SMOKERS’ CORNER: AT THE CROSSROADS OF SECULARISM AND ISLAM

Nadeem F. Paracha 

Published January 8, 2023 

Illustration by Abro

The South Asian Islamist theorist Abul Ala Maududi (d.1979) detested secularism. His ideas went a long way in constructing what came to be known as ‘Political Islam’. These ideas also influenced a number of Islamist ideologues outside South Asia.

A synthesis began to emerge when Maududi’s ideas engaged with Islamist ideologues in Arabia and Iran. At the core of the synthesis was an impassioned castigation of secularism. It was denounced as being a European concept that was inherently anti-religion.

But non-Islamist scholarship and studies on secularism in the last three decades have demonstrated that there are various kinds of secularism within the Western world. The same scholarship also maintains that secularism as an idea or its implementation in non-Western regions has deeper roots in those regions’ own histories and conditions.

The baseline thought behind secularism is the state’s neutrality towards religion. In various European countries, this thought has evolved to mean the right to practise religion as long as this right is not abused to challenge the writ of the state and disrupt the democratic contract between the state and society.

Islamist ideologues often posit secularism as being against Islam. However, an exploration of the history of Western secularism reveals that the problem is often with the Islamists’ cherry-picked interpretations

The state is to remain religion-neutral, treating religion as a citizen’s personal matter. The state can only intervene if it establishes that the matter has become publicly problematic and is causing discord.

This strand of secularism is the product of 17th and 18th century Enlightenment — a period in Europe and in the US that emphasised the importance of reason, science and material progress over ‘superstition’, monarchism, clericalism, traditionalism, etc. Most Enlightenment thinkers advocated the separation of the Church and the state. However, they did not call for the obliteration of religion.

They wanted religious texts to be ‘disenchanted’ and/or simplified and freed from superstition. The Enlightenment thinkers wanted religion to operate as a constructive social current (instead of an impediment) in an era of rapid political, economic and social changes.

So why did most Islamist ideologues explain Western secularism as anti-religion? I think it was a case of cherry-picking. They chose to focus more on the idea of secularism that emerged in France during the tumultuous 1789-99 revolution in that country.

Revolutionary French secularism was the product of a strong anti-clerical current in French society. Most common folk and intellectuals in France had accused the nexus between the monarchy and the Church as being entirely exploitative and the main culprit behind the country’s economic woes.

Compared to other European countries and the US, the strand of republicanism in France was more intense. During the revolutionary period, priests and clerics were violently persecuted, until the arrival of Napoleon Bonaparte, who restored order. Nevertheless, republicanism in France remained strong.



The US political scientist Elizabeth Hurd differentiates secularisms in the US and most European countries from French secularism, which is also referred to as ‘laïcite’. According to Hurd, the former strand of secularism seeks to preserve the liberties of citizens to think, organise and worship (or not) as they wish; whereas laïcite gives priority to the state and to common national identity over religion. But it is in no way anti-religion.

Many Islamists also mistook the overt anti-religion policies of some former communist regimes as secularism. Scholars of secularism desist from calling these regimes secular because they often tried to suppress established religions with an, albeit atheistic, creed built around a cult of personality.

Another flaw in the Islamists’ perceptions of secularism was their assumption that it was an entirely Western construct. Early Islamist thinkers were shocked when the Turkish nationalist Kamal Ataturk abolished the Ottoman caliphate and declared Turkey to be a modern republic. Indeed, Ataturk was influenced by French republicanism, but his secularisation policies were largely rooted in the political and economic turmoil that his country had plunged into in the 19th century.

When European powers began to encroach upon the political and economic interests of the Ottomans, it was the caliphate which responded by secularising many legal and social aspects of the empire. From 1839, the caliphate began to roll out a series of reforms. The reforms were introduced to sustain the empire and meet the changing needs of Ottoman society.

Therefore, Ataturk evolved something that was already in motion. This produced a secularism that was formulated to suit Turkish society. Turkish intellectuals, such as the sociologist Ziya Gokalp, played a prominent role in arguing for a secular Turkish nationalism as a way to address economic and political turmoil in Turkey. He contributed in coining the word ‘laiklik’ for Turkish secularism.

Unlike European and US secularisms, Turkish secularism was not religion-neutral. Instead, it gave the state the power to monopolise Islam and regulate it in the public sphere. It accepted Islam as being Turkey’s major religion, but one that was to be regulated according to the country’s modern nationalist and republican aspirations.

Indian secularism too was formulated according to India’s nationalist aspirations. It took into account the country’s religiously diverse society. Indian secularism is not about expunging religion from the public sphere, as such. It is about treating all Indians as equal citizens, no matter what their religion. It’s another thing that Hindu nationalists are of the view that Indian secularism is tilted more towards benefitting non-Hindus. They want to see it gone, or at least recognise India’s Hindu majority.

In Muslim-majority Pakistan, its founders conceptualised a project in which Islam was not used as a theocratic expression, but as a concept to formulate a political identity and nationalism.

According to the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, when religion is used to formulate a nationalist idea or identity, the ritual and theological aspects of the faith decrease. Taylor sees this as part of the secularisation process. During the first two decades of Pakistan, the state formulated a secularism which saw the state regulate Islam in the public sphere, but continue using it as a nationalist expression.

This strand of secularism also took shape in various other Muslim-majority nation-states. Islamists abhorred it, because it limited their participation in the project. Therefore, they began to explain it as a Western concept and anti-Islam, before barging in (from the 1970s onwards) and redirecting the project’s orientation towards building a more Islamist nationalism.

Published in Dawn, EOS, January 8th, 2023

Why the new French secularism is no longer exportable

Sari Hanafi 

MIDDLE EAST EYE
3 August 2023 

Despite the merits of 'historical secularism' promoted by France around the world, the exclusionary and divisive character of the 'new secularism' has undermined its universality

Two women at a march in Paris against Islamophobia on 10 November 2019,

 following an attack on a mosque in Bayonne, France (Reuters)

The recent exclusionary policies in France have led many to question French new secularism and the problems inherent in its imposition on societies both within and outside of the country.

