Secularism or Democracy? IMISCOE (International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion) IMISCOE is a European Commission-funded Network of Excellence of more than 350 scientists from various research institutes that specialise in migration and integration issues in Europe. These researchers, who come from all branches of the economic and social sciences, the huma- nities and law, implement an integrated, multidisciplinary and interna- tionally comparative research programme that focuses on Europe’s mi- gration and integration challenges. Within the programme, existing research is integrated and new re- search lines are developed to address issues crucial to European-level policymaking and provide a theory-based design to implement new re- search. The publication programme of IMISCOE is based on five distinct publica- tion profiles, designed to make its research and results available to scientists, policymakers and the public at large. High-quality manu- scripts written by – or in cooperation with – IMISCOE members are pub- lished in these five series. An editorial committee coordinates the re- view process of the manuscripts. The five series are: 1. Joint Studies 2. Research 3. Dissertations 4. Reports 5. Textbooks More information on the network can be found at: www.imiscoe.org. IMISCOE Research includes publications resulting from research of IMISCOE members, such as research monographs and edited volumes. Secularism or Democracy? Associational Governance of Religious Diversity Veit Bader IMISCOE Research Cover illustration: This section of tiles, entitled ‘Tres Culturas’, com- poses a panel in one of the many murals found in Frigiliana. Like others tiles seen in the villages of Andalusia’s Axarquı ́a region, it memorialises the settlement, resistance and eventual massacre of the Moriscos after the Reconquista. Photo by Veit Bader. Cover design: Studio Jan de Boer BNO , Amsterdam Layout: The DocWorkers, Almere ISBN 978 90 5356 999 3 NUR 741 / 763 © Veit Bader / Amsterdam University Press 2007 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright re- served above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or in- troduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Summary contents Preface Introduction Contested religious pluralism Part I Modern states and religions, sociological and historical considerations: setting the stage 1 Secularisation and separation? Institutional diversity of religious governance Part II Reconceptualising principles and making political philosophy fit for the task of accommodating religious diversity 2 Contextualising morality: moral minimalism, relational neutrality, fairness as even-handedness 3 Priority for liberal democracy or secularism? Why I am not a secularist Part III Dilemmas and limits of accommodation, principles and cases: applying moral minimalism 4 Religious freedoms and other human rights, moral conundrums and hard cases 5 Relational neutrality and even-handedness towards religions: softer cases and symbolic issues Part IV Institutional models of democracy and religious governance: associative democracy 6 Moderately agonistic democracy, democratic institutional pluralism, associative democracy and the incorporation of minorities 7 Normative models of religious governance: associative democracy, a moral defence 8 Dilemmas of institutionalisation; associative democracy, church autonomy and equal treatment of religions 9 A realistic defence of associative democracy 10 Associative democracy and education Conclusions Notes References Index of names Index of subjects 6 SECULARISM OR DEMOCRACY ? Detailed contents Summary contents 5 Detailed contents 7 Preface 13 Introduction: Contested religious pluralism 17 Part I Modern states and religions, sociological and historical considerations: setting the stage 33 1 Secularisation and separation? Institutional diversity of religious governance 35 1.1 Religions and religion 36 1.2 Secularisation 39 1.2.1 Decline of religion(s)? 41 1.2.2 Individualisation, subjectivisation, and privatisation of religion(s)? 43 1.2.2.1 ‘Individualisation’ or ‘subjectivisation’? 43 1.2.2.2 Privatisation of religions? 44 1.2.3 Minimal or complete differentiation? 