Secularities and religions

As a brief way into helping managers and others at my university to think about how the university should handle matters of religion, I have tended to use a distinction I learnt from Phil Lewis who was our diocesan interfaith advisor when we were in Bradford. It  has proved useful in helping people to think about what they mean by "secular" when we talk about the university as a secular institution. What appears to be the default in many people's minds is that secular means to exclude religion. In Phil's binary this would be "hard secularism" and the explemplar national exponents would be France and Turkey who work to remove religious symbols and ideas from the public square. Religion can only be practised in private and can have no influence on public affairs.

The contrast, and the sort of stance we try to encourage people to take, is 'soft secularism'. The national exponent of this would be, in theory, India (though this is under threat) where the state remains impartial about religion but recognises that citizens come to the public square as, among other things, religiously-identified actors.

In this article, Building Ethical Bridges in a Secular Age | Comment Magazine | Cardus,  a three-part distinction in made using the words 'freedom' and 'religion' but varying the adjective between them.

• Freedom of religion—the state does not impose a religion on its citizens: there is no state religion. 
• Freedom for religion—the state does not restrict the free practice of religion by its citizens. 
• Freedom from religion—the state excludes religion and religious voices from the public square, in particular, in relation to law and public policy making.

I think that this is a useful way of thinking about it in a secular organisation. The final point, of course, is pretty much the "hard secular" approach. The first two are both "soft secular" approaches. The first point is about impartiality: not favouring one above the rest. The second point is about allowing all expressions to flourish. These first two points are complementary. However, the human rights approach does restrict the second by making clear that expressions that infringe the rights and freedoms of others are not covered. This reminds us that there is, in fact, a fine line between allowing religious expression and one or more of them becoming an imposition on others.

Beyond this the referenced article makes a case for a post-secular approach.
one of the arguments is this:

... we should point out that everyone has beliefs, so the argument that those with religious beliefs should be excluded from the public square because of those beliefs is discriminatory and anti-democratic. The new option, "none," in answer to the survey question about religious belief, reflects a belief system.

One of the reasons I became convinced of the importance in broad terms of a soft secular approach was noting how the hard secular approach was, covertly, an imposition of a particular viewpoint which has a bearing on religion. As such it functioned in a quasi religious way. In the European human rights framework, religion is paired with philosophical viewpoints. This would include "hard secular" approaches. To be truly pluralist and respectful of the rights of others, the hard secular approach has to be eschewed: it ends up imposing a particular religiously-significant stance on people who conscientiously may believe that their faith is supposed to have a public-square face.

It does require though, an acknowledgement that there are no easy answers. At least with the hard secular approach there is a clarity, even if it can be somewhat oppressive to religious actors. With a soft secular approach, the messiness of understanding, dialogue, compromise and negotiation is implied as no single solution will fit all societies and communities and over time the actors and circumstances and interpretations change, meaning that we will be engaged in constant monitoring, listening, learning and dialogue. But then, isn't that what human society is about anyway? Why should we expect religion and spirituality to be different in that respect?