French secularism is not what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. While its main tenet, which guarantees individual freedom and equality, is still perfectly universal, there is no sociological evidence to suggest that secularisation should lead to a decline in religiosity.

Indeed, historical secularism has a number of virtues that give it a universal scope, including the protection of religion from the authority of the state and the protection of the state from any hegemony of the clergy.


This observation is based on a forthcoming study on the influence of French secularism among Arab groups on the secular left and on French efforts to enforce its version of secularism.

'Ethnocentric'

Undermining the universality of French secularism is its "ethnocentric" character, born of the Christian reformist conception of religion.

French secularism has taken religion in the Christian manner - more specifically in the manner of the Protestant Reformation - by reducing it to individual belief and freedom of conscience, and confining it to private spaces, such as the home and the church. As a result, rituals or any other public forms of religious affirmation (such as the wearing of the Islamic headscarf) tend to be considered an unacceptable form of proselytism.

In the name of defending the ideals of the French secular left, certain intellectuals and media figures have no hesitation in transforming themselves into "faqih" (Muslim jurist) or "mufti" to "prove" that the veil "is not part of Islam", or that it is a "symbol of the slavery of women". In a totally ethnocentric display, they project onto Muslim societies meaning and cultural interpretation that emanate only from European culture.

Such arguments clearly violate the most basic freedoms, since it is up to each individual to define and give meaning to his or her social behaviour.


In a totally ethnocentric display, defenders of French secularism project onto Muslim societies meaning and cultural interpretation that emanate only from European culture

The French law banning headscarves in schools and for civil servants in public institutions, passed on 15 March 2004, can legitimately be seen as an explicit violation of the freedom to practise religion. Driving this legislation more than anything appears to be the sheer rejection of, and genuine obsessive disgust for, the headscarf by the majority of French society.

In her 2009 book, Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law, American philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues for the condemnation of any legislation built on the subjective rejection of the actions of others. She further asserts that moral or legal judgments cannot be justified or legitimised by feelings of disgust or other forms of subjective rejection.

The exclusionary secularism "a la francaise" has been, alas, replicated in some European countries, while others resist. Where French lawmakers are banning what is part of the conception of the "good" in a society, such as diversity and individual freedom, their counterparts in the UK and Norway (not to mention the US, Canada and Australia, where the famous "Burkini" originated) see no contradiction in a Muslim policewoman wearing a hijab or a Sikh policeman wearing a turban.

Very recently, this radical opposition was once again expressed in at least two ways. A campaign launched by the Council of Europe to promote diversity among women, including the freedom to wear the headscarf, was met with virulent criticism - leading to its cancellation.

The French scholar Florence Bergeaud-Blackler saw it as part of a romanticisation of the veil that ignored the fact that some women are "raped, vitriolised and burnt if they do not wear the veil".

It is not anecdotal to add to this French exceptionalism that, of all the members of the European Union, only Paris - through the voice of Sarah El Haïry, in her capacity as state secretary for youth, some of whose relatives wear the headscarf - officially protested against the Council of Europe's campaign. This "secular identity", to use Jean Baubérot's words, transforms Islam into a religion alien to European culture and incompatible with democratic values.

A 'good life' for all

The most radical defenders of the new secularism in France consider secularism not simply an instrument of governance, but an objective in itself. In their view, secularism is no longer a means of implementing the values of political liberalism - ie the values of freedom, equality and pluralism - within the framework of a democratic state; they see it as an intrinsic bearer of universal values, whatever the consequences, for society.

The notion of pluralism here suggests diversity and a plurality of concepts that make it possible to think about the "good" and, therefore, a good life for different groups in society and for the individuals comprising them. In its "new" sense, however, secularism takes into account the historical conditions and cultural environment of only one segment of society (albeit a majority).

France: Veiled Muslim women and the politics of the new secularism

Read More »

For example, while the presence of a cross in public school classrooms is considered contrary to secularism, a cross in the public square of a country characterised by its Christian architectural heritage cannot be considered as such. When the liberal conceptions of justice and the "good" compete, society resorts to debate in the public sphere using public reason or moral justifications derived from culture, tradition and the influence of globalisation.

The affirmation of secularity poses no problem as long as the reasoning does not go beyond a sphere that is audible and acceptable to all citizens. It is difficult to distinguish in these reasonings between what is merely a composite vestige of religious teaching and cultural practice and other sources or moral references.

Secularism, therefore, plays the role of a means (and not an end in itself) of the grammar that makes it possible to control the pace of this debate and respect the concept of citizenship while accepting, for example (in the area of religious or ethnic cults, rituals and fests), exceptions for the benefit of minorities, as long as these exceptions do not harm society as a whole.

In a society where Christians make up the majority, it is natural that certain official holidays would have Christian origins. But this should not preclude citizens of other faiths from celebrating their own holidays, as is the case in France and Germany. In France, while six of the 12 national holidays observed are Catholic events, proposals to observe Muslim and Jewish holidays have only been met with controversy and disdain. Meanwhile, the French government recently requested that teachers in Toulouse provide the number of student absences during the Eid al-Fitr celebration, triggering alarm among Muslim families and criticism from anti-racism groups.

Negative vision

In addition to being a universal value, the French new secularism has deemed itself an authority for passing restrictive legislation against minority religions. In place of any public debate on what is common in French culture, minorities with different lifestyles (including all religious practices and rituals forming the "good life") are legislated against unilaterally.

After its legislation on the headscarf, France adopted a law specifically against the burka, then yet another against the burkini, even though it is very difficult to establish that these practices in any way harm the majority or the social contract.

This normative frenzy continues in France with more recent cases: the French Football Federation's ban on interrupting a match to allow Muslim players to break their fast during the month of Ramadan, or the education minister's use of the notion of "religious symbols by destination" to ban the long dresses worn by some schoolgirls.