46 1.2.4 Conclusions 48 1.3 Institutional diversity of religious governance in recent Western states 49 1.3.1 Governance and government of religious diversity 49 1.3.2 Path-dependent patterns and regimes of religious governance in the West 50 1.3.3 Institutional diversity of Western governmental regimes 53 1.3.3.1 Constitutional regimes 54 1.3.3.2 Constitutional reality 54 1.3.3.3 Legal status of (organised) religions 55 1.3.3.4 Autonomy of churches and religious communities 56 1.3.3.5 Financing of religions 58 1.3.3.6 Regulation and financing of faith-based educational institutions 58 1.3.3.7 Regulation and financing of religious instruction in public schools 59 1.3.3.8 Regulation and financing of faith-based care and social service organisations 60 1.3.3.9 An emerging European regime of religious governance? 61 1.4 Lessons for political philosophers 62 Part II Reconceptualising principles and making political philosophy fit for the task of accommodating religious diversity 65 2 Contextualising morality: moral minimalism, relational neutrality, and fairness as even-handedness 67 2.1 ‘A view from nowhere’ or relativism? Moderate universalism 68 2.2 Moral minimalism and differentiated moral standards 70 2.2.1 Autonomy or toleration 73 2.2.2 Liberalism and/or democracy: democratic temptations 78 2.2.3 Moral minimalism’s problems 79 2.3 Moderate anti-perfectionism and relational neutrality 82 2.4 Fairness as even-handedness 86 2.5 Contextualised morality 89 2.6 A plea for an institutionalist turn 92 3 Priority for liberal democracy or secularism? Why I am not a secularist 93 3.1 Contextualising secularism: should liberal-democratic states be secular and, if so, in which sense? 95 3.1.1 Historical contextualisation 95 3.1.2 Structural contextualisation: different kinds of threats 98 3.1.3 Societal and cultural secularisation and strategic issues 100 3.2 First-order justifications: ethical and political secularism? 102 3.3 Second-order justifications: secular, independent political ethics? 104 3.4 Priority for liberal democracy 109 3.4.1 Freedoms of political communication 110 3.4.2 Anti-paternalist decision-making 112 3.5 Philosophical foundationalism or priority for democracy? 113 3.6 Religions and democracy 117 3.7 Priority for democracy vs. religious challenges 122 8 SECULARISM OR DEMOCRACY ? Part III Dilemmas and limits of accommodation, principles and cases: applying moral minimalism 127 4 Religious freedoms and other human rights, moral conundrums and hard cases 129 4.1 Religious freedoms 130 4.1.1 Religious freedom, religious freedoms 130 4.1.2 Negative freedoms of religion 131 4.1.3 Negative and positive freedoms 133 4.1.4 Positive freedoms and equal treatment of religions 134 4.2 Groups, conflicts and issues 136 4.2.1 Minorities 136 4.2.2 Issues 138 4.2.3 Three theoretical and political options 138 4.3 Associational freedoms versus nondiscrimination and equal opportunities 141 4.3.1 Nondiscrimination and the shield of privacy 142 4.3.2 Religious versus economic organisations 143 4.3.3 Central versus peripheral activities to faith 144 4.3.4 Unduly disadvantaging outsiders 145 4.3.5 Dangers of public scrutiny and financing 145 4.4 Modern criminal law versus nomos of certain ethno- religious groups 148 4.5 Religious versus civic marriage and divorce law 150 5 Relational neutrality and even-handedness towards religions: softer cases and symbolic issues 153 5.1 Practical and symbolic accommodation: claims, resistance and policy responses 153 5.2 Education and religious diversity 155 5.2.1 Content of education, curricular pluralisation 157 5.2.1.1 Religious education and instruction in governmental schools 158 5.2.1.2 Publicly financed non-governmental religious schools 160 5.2.2 Pedagogy and educational cultures 162 5.3 Pragmatic accommodation of religious minority practices 164 5.4 Highly or purely symbolic issues 166 5.5 Representation in the political process 171 DETAILED CONTENTS 9 Part IV Institutional models of democracy and religious governance: associative democracy 175 6 Moderately agonistic democracy, democratic institutional pluralism, associative democracy and the incorporation of minorities 179 6.1 Moderately agonistic democracy: virtues and institutions 179 6.1.1 Civic and democratic virtues: why minimalism? 180 6.1.2 Seedbeds of liberal-democratic virtues 183 6.2 Institutional models of democracy: degrees and types of institutional pluralism 185 6.3 Associative democracy 188 6.4 Incorporation of ethno-religious diversity 189 6.4.1 Ethno-religious diversity and state neutrality. Is religious diversity really so different from ethnic diversity? 