A world safe for diversity?

In December, under the auspices of the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life, Dr. Os Guinness spoke at the House of Lords. His topic was that of the defence of religious liberty in an age of increasing pluralism. The following article is based on notes of that meeting.

Dr. Guinness began by alluding to the fact that freedom of conscience historically emerged perhaps first in England as an issue through people of faith.

A serious problem

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, often seen as ‘the secularist’s bible’, was signed 62 years ago. Article 18 of the Declaration on Religious Liberty is currently either the most neglected or most contested part of the document.

This situation has come about through the violence of some extremist religious groups and the intransigence of some religious states. In the West, for the past many years, we have been witnessing the so-called ‘Culture Wars’ over the place of religion in public life. Secularists press for religious faith to be excluded from public life. Religious people argue that this is unfair. How are people of different religions and worldviews going to live together? How can harmony emerge amidst such diversity? This represents a huge global challenge.

In recent decades there has been a religious resurgence across the world. Some date this to the Iranian revolution of 1979 but others trace it back further. The influence of Islam has grown, as have other religions alongside an explosive growth of Christian faith in many regions of the world.

Simultaneously with the religious resurgence, developments in communications and media as well as cheaper and faster travel, have meant that we have seen the arrival of the global public square. Whereas, in ancient Greece, the public square was the place where the concerns of the city were debated, now with internet technology the whole world knows the whole world’s business. We all know what is going on more or less everywhere. Perhaps with the Wikileaks revelations in mind, Dr. Guinness said: ‘Even if we are not speaking to the world we are heard by the world’.

Enlightenment expectations

The religious resurgence has been directly contrary to what the founding fathers of the Enlightenment expected. They saw religion as something from the ‘dark ages’ of the past. They assumed it would die a natural death with the passing of time. They confined religion to the private sphere. What they saw as ‘reason’ alone was to rule the public square. Religion was only identified by them as a ‘problem’. It was an anachronism which hindered human progress. Secularism gained ground in Europe, the cradle of the Enlightenment, and it was imagined that as Europe went, so the whole world would go.

But that has not happened. Rather, from a global perspective, it is Europe itself which has become the exception. It is the United States which more truly mirrors the situation of the world as a whole. And in the United States religion is very much alive and kicking.

To make religion inviolably private and to exclude it from the public square is a stance which is, of course, highly illiberal and undemocratic. (This stance is extremely alienating for the religious person and hardly calculated to make them feel part of society.) However, religious people do not always help the cause of faith in modern society. The security problems fostered by religious terrorists have hardened many secularists into identifying religion only as a problem. Now we have the emergence of extreme secularists (like Richard Dawkins) who show great vehemence against religion. All this takes us back to the critical nature of our question as to how we can order free societies which are at the same time diverse.

Broad options

There are three possible alternatives. These are the Sacred Public Square; the Naked Public Square and the Civil Public Square.

The Sacred Public Square is where there is an established religion which is given preference. Here we might think of countries like Saudi Arabia where the death penalty still pertains for those who leave Islam. The Naked Public Square is one in which there is a strict exclusion of all religion from public life. Here we might think of a land like China. These are situations which do not allow for modern diversity and prove unworkable except through the exercise of force. Freedom is lost. (The following day the Nobel Peace Prize was to be presented in Oslo to an absent Liu Xiaobo, held in prison in China as a dissident for challenging the Communist Party’s right to run a one party state. This was in the minds of the audience as we listened to Dr. Guinness.)

Perhaps no one settlement will suit all situations. However, we should work towards a Civil Public Square. This is a vision of public life in which everyone of all faiths or none is free to engage in public life on the basis of their faith within a politically settled framework. Here everyone would have rights, responsibilities and respect for others. It is a ‘civil’ society. A right for an atheist is a right for a Christian is a right for a Muslim is a right for a Hindu is a right for a Jew, etc. In the Civil Public Square one has the right to speak from one’s own faith, but would need to make arguments which carry weight with everyone.

(It is how to bring about a politically settled framework in which all agree to operate which is the major challenge. In discussion following the lecture, Dr. Guinness used the following analogy which he hoped would hold true. Perhaps a country with 100 different religions can be likened to 100 different trees in a field all with different roots. But as the trees grow the foliage would come to overlap and so provide some kind of shade shared by all.)

Dr. Guinness said that the key matter here is to see the importance of respect for conscience. Freedom of conscience is the first freedom. Freedom of speech means nothing unless we are allowed to speak according to our conscience. Freedom of association means nothing unless we are free to share the things that matter to us. Respect for freedom of conscience thus acts as the wellspring of civil society and the key to social harmony.

Three clarifications

We are looking for a Civil Public Square. But civility sounds like a weak word in the ears of many contemporary people. We need to avoid misunderstanding it.

Firstly, some think the only way to get civility is to engage in inter-faith dialogue and come up with a lowest common denominator of beliefs which may be used as a framework within which we can all work. But that will not work. The differences between the world’s religions and worldviews are ultimate and absolute. Though there is nothing wrong with inter-faith dialogue, in practice it is of limited use.

Secondly, civility does not mean a false toleration. The right to believe anything does not mean that whatever is believed is right. There must be a commitment to reasoned argument. There must be openness to civil persuasion.

Thirdly, civility is not to be confused with politically correct sensitivity. The PC agenda has been picked up on and harnessed by many Muslims to argue that Islam should be protected by law from all criticism. But freedom of conscience is a protection not of beliefs but of believers. This is a crucial distinction. To insist that we cannot criticise the beliefs of others, and let them criticise ours, is to radically depart from the idea of the Civil Public Square. It will lead to the destruction of freedom of speech.

What is to be done?

How can we work towards a constructive solution of producing a Civil Public Square?

First, we need to pursue the ideals laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially Article 18, through moral suasion. We must proceed via reasoned argument and winsomeness rather than by threats or force.

Second and subsequent, there must be legal implementation. Rights are not a matter only of law, but they do need to be enshrined in law.

Third, and most importantly, there must be civil education. A Civil Public Square emerges as respecting others and engaging with them in a responsible way becomes a habit of the heart. It is this civil education which has fallen on hard times in the contemporary world. (It has been said that the 20th century was ‘The Century of the Self’ and that we now live in the ‘Me’ generation.) Freedom is a right but still everyone has to be educated to use freedom responsibly. It is a mistake to think that we can guarantee freedom and civility by law alone. The law alone, by itself, is too blunt an instrument.

Conclusion

Today, Britain, where religious tolerance emerged in the 17th century, has become a confused society. At a time when Article 18 is so neglected or contested, we need a global declaration of freedom of conscience. Enormous problems face the world which must be addressed. The Civil Public Square is the way for there to be global governance without the spectre of a global government.

Some futurologists call the current generation ‘the Crunch Generation’. By this they mean that many major issues which have festered beneath the surface are coming out into the open, coming together and colliding on the people of this generation. Will there be the wisdom necessary to steer the world towards freedom or will totalitarianisms of various stripes (be they religious or secular) be seen as the only solution? The great French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: ‘With a revolution as with a novel the hardest part to invent is the ending’.

John Benton

(The words in brackets in the text represent my own thoughts rather than the words of the lecture.)