All this has led French political scientist Olivier Roy to warn against such an "extension of the domain of the norm" and of laws in several western countries, and against the shrinking of the public space for negotiation, debate and even dialogue.

In secular settings, the dissociation of politics and religion certainly makes sense whenever it is a question of limiting the exercise of politics by clerics whose action is confined exclusively to the interests of their believers. The politicisation of religion and the moral role it intends to play, negatively or positively, has become evident in many countries, including so-called "secular" ones.

The electoral influence of the churches has become clear in many democratic countries, where it affects both the left and right. In Brazil, the same Pentecostals who voted for Lula (and got 100 MPs in 2016) went on to vote for Jair Bolsonaro. Yet no one has called for a ban on "political Christianity".

So it is no longer acceptable to focus solely on the negative role of religiosity, politically and socially, because of its possible role in trajectories of radicalisation, sectarianism, or social and political subjugation.

In other contexts, religiosity can serve social progress, civic solidarity and/or resistance to colonialism and authoritarianism.

France riots: In the banlieues, race and class intersect

Rafik Chekkat

Read More »

The distinction between the political and religious spheres should simply mean the respective autonomy of religious and temporal institutions. However, the reality today, particularly where the Muslim minority is concerned, is quite different: the temporal authority is exercising dominance over religious institutions.

When former President Nicolas Sarkozy called for the organisation of the Muslim community in France, it was clear, even before elections were held, who would lead these communities. He mandated that he alone would nominate 30 percent of the council.

The France of Emmanuel Macron has equally discouraged any attempt at genuine representation of the Muslims of France, as this would "constitute obstacles to their assimilation policy" - a vague, albeit oft-repeated phrase in the French political class.

While the principle of state neutrality is necessary for the autonomy of religious institutions, this does not mean that the state can refrain from fairly managing and regulating religious pluralism, especially in a multi-ethnic and multicultural society.

Dispelling these wrong notions is essential to establishing a 'soft' secularism that is not divisive, and would be necessary and even indispensable to each society

If we look at a wide range of political systems - from the most repressive authoritarian regimes to liberal democratic states - we see that most of them are involved in managing religious pluralism. In such a configuration, the state may have different roles. This depends on its vision of the moral dimension of religion. It can be positive (policies of integration and inclusion, policies of recognition) or negative (policies of exclusion, prohibition of religious manifestations, cultural indifference, policies of non-recognition or misrecognition).

The new French secularism of exclusion focuses only on this negative vision and has become the fatal weapon of the (extreme) right. From Rachida Dati to Fadela Amara, the French parties have never chosen political actors (to be ministers or MPs) from Arab or Muslim origin, other than those supposed to have distanced themselves as much as possible from the culture of their ancestors, which is nonetheless that of a large segment of the Muslim community in France.
'Soft' secularism

There remains no question of the positive virtues of historical secularism that France has helped to promote throughout the world. However, for the reasons outlined, the new secularism promoted in France over the past few decades can no longer be exported as it has been in the past.

Firstly, religion is often wrongly regarded as a social sphere that is completely separate from the rest of society. But like Canadian socio-anthropologist Francois Gauthier, I refuse to see society as divided into distinct compartments, one of which is religion. Religious, cultural, political, social and economic spheres are, in fact, traversed by common logic that makes it possible to encompass a given society in its entirety, just as Marcel Mauss did.

Dispelling these misunderstandings is essential if we are to establish a "soft" secularism that is not divisive, and would be necessary and even indispensable to each society: a secularism that cannot be set up as an end in itself, sacralised and blind to the conditions under which it is implemented in each national or communal context.

Secularism is merely a mechanism - albeit to a great extent - capable of effectively affirming the values of the liberal political project.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Sari Hanafi is a Professor of Sociology, Director of Center for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies, and Chair of the Islamic Studies program at the American University of Beirut. He is the President of the International Sociological Association.He is also the editor of Idafat: the Arab Journal of Sociology (Arabic) and Chair of Islamic Studies program. Recently, he created the “Portal for Social impact of scientific research in/on the Arab World" (Athar). He was the Vice President of the board of the Arab Council of Social Science (2015-2016). He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales-Paris (School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences) (1994). He is the author of numerous journal articles and book chapters on the sociology of religion, among various other publications.

DUPLESSIS SCION

Legault Implied Quebec Identity Has Catholic Roots & Justified It By Calling It 'Heritage'

Story by Thomas MacDonald • Yesterday 

MTL Blog

Premier François Legault reignited the debate about his party's conception of secularism in Quebec on Easter Monday with a tweet celebrating the perceived Catholic origins of the province's "culture of solidarity."


Legault Implied Quebec Identity Has Catholic Roots & Justified It By Calling It 'Heritage'© Provided by MTL Blog

"Catholicism has also given us a culture of solidarity that distinguishes us on a continental scale," the tweet from the premier reads. That line actually comes from an April 7 Journal de Montréal opinion piece by sociologist and columnist Mathieu Bock-Côté, which Legault shared in his Twitter post.

Bock-Côté also argues that Catholicism "served as a basis for [Quebec] collective identity" following the British conquest and that this "sense of the collective leads us today to resist the fragmentation of society under the pressure of multiculturalism."

Legault's tweet amassed hundreds of comments by Monday afternoon, some from Twitter users praising the statement, but many more from critics who accused the premier of hypocrisy given his insistence on the secularism of the Quebec state.

Legault's government notably passed the controversial Bill 21, which bans many public servants from wearing religious symbols while performing their duties. Many have said the measure unfairly targets religious minorities, especially Muslim women.

The premier later returned to Twitter to defend the tweet, writing in response that "we must distinguish between secularism and our heritage."

François Legault accused of hypocrisy for tweet praising Catholicism

Story by Katelyn Thomas, Montreal Gazette • Yesterday

Quebec Premier François Legault holds a news conference in Montreal on Friday March 24, 2023.© Provided by The Gazette

Twitter users were quick to accuse Premier François Legault of hypocrisy on Easter Monday for tweeting a line from a Journal de Montréal column crediting Catholicism for “(engendering) in us a culture of solidarity that distinguishes us on a continental scale.”