189 6.4.2Models of incorporation of minorities into democratic polities 193 6.5 Regimes of institutional pluralism 195 6.5.1 Non-democratic institutional pluralism 195 6.5.2 Democratic institutional pluralism and associative democracy 198 7 Normative models of religious governance: associative democracy, a moral defence 201 7.1 Normative models of religious governance 201 7.2 Why religious associative democracy? Stating the claims and objections 203 7.2.1 Religious institutional pluralism (selective cooperation) and non-establishment/private pluralism (separationism) 204 7.2.2 Varieties of Religious Institutional Pluralism (RIP) 206 7.2.3 Varieties of non-constitutional pluralism and associative democracy 208 7.3 Associative democracy and individual autonomy 210 7.3.1 Freedom of entry 210 7.3.2 Exit 212 7.4 Associative democracy and (modern) democracy 214 7.4.1 Political representation of (organised) religions 215 7.4.2 Why associative democracy is conducive to the flourishing of representative political democracy 217 7.4.2.1 Exit, voice and loyalty 218 7.4.2.2 Limits of democratic congruence: AD and minorities within minorities 219 10 SECULARISM OR DEMOCRACY ? 8 Dilemmas of institutionalisation: associative democracy, church autonomy and equal treatment of religions 223 8.1 Claims making, organisation, negotiations and selective cooperation 223 8.2 Differential opportunity structures; selective recognition and cooperation 226 8.3 Dilemmas and strategic problems for religions 227 8.4 Dilemmas and strategic problems for liberal states 229 8.5 Representative Muslim organisations in Europe and the US 231 8.5.1 Institutionalisation of Islam in Europe 231 8.5.2 Institutionalisation of Islam in the US 234 8.6 Associative democracy, church autonomy, legal and substantive equal treatment 237 8.6.1 Church autonomy or selective recognition and cooperation? 238 8.6.2Equality, selectivity, legitimate and illegitimate exclusions 238 9 A realistic defence of associative democracy 245 9.1 Context-independent vicious effects: undermining stability? 246 9.2 Undermining social cohesion and political unity? 247 9.3 Undermining civic and democratic virtues? 247 9.4 Separate institutions and ‘parallel societies’? Undermining beneficial inter-religious everyday interactions? 249 9.5 Public schools, political parties, workplace interactions 251 9.6 Everyday interactions in public spaces 254 9.7 Creating religious fundamentalism or terrorism? 256 9.8 Is assiociative democracy feasible in all contexts? 259 10 Associative democracy and education 263 10.1 Democratic versus pluralist education? 266 10.2 Parents or the state? Division of educational authority 268 10.3 Teaching virtues: civic minimalism or democratic maximalism? 269 10.4 Learning virtues: education, segregation (bonding) or inclusion (bridging)? 272 10.5 Social justice and equality and religious schools: no aid or fairly equal public funding? 276 10.6 Public regulation and control 279 10.7 Associative democracy, standard setting and control 283 10.8 Monopoly for governmental schools or libertarian market archipelagos? Regime pluralism: the case for associative democracy 286 DETAILED CONTENTS 11 10.9 Educational design and practical democratic experimentalism 288 Conclusions 291 Notes 301 References 347 Index of names 367 Index of subjects 375 12 SECULARISM OR DEMOCRACY ? Preface This book on the governance of religious diversity is written from a methodologically areligious perspective that is characteristic of sociol- ogy and political philosophy. However, it seems appropriate to start with a personal ‘confession’: in a traditional sense, I am religio ̈s unmusi- kalisch – to use Max Weber’s famous phrase. I also do not feel the need to stylise my attraction or even my awe for complexity, diversity and contingency – the postmodern versions of traditional poly- or panthe- ism – into an ‘immanentist counter-metaphysics’. As an observer , on the one hand, I am bewildered by the unnameable atrocities that have been and are still being committed in the name of monotheisms and its secular counterparts such as National Socialism or Marxism- Leninism, as well as in the name of polytheisms – suum cuique origin- ally meant Jedem seine Hekatomben – and its secular counterparts, such as rivalling nationalisms. On the other hand, I acknowledge that much praiseworthy good has been and is still being done by committed reli- gious and non-religious believers in symbolic universes of all kinds. As political theorists and citizens, we clearly have to counterbalance the polytheistic praise of diversity with the monotheistic guarantees of equality, as is so nicely phrased in the slogan: all different, all equal. As people trying to live meaningful lives, we may eventually learn to resist the temptations of all integrated, coherent and all-embracing symbolic universes, whether