Divisions over Sharia law and Catholic schools could be avoided, argues SAM GHIBALDAN, if Britain decided to go secular
AS A reality TV show it might be hard to beat. Take some members of every religion, mix in atheists and agnostics and send them all to live on a desert island for a couple of years. Sink or swim; they'd have to decide how to live and work together. T
he more extreme would try to assert themselves; the more reasonable would look on aghast. Heated discussion, arguments and possibly violence would follow. It could go either way; they'd find a way of living together or chaos would result.
How to govern a society and the role religion should have within it is a vexed question. Recently two significant figures have entered the debate: Alex Salmond declared that we should celebrate state-funded Catholic schools and the Archbishop of Canterbury argued that aspects of Sharia law should be adopted in the UK. Both intended to promote diversity; but by drawing inspiration from the historical practice of linking religion and the state they risk undermining it.
British history is littered with the consequences of religiously inspired government. Seeking to root out heretics, Protestants and Catholics spent a few hundred years inflicting nasty judicially sanctioned murders on each other. The combination of power and religion in Northern Ireland proved a lethal cocktail. Look further afield and similar patterns can be seen around the world.
Times have changed. Nowadays no-one would seriously suggest that Catholic schools or a debate on Sharia law would lead to state terror. But there is a general lesson from history about the risk of the state conferring special status to one or more religions; other groups feel marginalised. It's a vicious cycle. When one religion is preferred, others become alienated and react, organising to improve their lot. The dominant religion responds by entrenching its position. Fear of alien ways is the cause, division the result.
Since Catholic emancipation in the early 19th century, religious discrimination has been frowned upon in the UK. Slowly the state has circumscribed the role of religion in government, but almost pretends that it's not happening. In a very British way our approach is muddled. The historical religious trappings of statehood – the monarch, head of the Church of England, constitutionally barred from being Catholic; bishops with seats in the House of Lords – are retained as a polite veil. These traditions may not be accompanied by significant power, but they still proclaim that Protestantism is the official state religion. In our diverse society, it is difficult to see any continuing justification to retain that status for one religion at the risk of marginalising others.
Of course, the last decade has seen right to belief – alongside other questions of individual freedom, not least sexuality – enshrined in law. But during the Blair years questions of faith became more contentious. In England, the former prime minister's education policy controversially encouraged an increasing number of state-funded religious schools. Extreme Christians tried to ban plays using ancient blasphemy laws. Terrorism and cultural differences – not least the veil – saw tensions escalate over Islam, despite concerted efforts by government and others to avoid them. Some Muslims felt marginalised by what they perceived as a Christian state; others viewed the Iraq war as one waged against their fellow believers.
For the first time in decades, religion is controversial again. Our UK halfway house – a religiously tolerant state, confused by an official religion, state-funded religious schools and anachronistic laws – is in a bit of a mess. Surely we'd all benefit from some clarity?
There is an alternative. Secular states – with governments legally separated from religion – exist in some surprising places: Turkey, the US and France. In those countries religion is alive and kicking. Nepal relinquished its status as the world's only Hindu kingdom in favour of being a secular state, a move welcomed by Catholics, Buddhists and Muslims.
Abroad, religious leaders often prefer a secular state as it gives them freedom to worship without discrimination. None are favoured, so neither are any marginalised – legally at least. Secular states are not anti-religious; they simply separate themselves from organised belief. They treat religion as a matter of individual conscience, one the state should not interfere with.
In an age of conflict between two strands of Christianity, Britain eventually adopted an approach of toleration. We are now a society that includes adherents of a multiplicity of beliefs and none. Like our reality TV island dwellers, we have to find a way of reflecting reality that works. Seeking to incorporate all religions and their legal codes in a single system would be ludicrous; besides, atheists and agnostics would rightly feel justified in rejecting such an approach. The logical thing to do is to fully separate religion and government. We're halfway there; let's go all the way and declare the UK a secular state.
For the religious, atheists and agnostics there are real advantages; they'd all be on an equal footing. The evidence of other countries is that the number of believers would not suddenly fall; but it would help reinforce diversity. Toleration is no longer good enough; equality is essential.
People are people, after all; there are plenty of principles that unite us, needs we all share. They surely are what the state should concern itself with. Leave questions of belief to individuals; allow them the freedom to worship or not.
Perhaps inadvertently, the First Minister and the Archbishop have initiated a timely debate; the Prime Minister has talked of introducing a written constitution. Enshrining within it the secular nature of the UK would help protect diversity and equality. Religious and political leaders might just find that such an approach would attract overwhelming public support.
The participants on our desert island TV show might just reach a similar conclusion, working together to meet the needs they share and allowing very individual to pursue their own beliefs without judgment or interference. Of course, such a harmonious approach would kill the ratings.