Legault was quoting from a Mathieu Bock-Côté column titled “ Praise of our old Catholic background 

The premier’s post drew criticism from those on both sides of the secularism debate given Quebec’s controversial Bill 21 , which bans most government employees from wearing religious symbols at work. Those who take issue with Bill 21 have pointed out the law disproportionately affects Muslim women, raising concerns about whether the ban is meant to target specific religions.

“See, they would’ve had some plausible deniability on the religious headwear ban if he didn’t tweet this out,” one Twitter user wrote in response to Legault’s tweet.

The controversial tweet came less than a week after Quebec announced plans to ban prayer rooms in schools . Education Minister Bernard Drainville said on Wednesday he would issue the directive to all school service centres, adding that prayer rooms in schools are not compatible with official secularism. He added students who want to pray could do

By 12:30 p.m., Legault’s tweet had more than 335,000 views, 550 responses and 300 retweets, including 250 quote-tweets. The attention had prompted him to respond to his original post with: “We must distinguish between secularism and our heritage.”

In addition to citizens, several politicians had weighed in on his post. Marwah Rizqy, Liberal MNA for Saint-Laurent and spokesperson for education, had responded saying “we all write tweets we regret.”

“You have a duty of reserve and neutrality as premier of all Quebecers in our secular state,” Rizqy wrote.

Monsef Derraji, Liberal MNA for Nelligan, for his part wrote: “A premier who supposedly advocates the secularism of the state. What a lack of judgment!”

He has long claimed that certain long-standing Christian symbols on public edifices don't contradict his idea of secularism. Christian crosses, for example, still adorn many school buildings. His government did, however, vote to remove a crucifix that hung in the National Assembly chamber in Quebec City.

This is not the first time Legault has received criticism for a statement about Catholicism. He came under fire during a visit to California in 2019 after claiming offhand that "all French Canadians" are Catholic.

The controversial tweet came less than a week after Quebec announced plans to ban prayer rooms in schools . Education Minister Bernard Drainville said on Wednesday he would issue the directive to all school service centres, adding that prayer rooms in schools are not compatible with official secularism. He added students who want to pray could do so, but “discreetly” and “silently” without designated rooms.

By 12:30 p.m., Legault’s tweet had more than 335,000 views, 550 responses and 300 retweets, including 250 quote-tweets. The attention had prompted him to respond to his original post with: “We must distinguish between secularism and our heritage.”

In addition to citizens, several politicians had weighed in on his post. Marwah Rizqy, Liberal MNA for Saint-Laurent and spokesperson for education, had responded saying “we all write tweets we regret.”

“You have a duty of reserve and neutrality as premier of all Quebecers in our secular state,” Rizqy wrote.

Monsef Derraji, Liberal MNA for Nelligan, for his part wrote: “A premier who supposedly advocates the secularism of the state. What a lack of judgment!”

 

Former Liberal MNA Christine St-Pierre also weighed in, drawing attention to gender inequality within Catholicism.

Quebec comedian Sugar Sammy also commented.

“Secularism is important except once on Twitter,” he wrote.

 

COMMENTARY
Separation of church and state? Let's get real — that's over. So what do we do now?
Jefferson's "wall of separation" is history. There are other, better ways to fight the Christian right's onslaught

By JACQUES BERLINERBLAU
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 12, 2022 12:00PM (EST

Neil Gorsuch, Jesus and Thomas Jefferson (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

During oral arguments in the case of Shurtleff v. City of Boston, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch made a pointed reference to "so-called separation of church and state." What precisely this aside was meant to convey is unclear. Yet Gorsuch's dismissive comment laid bare what many have known for some time: "Separationism," as a judicial and legislative doctrine, is on life support. Courtesy of the Christian right, it languishes in a theologically-induced coma.

The many Americans who yearn for secular governance, believers and nonbelievers alike, must confront this truth, accept it and innovate accordingly. They need to do so expeditiously, given the Supreme Court's hard pro-religion turn — a turn that advantages a white conservative Christian majority at the expense of religious moderates, religious minorities and nonbelievers.

Gorsuch may have just been trolling, but he had a point. Let's ask ourselves some hard questions about the "separationism" we know (and love).

If we really had a "wall of separation," the Supreme Court wouldn't appear receptive, as it does in Carson v. Makin, to affirming "a religious right to government funds" for schools that teach a "biblical worldview." Huge Christian crosses honoring fallen soldiers wouldn't sit on state property (American Legion v. American Humanist Association). The recently re-established White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships would not exist. Symbolically, Christmas videos from the Trump White House wouldn't be permitted, nor would Joseph Biden's shout-outs to St. Augustine on Inauguration Day.

RELATED: "Christian flag" case reaches Supreme Court: Is the Proud Boys flag next?

We have no real separation in the United States. Luckily, separationism is just one type of secularism. There are others. The secularist movement in the United States, however defined, has an interest in learning about them and thinking outside of the box — as well as beyond the purported wall between religion and government.

Secularism is a governing policy in which the state regulates the relationship between itself and its religious citizens, and also between religious citizens. A secular state strives to balance freedom and order. It must provide citizens who are beholden to very different worldviews with as much freedom of religion or — since demographics are changing rapidly in this regard — freedom from religion as possible. Simultaneously, it secures the civil calm required for them to enjoy those freedoms.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Other nations teach us that these secular goals are achievable without separationism. India's beleaguered secular model accentuates sarva dharma sama bhava, or "equal respect for all religions." Far from walling itself off, the government accommodates faith communities. India's constitution, for instance, even makes provisions for Muslims to abide by their own law codes.

French secularism is altogether different. Laïcité, as it is known, doesn't separate itself from religion: It actively controls it. French laws strike Americans as overly severe (e.g., prohibiting public display of religious attire, like burkas). French citizens, though, overwhelmingly prefer a strong state grip on religion, a preference conditioned by centuries of traumatic clashes with the Catholic Church.