religious or secular (the sacralisation of the world in secularist and scientistic ideologies). Eventually, we might be able to live with finitude, mortality, contingency and diversity with- out trying to fill the empty space left by traditional religions and posi- tive metaphysics with old or new substitutes like pantheism or an im- manentist positive metaphysics – praising ‘god in nature’s endless and incredible complexity and beauty’ – aestheticism, or old or new ver- sions of negative theology or negative dialectics, even if ‘pianissimo’ (as the most privatised and ‘subjectified’ varieties of this old desire) or some ‘horizontal transcendentalism’ (the unnameable ‘Other’ in all of us). We can live without a ‘future for such illusions’ and without re- peating heroically that ‘God is Dead’ or being condemned to an abyss of ‘materialism’, ‘egotism’, ‘individualism’, ‘consumerism’, ‘decisionism’ or what have you. In short, we might, eventually, become mature. This already suggests that I defend religious diversity and its associa- tional governance not for religious or perfectionist reasons as an ethi- cally preferable way of life but for moderately anti-perfectionist moral reasons of justice. My hope is that individuals – religious or secular or those beyond the religious/secular divide – may be able to realise their divergent individual and collective life projects under conditions of peace, toleration and secure basic needs and rights for all, conditions that are fair, i.e. not too unequal for the respective minorities. I would like to express my thanks for comments by participants and, particularly for written comments on theses for the book or on articles or earlier versions of chapters presented at the following conferences, symposia or workshops: – ‘Recasting European and Canadian History’ (ENCS Conference, Bremen, 18-21 May 2000; Erik Fossum); – ‘Should We Institutionalize Religious Pluralism and, if so, How?’ (Amsterdam, 30 June 2001; particularly Paul Hirst, Tariq Modood, Heiner Bielefeldt); – ‘Ethno-Religious Cultures, Identities and Political Philosophy. Con- textualised Morality: Problems and Prospects’ (Amsterdam, 2-5 July 2002; David Hollinger); – ‘Public Religion and Secular Democracy’ (IMISCOE B6 workshop, Amsterdam 26-28 May 2005; Michael Minkenberg); – ‘Religion and Multicultural Citizenship’ (Sydney, 11-13 July), and – many meetings in my department at the University of Amsterdam and the Dutch Research School of Practical Philosophy (Hent de Vries, Ruth Sonderegger, Bart van Leeuwen, Sawitri Saharso, Michiel Leezenberg, Karel van der Leeuw). For detailed written comments on some chapters of the many drafts of the manuscript, I am indebted to Rainer Baubo ̈ck, Joe Carens, Jac Christis, Geoff Levey, Marcel Maussen, Rob Reich and Lucas Swaine. Last but not least, my friends and colleagues Ewald Engelen, Ton Korver, Pieter Pekelharing and Luuk Wijmans from Amsterdam, and Frank Cunningham and Will Kymlicka from Canada have commented on all of the chapters in the first long draft (and some also on many chapters in the later drafts) and helped me to drastically shorten the manuscript. Words cannot express my gratefulness for the time and energy they spent in their close readings and for the sophistication of their comments, criticisms and suggestions of all sorts. For reasons of space, I am unable to refer in detail to any of those whose elucidations, annotations, and proposals to either elaborate or delete, so much 14 SECULARISM OR DEMOCRACY ? helped me to improve my text. All remaining errors and shortcomings are mine. Many thanks also to Ewald, Pieter, Ton, and Ulla for their encourage- ment and moral support during the long and difficult journey of writ- ing, rewriting and trimming the manuscript, particularly during those times when I was losing my confidence. My thanks also to the Dutch Science Foundation (NWO) for a grant (‘ onderwijsvrijstellingssubsidie’) in the first semester of 2004-2005 and for a grant for the English editing, to Ron Salfrais for editing, and also to Ottho Heldring for taking over one of my courses in the first seme- ster of 2005-06, which allowed me to finish the manuscript. Many core ideas of the book have already been published in articles on religious and cultural diversity, multiculturalism, institutional plur- alism and associative democracy in journals or volumes but the texts have been substantively rewritten, integrated and also slightly revised during my research and writing of the book. My morally minimalist position that slowly developed during