laïque)
Sonja Eggerickx President of UVV (Unie Vrijzinnige Verenigingen)
and of the International Humanist and Ethical Union
David Pollock President of the European Humanist Federation
Two recent events, although different in nature, bring into question the role that the state grants to religion. On the one hand, in a judgement on November 3, 2009, the European Court of Human Rights condemned Italy for the display of crucifixes in public school classrooms. On the other hand, by a referendum of November 29, Switzerland has prohibited the building of minarets. Just as we fully support the decision of the Court, so also we consider the Swiss decision a bad sign. In the Italian case, a mother claimed the right to educate her children according to her own convictions and argued that the presence of crucifixes in classrooms could give children the feeling that the state is on the side of believers. In an outstandingly well argued ruling that could set a precedent, the Court emphasized the neutrality of the state: "The state is required to maintain religious neutrality in public education where attendance is required irrespective of religion and must seek to instill critical thinking in students." This requirement is all the more important when people confronted by expression of a belief by the state are unable to remove themselves, as is the case for students, or only "by a disproportionate effort and sacrifice”.
For its part, the Italian Government argued that the crucifix is not specifically a Christian symbol but a "natural fact" that is of "neutral, secular" significance with reference to the history and traditions of Italy. This attempt to present a religious symbol primarily as a natural and cultural phenomenon was fortunately unanimously rejected by the Court.
The reaction in Italy against this ruling was violent, and sometimes outrageous. In the process, some MEPs have tabled a "Written Declaration on freedom to display in public places religious symbols representing the culture and identity of a people" by which they demand recognition of the right of States to display religious symbols in public places and in institutions. In response, some other MEPs have also filed a Declaration, supported by our organisations, which cites the principle of separation of church and state and calls on all States to respect the ruling of the Court and ensure that public buildings are free of religious symbols.
For us, this defence of state neutrality has to be accompanied by signs of tolerance and recognition of the multicultural and multi-faith nature of our societies. The Swiss ban, of dubious legal validity under international law in this respect gives a very bad signal to Muslims and produced some dangerous alliances. Because under the pretext of fighting against Islamism, everyone can see that the initiators of the referendum - a section of the populist and evangelical right - are in fact seeking to challenge the very presence of Islam in Switzerland, a European country and "therefore” Christian. In doing so, the whole issue is not about the presence - which is a given - but about the visibility of Islam. By this yardstick, we defend the right of Muslims, like other faiths, to build places of worship, subject like any other development to town planning, administrative and environmental standards.
Defending both a total separation of Church and State and the right for religions to build places of worship is not a contradiction. It is not a matter of "militant secularism" nor of a failure of identity, but of questions of a quite different nature. The fact that the state takes a neutral position does not prevent legitimate manifestation of religion in the public space, but this needs to be lept to its proper place: a minaret is a symbol for believers and not a sign addressed to infidels. This dual approach of neutrality and tolerance is the only way for the State to promote a space where all citizens, believers or not, feel welcome and accepted for all their differences.