France and India are constitutionally secular. The United States, as Christian conservative activists cheerfully note, is not. There is no constitutional guarantee of separation. Instead, there are a few dozen ambiguous words in our founding documents, 16 of which read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In 1802 President Thomas Jefferson interpreted these sparse clauses to say that a "wall of separation" must exist between church and state. That was a radical and unpopular opinion — especially with the Great Awakening on the horizon. Even James Madison, author of the First Amendment, did not share his colleague's separationist zeal. Jefferson's opinion was mostly ignored until 1879, when it surfaced in a Latter-day Saint polygamy case, Reynolds v. United States. It then lay dormant for another 70 years!

While separation is often assumed to be a foundational principle of American democracy, it was first operationalized as a judicial framework in the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case. Soon thereafter, nondenominational prayer in public schools was deemed unconstitutional (Engel v. Vitale, 1962), as were daily Bible readings (Abington School District v. Schempp, 1962). Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) prohibited "excessive government entanglement" with religion. When John F. Kennedy exclaimed in 1960: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," he was trumpeting the new separationist status quo.

By the 1970s, that status quo was in the crosshairs of a resurgent religious right. That triumphant onslaught aside, separationism's constitutional basis was always wobbly. In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), Chief Justice William Rehnquist pronounced the wall metaphor to be based on "bad history" which "should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." As indeed it soon was; 37 years later, Justice Gorsuch took a victory lap.

Instead of demanding something the Constitution doesn't guarantee (i.e., a wall of separation), secularists ought focus on something it does: equal protection for all citizens, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Borrowing from India, they might advocate for the equality of all believers (and non-believers). "Equal-rights secularism" would highlight the legal inequalities that conservative Christian political activism fosters.

Thus, no county clerk could deny a marriage license to a same-sex couple in the name of religious liberty. No single notion of when life begins could assume the status of law. As dozens of religious organizations noted in their amicus curiae brief for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: "[T]here is a diversity of views both within and across religions concerning the nature and timing of the beginning of life." A secularist should argue that to subject a Jewish woman in Texas to a conservative Catholic standard of fetal viability renders the former unequal to the latter.

Borrowing from laïcité, American secularists might emphasize how privileging the rights of a few religious groups threatens order. When worshipers congregate during a pandemic, that's not free exercise, but reckless endangerment. When extremists storm the U.S. Capitol, that's not protected free speech, but sedition. Even colonial-era constitutions stipulated what the First Amendment somehow never mentioned: Your free exercise can't threaten public safety. American secularists should demand equal protection, literally.

Enough with walls. This rigid (and illiberal) metaphor undersells the complex task secularism performs in multicultural societies. Instead, secular legal and cultural activism should focus on the lawlessness and inequality that arise when LGBTQ persons, nonbelievers, religious minorities and religious moderates are forced to live under one particular religious conception of God.

Read more from Salon on religion in America:
How Christian nationalism drove the insurrection: A religious history of Jan. 6

Religion scholar Anthea Butler on "White Christianity" and its role in fueling fascism

Catholics will control two branches of government. What does that mean for American Christianity?

JACQUES BERLINERBLAU
Jacques Berlinerblau (@Berlinerblau) is a professor of Jewish civilization at Georgetown University. He has written numerous scholarly books and articles about secularism, his most recent being "Secularism: The Basics" (Routledge).

'I am fearful': Muslim women in France speak out against the abaya ban

Tasnim Nazeer
08 September, 2023
France’s decision to ban Muslim girls from wearing abayas in state schools has ignited widespread condemnation from human rights organisations and Muslims globally. The New Arab interviewed three Muslim women in France who have been impacted.ShareFlipboardRedditWhatsAppXFacebook
advertisement

Last month the French government announced it was banning abaya’s (long cloak worn by Muslim females) in state schools asserting that it broke the rules of secularism.

The education minister, Gabriel Attal, told local French television network TVF1, “I have decided that the abaya could no longer be worn in schools,” maintaining that a person's religion should not be identifiable.

However, 15-year-old student Amira from Lyon, Southwest France, says she will not be removing her abaya.

Global hypocrisy on display after French schools abaya ban
Nadeine Asbali

“It’s part of my identity (the abaya), it’s part of me and I am fearful of having it forcibly removed just so that I can have an education, but I am determined not to remove it. I am in a critical year where I will be having exams and this is already affecting me," she tells The New Arab.

“I feel worried and anxious about going to school as I don’t know if they will turn me away or what the consequences of keeping it on will be,” she adds.


"If this is about secularism then shouldn’t we all have the basic right to have the freedom to choose what we wear?"

Amira is not alone, as dozens of girls were sent home for wearing the abaya, as the new school term began this week. According to official figures, there were 298 Muslim girls, mostly aged 15 and older, who turned up in abaya and 67 of those were sent home after refusing to remove the garment to come into school.



“If this is about secularism then shouldn’t we all have the basic right to have the freedom to choose what we wear? Some of my friends who wear abaya are so upset, some even feel like moving out of the country,” says Amira as her voice breaks.

Amira says not everyone agrees with the abaya ban, “Some of my friends from other faiths are angered too, they tell me what’s wrong with wearing a long dress? I feel supported by them, but not everyone is the same, there are some (students) that make me feel pressured to take it off and come back to school. They tell me the consequences will be worse if I don’t remove it.”



An organisation representing Muslims has submitted a formal request to the highest legal authority in France for grievances against the government's actions. The request seeks to challenge the prohibition of the abaya and a motion presented by the Action for the Rights of Muslims (ADM) is currently under review.

Laura, (name changed for confidentiality) is a mother of three girls and revert to Islam. She feels that the latest move by the government could be “detrimental” to young girls like her daughters.

“We all know that Islamophobia is a problem in this (France) country. First, there was a hijab ban then the burka ban and now the abaya. The government is acting under the guise of secularism but really this is about instilling more of a divide and isolating young Muslim girls,” she tells The New Arab.