the later 1990s became particu- larly more determined and outspoken. In addition, I gave more weight to the libertarian element in the combination of libertarian, democratic and egalitarian perspectives, which, since the late 1980s, led me to call my position a ‘libertarian, democratic socialism’, an oxymoron in the ears of traditional philosophers and politicians. PREFACE 15 Introduction: Contested religious pluralism Until the 1990s, the view that religious pluralism had caused deep troubles for centuries but has now ceased to create structural problems for political practice and political theory in modern state societies was absolutely predominant in politics, political philosophy and the sociol- ogy of religion after the Second World War. Religiously motivated or le- gitimised wars and civil wars were ‘far behind us’. The principle of reli- gious tolerance is widely recognised, and the institutions and practices of toleration are deeply rooted. Established churches no longer have the power and authority they once did. Moreover, in many of these so- cieties, the differentiation of religion from economy, politics, science and education is a major part of their organising schemes and constitu- tions. Religious convictions are matters of private decisions, and com- peting religious organisations do not interfere in politics, having lost or given up their public or political roles. Liberal, democratic, republican, socialist, feminist or otherwise ‘progressive’ political parties share the assumption that modern states are ‘secular’ states that require a strict constitutional, legal, administrative, political and cultural separation of state from organised religions In normative theory, particularly in poli- tical philosophy, there has been wide and deep agreement on principles of tolerance and religious freedoms, i.e. that liberal-democratic regimes should be neutral with regard to religions, that politics should be ‘secu- lar’ in their justifications and effects, and that religious organisations and convictions should only be allowed to play a role in ‘private’ life or in civil society. In predominant theories of modern societies as well as in the sociology of religion, it was also taken for granted that modern state societies are ‘secularised’, and that this requires a complete se- paration of religion from all other functionally differentiated social sys- tems and organisations, particularly from the political system and the state. This predominant view of the relationship between religion and state could easily acknowledge that things are still different in pre-modern and modernising state societies in the ‘rest of the world’. Although its core assumptions were never left unchallenged even in the West, the predominant view has only fairly recently started to show more serious cracks. The thesis that religious beliefs and practices would inevitably decline, based on evidence in Western Europe, clearly does not hold for the US and ‘the Rest’. The thesis that all religious concerns and wor- ries will only be limited to and pertain to the private realm is contra- dicted by their recent widespread presence in the public realm. Cur- rently, conservative and fundamentalist religions as well as progressive religions are re-politicising ‘private’ relations and re-normativising the economic and political spheres. The thesis that modern societies would require a ‘strict separation’ of organised religions and politics is even incompatible with existing patterns in the US and France. It is clearly at odds with the continuing huge institutional diversity in other Wes- tern countries and in the ‘rest’ of the world. This counterevidence, which has been gathered and presented by cri- tical sociology and the history of religions for quite a while now, has gained at least some recognition in politics because considerable num- bers of immigrants contributed to make lively ethno-religious diversity increasingly visible since the 1960s. The politics of multiculturalism tried to accommodate ethno-national diversity in different countries in divergent ways. Here, they contributed to some pluralisation of public cultures and also to a reconsideration by critical liberals and postmo- dernists of basic assumptions of standard liberalism in political philo- sophy, such as principles of ‘difference-blind’ state neutrality and of unitary citizenship. The relationship between religion and politics, however, was largely neglected in the literature on multiculturalism. This was the case, despite the fact that new religious