The Role of Religion and State in managing cultural tensions
Speech by Hon. Jules Maaten, MEP
CALD-ALDE-LI Meeting
22 June 2006, Manila

In most European states, the relationship of religion and state is difficult and its separation was achieved - or is still being achieved - slowly and through a difficult struggle. Let us take a closer look at the interaction between state and religion, and particularly Christianity and Islam. In Europe liberals during the centuries are used to dealing with Christianity. Can we deal differently with Islam, merely because it is brought to us from outside?

Usually Liberals were instrumental in achieving separation of religion and state. Take my own country, the Netherlands, as an example:

The Netherlands had, until the end of the sixties, a system of pilarisation of society. Dutch society predominantly existed of two separated groups in society: the Protestants and Catholics and smaller groups of Liberal-Democrats and later on also the Social-Democrats. This separation in society was present in all aspects of public life. Catholics would read catholic newspapers, vote for a catholic political party, go to catholic schools and join a catholic sport club. And their political leaders bargained in and outside Parliament for an acceptable compromise for all.

The post war period determined the end of pilarisation in the Netherlands. Secularisation which started in the late ‘60s, rapidly reached peak levels. As churches became emptier, and some of them changed to bars and discos, the debate on religion in society became less and less relevant.

However, the debate about state and religion was reinvigorated by the growth of religious minorities due to immigration from the sixties onwards and later the fear for international terrorism. In the public debate at the beginning of the new millennium some politicians emphasised the negative impact of religion on the integration of minorities, while others firmly expressed their preference for, or even absoluteness of, the freedom of expression. The public debate reached its peak when in November 2004 the Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh was assassinated by an Islamic extremist with the Dutch nationality.

The murder triggered a debate on the limits to the right of freedom of expression. In the heat of this debate which focused on the one hand the right to freedom of expression and, on the other hand, the respect for religious beliefs, the Dutch Christian Democratic minister of justice even suggested to revive an obsolete law which penalised blasphemy. In a highly polarised and tense climate several politicians lives were threatened by religious extremists; opinion leaders and scientists feared for their lives when openly criticizing religious beliefs. Many of them felt themselves under threat and withdrew from public debate.

The secular state (separation of state and religion) is one of the most authentic liberal inventions. One might expect that the European Union, like most of her member states, is a secular organisation, with full respect for religious convictions of each of her citizens without any discrimination or differentiation. However, recently, the secular character of the EU was questioned once again with the possible accession of Turkey, a predominantly Muslim state, or with the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark. These debates show that a neutrality of state should not be taken for granted and is far from being a fact.

There are different religion / state traditions in different European countries. German is for all intends and purposes politically speaking a Christian country. Poland is still staunchly Catholic with a strong influence of the church. Denmark knows a state church, and so does the United Kingdom with the Church of England.  The Head of State is also Head of the Church of England. Prince William marrying a Catholic girl is unthinkable. France is a secular state, but with it own problems with religious minorities.

Yet it is impossible to reconcile the worldview of believers and unbelievers. I would argue that Western society has become in many ways a liberal society, and under attack from religious leaders of many sizes and colours. Which are the core Liberal values that we use to defend ourselves against the accusation in religious arguments that liberal societies are empty and lack values? Certainly a liberal society is not just a society where there is economic freedom and where everybody does only what they please without taking others into account.

The main core liberal value is the strength and integrity of the individual. The state's role is to protect freedoms and to create neutral conditions in order to give every individual an equal opportunity to exploit these rights. The neutral state has a purely facilitating task. However, in this claim lies a liberal paradox. Is the neutral state a state without values?

Tolerance is not seen as a strength by our opponents. Liberals by their enemies are often seen, because of their tolerance, as weak and contemptible -. What are the strengths of liberals, other than tolerance, which I see as a strength so long as one is not tolerant to the intolerant? Those liberal values are responsibility, respect, civil rights, opportunity and optimism and moral autonomy and the acceptance of human fallibility. A liberal state does have values. In any case we are not against religion - after all Stalin and Mao were atheists and look what they did. But religion has nothing to do with public policy.

In Western society, while debating the issue of separation of church and state, we have to refer to Islamic fundamentalism as well as Christian fundamentalism. Although this latter fundamentalism is often covered under the umbrella of western governments, and thus hidden, it also constitutes a danger to democratic expressions. We can refer to the relationship between American presidents and strong, conservative chruches, or the renewed interest of the Vatican to interfere in world politics and Italian referenda and recently in a vote in the European Parliament on supporting stem cell research, or on a more trivial level on whether a film like the Da Vinci Code should be allowed, or the growing number of members of evangelic movements.

To conclude, I would say that the liberal ideas of neutrality of the state and freedom of belief, very much the target of fundamentalist terrorism, should be upheld at any time. There is a need to separate organized religion and state. And this does not imply that the state should be void of values and morals. Religion is a private business. But core values of society are of a different order, and should be shared by indigenous population and immigrants alike. This is where we have often failed in the past.

Finally, we must move from the defensive to the offensive.

Liberalism was once a subversive ideology. Liberalism should not merely defend a status quo. We should go on the offensive to promote democratic values. That should be the liberal agenda for coming years. Treating religions with respect, but separating church and state, is an integral part of that agenda.