The UN has also criticised France’s decision to ban the abaya stating that, ‘according to international human rights standards, restrictions on manifestations of religion or belief, including the choice of clothing, are only permitted in very limited circumstances, such as public safety, public order, health or morals.’

Laura believes that more organisations and rights groups should speak up worldwide. “What would you do if it was your daughter who had to face this kind of scrutiny at school just for wearing modest clothes? My daughter cried after being teased for wearing an abaya at school and this kind of bullying is reinforced by the government’s crackdown on Muslims in France and their preoccupation with what we (Muslim women) wear.”

French Muslims are caught between the right and a hard place
Benjamin Ashraf

It’s a sentiment that is echoed by Fatima, a mother of one teenage girl and two boys who live in Paris.

“It’s a difficult time for us. My daughter wears the abaya and the ban is bringing on anxiety issues. Many young Muslim girls are having an internal conflict because, on one hand, they do want to comply with the laws but when the laws are so discriminatory they feel this is violating basic human rights,” Fatima says.

France’s education minister Gabriel Attal had sent a letter home to the families of girls who refused to remove the abaya, saying that “secularism is not a constraint, it is a liberty”.

“If this is not a constraint to human rights I don’t know what is," Fatima continues. "My daughter had to remove it to go to school even though she didn’t want to. She can’t afford to miss her education over this but it’s a sad reality that we are faced with. I do hope that they reverse this decision and I know that activists are speaking out more now but who knows what the future will hold."

Tasnim Nazeer is an award-winning journalist, author, and Universal Peace Federation Ambassador. She has written for Al Jazeera, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, Middle East Eye, CNN, BBC, and others. She was awarded the FIPP global network of Media Rising Stars in 2018
Follow her on Twitter: @tasnimnazeer1

How Muslims are creating a new vocabulary of secularism for Indian democracy
Indian Muslims have entered a post-Islamist phase, marrying a constitutional phraseology of freedom, justice and equality with religious notions.
 

A demonstration condemning Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the new citizenship law in Bangalore on January 20. | Manjunath Kiran/AFP

CITIZENSHIP TANGLE
Feb 16, 2020 · Sharik Laliwala

The demonstrations against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the proposed National Register of Citizens have re-inserted secularism into India’s mainstream political vocabulary. This shift in political discourse has come at the behest of the Muslim community and was then picked up by students, civil society groups and political parties. The arguments made by the Muslim community – even by Islamic activists – against these citizenship initiatives are mostly articulated in the language of Constitutional rights guaranteed to all Indians.

This focus on fundamental rights belies the conventional wisdom that the hegemony of majoritarian politics would provoke radical tendencies among the Indian Muslims. The onslaught of Hindutva politics, implemented by the Bharatiya Janata Party, is increasing state hostility against Muslims day by day. It is exacerbating their socio-economic marginalisation. Bias against Muslims is not just evident in the deliberate misconduct by police forces but is even written into the law. For instance, the Disturbed Areas Act in Gujarat severely restricts property transactions between Hindus and Muslims in urban Gujarat to “maintain demographic equilibrium”.

On top of that, the Muslim community’s political representation is at one of its worst levels since Independence: the current Lok Sabha has only 25 Muslim MPs out of 543 MPs, six more than in the last Lok Sabha. This translates into a little over 4.5% share in the Lok Sabha, even though Muslims form 14.2% of India’s population. In January 2018, out of BJP’s 1,418 MLAs, only four were Muslim – though the BJP’s dominance in Northern and Western Indian states has somewhat faded since then.

Despite this, the growing invisibilisation of Indian Muslims – the “fifth column” of Indian society for the Hindu nationalists – has not led to radicalisation, barring exceptional instances in Jammu and Kashmir and a few anecdotal instances in Kerala. To the contrary, as the recent pro-democracy protests show, India’s Muslims are introducing a new vernacular idiom of secularism through civic symbols while sometimes innovatively merging them with religious motifs.
Rights-based language

This signifies a fundamental transformation in the political strategy of the Muslim community over the years: Indian Muslims are privileging a language of rights over the religious-moral duties emphasised by Islamic reformists.

Muslim feminist groups have almost always employed an understanding of human rights. A case in point is Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, which has been vocal about women being denied entry to dargahs and demanding autonomy over personal life decisions. However, the “non-religious” groups among Muslims – such as pasmanda, or low-caste and Dalit Muslims, organisations working primarily in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, have devoted their energies to addressing the question of caste-based socio-economic backwardness among Muslims through representative politics.

In the current pro-democracy protests, especially by leaderless Muslim women in many parts of India, the act of holding portraits of BR Ambedkar, MK Gandhi, Savitribai Phule; reading the Preamble of the Indian Constitution; and upholding the national flag have been prioritised over religious ideals, at least in the public sphere. Indeed, the storm of Hindutva is making Muslims secular – quite unlike, Mohammad Iqbal’s poetic revelation about the “storm of West”. This is not to claim that Indian Muslims were not aligned with secular aims earlier, but to indicate that the active assertion of constitutional and secular symbols is their new and unique contribution. 

Women are leading the Citizenship 

Amendment Act protest 

at Delhi's Shaheen Bagh. Credit: Anushree Fadnavis/Reuters

To speak this rights-based language more confidently, Muslims are increasingly adopting socio-political and educational means for progress, reducing the emphasis on moral reform. Despite the stereotype, most Muslim children in India attend secular schools. In 2006, only 7% of Muslim children of school-going age (7-19 years) attended a madrassa. Half of those who went to a madrassa undertook part-time religious education as they also attended a mainstream school.