minorities have been making increasingly politicised claims, starting with the demand for practical accommodation of their religious practices (codes of dress, prayer, diets, slaughtering and burial) by way of exemptions. These de- mands then went on to include some autonomy in organised societal spheres (like non-governmental religious schools or religious instruc- tion in governmental schools), demanding that states pluralise educa- tion, the media, public cultures and symbols of national identity. Final- ly, the most demanding include some form of group representation and participation in the political process. In this way, religious issues became central political issues again, and most states with liberal-de- mocratic constitutions started to accommodate claims that could mobi- lise moral and legal support by referring to legally binding rights such as freedom of religion, equal treatment and anti-discrimination. Both the political demands and grievances of religious minorities and the re- sponses by governments have been influenced by widely diverging re- gimes of governance of religious diversity. However, at least for a short while, it seemed as if increased religious diversity – and even new forms of institutionalisation of religious pluralism – could be seen not only in a dramatised and negative way, i.e. as a threat to peace, security, stability, cohesion, toleration and democracy, but also as an opportunity 18 SECULARISM OR DEMOCRACY ? and a promise. These practical developments also eventually entered political theory in the 1990s and it looked as if the standard assump- tions of the predominant view might lose force and could be con- tained. All of this has dramatically changed since 9/11 and the ‘war against (Islamist) terrorism’, or so it seems. Religion is certainly now again right in the centre of politics in this declared clash of civilisations. The predictable result seems to be that (generally) liberal policies of accom- modation are increasingly under pressure, but particularly those aim- ing to pluralise public cultures and symbols and especially institutions. At the same time, intentionally or unintentionally, declared religious divides have deepened at the international level. Old constellations and battle lines in Europe from the 16 th and 17 th centuries have been revitalised and ‘Enlightenment’ rationalists and evangelists of an aggressive secularism venture to present themselves as the only reasonable people fighting both fundamentalist and conser- vative religionists as well as the ‘progressive liberal’ multiculturalists and postmodernists. In addition, they present their preferred institu- tional option – a fully secularised state together with a ‘strict’ separa- tion of state and politics from completely privatised religions – as the only reasonable solution to preventing religious warfare and guarantee- ing peace, security, toleration and democracy. The more simple-minded adherents of these views propose that ‘all the world has to become America’ or try to export ‘the French model of laı ̈cite ́ ’ as the alternative to ‘Anglo-Saxon’ liberal multiculturalism and to ‘neo-corporatist’ Eur- opean religious regimes. The more sophisticated voices continue to re- mind their compatriots that they themselves do not live up to these ideals and constitutional promises but they try to sell the same utopia. I strongly believe that these are the wrong constellations, the wrong alternatives and the wrong battle lines being raised in politics . In this book, I argue for a third way, defending two major political claims. First, policies of liberal accommodation of religious and cultural diver- sity are a better alternative than both the old and new republican or lib- eral policies of assimilation and the unlimited toleration of religious and cultural practices incompatible with the hard core of liberal-demo- cratic constitutions. Second, democratic institutional pluralism and as- sociative democracy in particular provides better institutional opportu- nities to the realisation of peace, toleration and core principles of liber- al democratic constitutions than, on the one hand, the strict separation of organised religions from a presumed ‘religion-blind’ and strictly ‘neutral’ state defended by standard liberalism and republicanism and, on the other hand, the religious (neo-)corporatism (illiberal and anti-de- mocratic institutional pluralism and rigid ‘pillarisation’) defended by traditionalist and orthodox religious organisations and leaders. INTRODUCTION : CONTESTED RELIGIOUS PLURALISM 19