Even Islamists have begun to articulate themselves through a rights-centred vocabulary, though they often prefer religious morality over constitutional ideals, especially on the issue of personal law and religious practices.
New symbols, new identity

My research on two Islamic reformist organisations operating in Gujarat, a state that was the laboratory for Hindu nationalist politics, confirms this discernible shift in prioritising socio-economic concerns over reformist activities. For example, Muslim charity schools run by these groups, with gender-segregated classrooms and a part-time religious syllabus, use the state-prescribed curriculum – in some sense, merging the site of a secular school with that of a part-time madrassa. Their aim is clear: to develop skills and learning capacities among Muslim children in light of continuous state neglect. By doing so, these Islamic activists negotiate secular modernity on their own terms, via justifications from Islam. They find a new moral ground to adopt secular positions by somewhat renouncing rigidities held regarding the infallibility of religious truth.

My findings are congruent with those described by Irfan Ahmed in his 2009 book Islamism and Democracy in India, which traces the remarkable metamorphosis in the value system of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, an Islamist group founded in 1941. From a rejection of secular democracy and nationalism around the time of the Indian subcontinent’s Partition, the Jamaat began to trust religious pluralism, tolerance and a democratic system, particularly from the 1990s. These ideological transformations are most crucial, given Jamaat’s support to the Pakistan movement, including its role in Pakistan’s Islamisation project and alleged participation in terrorist activities through its student wing, Students’ Islamic Movement of India.

The Jamaat in India has not only abandoned its aim of establishing an Islamic state but also prompts its members to pursue careers in the social sciences, journalism and the civil services, while frequently collaborating with civil society organisations. This trend also can be witnessed in the functioning of political parties specially devoted to the Muslim question such as Asaduddin Owaisi’s All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and the Welfare Party of India 

. 

Political parties centred on Muslim identity, including Asaduddin Owaisi’s All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, are evolving. Credit: AIMIM/Twitter

This discursive shift is slowly allowing Muslim groups to nurture solidarities with other marginalised groups facing similar threats and insecurities. The overwhelming Muslim support for Bhim Army chief Chandrashekhar Azad among Muslims in the past few years exemplifies this tendency. However, the alliance between Muslims and Hindu Dalits is still somewhat incoherent given the over-representation of elite ashraf castes in Muslim groups whose socio-economic interests do not match with Dalit-led associations.

All this makes it clear that Indian Muslims have entered a post-Islamist phase, marrying a constitutional phraseology of freedom, justice and equality with religious notions. Their renewed faith in this vernacularised secular politics is borne out of the frustrations with the dominant liberal brand of secularism, which either preferred a limited adoption of mostly majoritarian religious symbols or abhorred display of religion in public altogether.

At best, the liberal custodians of secularism overlooked socio-economic concerns of the Muslim community – especially of the low-caste and Dalit Muslims – rallying behind an empty discourse supporting secularism, without mass appeal. At worst, Muslims were castigated as a community with antediluvian beliefs. By exposing these fault-lines, though it is premature to say, the pro-democracy agitations led by Indian Muslims have provided a new life and meaning to not just secular democracy but even participatory democracy.

Sharik Laliwala is a researcher focusing on Gujarat’s contemporary politics and Muslim politics in north India. He has been associated with the Centre for Equity Studies and Ashoka University.Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.

Opinion: Bill 21 failed Fatemeh Anvari. But it also fails her students like my son, and Quebec secularists like me


DECEMBER 28, 2021

Aidan Seaton’s two children attend Chelsea Elementary School in Quebec. she works at The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Local newspaper serving Gatineau Hills.

My son was begging me to come to his Class 3 class, and so, thanks to his teacher’s enthusiastic arrangement of logistics, I came on December 3rd to give a brief presentation about Hanukkah. This is something that Chelsea Elementary School welcomes every year during the festival of lights. I was dismayed when, the day before, his teacher sent me an email asking him to miss our time together—but still, the next day, my son and I told our classmates the Hanukkah story.

According to legend, in the 2nd century BC, Jewish practices were forbidden in Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of the Seleucid Empire. Most of the people obeyed, hiding their religious activities out of fear. But a small group called the Maccabees resisted their oppressors and refused to renounce their religion. In 168 BC, the king’s army descended, massacred thousands of Jews, destroyed the temple, and defiled it by sacrificing pigs and building an altar to the Greek god Zeus. But the Maccabees stood for two years and pushed back Antiochus’ troops, gaining access to the temple and rekindling the menorah’s eternal flame with a day’s worth of oil, which instead miraculously burned for eight days. And so, voila: to this day, we celebrate those eight days of Hanukkah.
advertisement

When I shared that ancient story, I didn’t know that on the same day, my son’s teacher, Fatemeh Anwari, She is sent on duty outside the classroom because she wears a hijab. According to the Quebec government, that religious symbol made her ineligible for the teaching role she was already holding, even though Ms. Anvari They say That she sees the hijab more as a part of her identity and how she chooses to represent herself. As a result, a clever, kind, trained teacher was barred from doing his job because of his symbolic clothing. And now, Ms. Anvari has been reassigned to work on a literacy project focused on diversity in the school – a bitter irony.

I was born in Quebec and have lived happily in this province for most of my life. I myself am committed to secularism, which is known in this province secularism, And I think it has a lot to offer. I remember as a Jewish kid living in rural Ontario in the 1980s, religion was a regular part of life in public schools. In Class 5, I was given a Gideon Bible during class time—part of Gideon’s regular visit for all students at the time—and each morning in class, I recited the Lord’s Prayer. While I still appreciate the beauty of those words today, prayer should never have been part of my school’s early practice, a debate that was widespread across much of Canada after the Ontario Court of Appeals ruled in 1988 That the school’s prayer had violated Canadians. Charter.
- Advertisement -

But there is a difference between forcing a child to read or sit through religious devotional prayer during class and giving individuals the freedom to dress according to their wishes and beliefs. Ms. Anwari taught my son the art of the English language, not Islamic doctrine; Her hijab never interfered with the education she taught, and it had no effect on the curriculum she was teaching the children in her class. In short, he teaching was secular, as a public school should be. The problem, the provincial government would assure us, was that She was insufficiently secular, at least in her appearance.

Some proponents of Bill 21 claim that allowing the presence of any religious symbol amounts to conversion. This caricature portrays religious people incredibly willing to participate in public life. It is precisely this intolerance that has led many to doubt John F. Kennedy’s ability to serve as the first Catholic President of the United States in the 1960s – concerns that are unimaginable today.

And as many have pointed out, there are crosses on many public buildings throughout the province. Personally, I do not want them to be removed: they are part of the development of Quebec, and are relics of a bygone era that remind us of the significant cultural change that this province has undergone. These symbols may still resonate with some people, but they no longer hold their former power.

Maybe we could all benefit from having a little more let it go On issues of personal expression, even if there is a hint of religion. What are the disadvantages of wearing a hijab in the open? In this case the children certainly did no harm – that is, until they lost their teacher. On the other hand, there have been huge losses to individuals who lose the opportunity to be hired, individuals who find themselves suddenly unfit for advancement, and entire groups of people who are explicitly told that they are not eligible for certain jobs. There is no need to apply when they are fully capable of performing those roles. How does excluding people who wish to participate and contribute to their communities serve the interests of Quebec society?

Part of the beauty and freedom of secularism is the belief that we can follow a religion – or not – without punishment. But I can see how this noble idea can be distorted. After all, coercion doesn’t promote anything positive, let alone a subtle concept like secularism. Bill 21 has eroded open old conflicts, created new conflicts, and led to layers of polarization within Quebec and across the rest of the country. Its interpretation of secularist principles will lead us to no good place.

Chelsea’s current situation has put many in unstable moral positions, caught between fulfilling their official duties and their sense of justice. My children’s school and school board are officially against Bill 21, yet they must abide by it. Could this be a moment of conscientious denial? Doing so would not simply follow a moral sense: it would be based on the Canadian Constitution, Quebec’s own charter, as well as the simple human understanding that all people should be free to practice their religion.

Secularism is the foundation for Quebec society, and a liberal reading of Bill 21 may claim that the law is trying to promote neutrality. And it has been disappointing to see that Quebecers who support Bill 21 are all dismissed as bigotry, when the complex reality is that Quebecers have many reasons to support this law. But with the enactment of the bill, we have seen how quickly any laudable goal is broken.

The Maccabees conquered their oppression and, as Dreidel of the Jewish diaspora reminds us, a great miracle happened there. But I don’t think that’s necessarily what we need here in Quebec. We just need to take a deep breath and decide to be together instead of apart.

US leaders gather to discuss rights of nonreligious people across the world

'Discrimination against the non-religious is often caused, not by a desire to hurt atheists, but by the desire to help one or more religions,' according to a new report by Humanists International.

U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman, center, virtually addresses a meeting about the rights of nonreligious people around the world, Thursday, Dec. 8, 2022, in Washington. Photo courtesy of American Atheists

December 9, 2022

By 

Alejandra Molina

(RNS) — Religious freedom leaders — including a United States ambassador, commissioner and elected representative — gathered in Washington, D.C., on Thursday (Dec. 8) to shed light on the rights of nonreligious people in countries across the globe.

The convening was part of the launch of the “Freedom of Thought Report” by Humanists International, an annual look at how non-religious individuals — comprising atheists, agnostics, humanists and freethinkers — are treated because of their lack of religion or absence of belief in a god.

It was hosted by American Atheists, a civil rights organization that works to achieve religious equality for all Americans. Among those in attendance were U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman, a congressman for much of California’s Bay Area; U.S. Ambassador-at-Large Rashad Hussain with the Office of International Religious Freedom; and Frederick Davie with the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

---

RELATED: New report finds nonreligious people face stigma and discrimination

---

To Nick Fish, president of American Atheists, it was meaningful that the Biden-Harris Administration, along with other U.S. leaders and the global human rights community “are recognizing our rights are just as worthy of protection as any other religious or belief groups.”

Emma Wadsworth-Jones, a coordinator for Humanists International who presented the report, underscored that nonreligious people are a distinct category within freedom of religion or belief “who have universal human rights,” which include the right to freedom of religion and belief and to freedom of thought and expression.

“Discrimination against this community is pervasive,” she said.

Wadsworth-Jones underscored that “true secularism is inclusive of all,” adding that “where secularism is upheld … rights tend to be better respected for all.”

Emma Wadsworth-Jones presents Humanists International’s “Freedom of Thought Report,” Thursday, Dec. 8, 2022, in Washington. Photo courtesy of American Atheists

The report — which is in its 11th year — rates all countries and highlights “Key Countries,” where the organization updated the ratings in 2022, and a “Watch List,” which includes countries that Humanists International continues to monitor despite their rating holding steady.

Humanists International creates ratings by focusing on global human rights agreements “that most affect nonreligious people,” such as the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief and the right to freedom of expression.

Ratings factor in apostasy laws that make it illegal to convert to a religion or declare oneself as nonreligious, as well as blasphemy laws that outlaw criticism of protected religions and religious figures and institutions, according to the report.

The organization also considers family laws that exclude atheists from getting married as well as other laws requiring citizens to identify their religion on state ID cards, forbidding citizens from identifying as atheist or nonreligious. 

“Discrimination against the non-religious is often caused, not by a desire to hurt atheists, but by the desire to help one or more religions,” according to the report.

The report found that only 4% of the global population “live in societies that are truly secular, where there is a clear separation of religious and political authorities, that do not discriminate against any religion or belief community.”

Countries like Afghanistan and Iran, which are on the organization’s “Watch List,” were found to have grave violations and poor ratings due to state legislation being largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities. 

---

RELATED: Confusion over Iran’s religious police as women drop hijab

---

In Iran, the country’s morality police have triggered months of protests after the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini. The report noted that Iran’s government periodically jails and executes dozens of individuals on charges of “enmity against God” (moharebeh).

“Although this crime is framed as a religious offense and may be used against humanists and other religious dissenters, it is most often used as a punishment for political acts that challenge the regime (on the basis that to oppose the theocratic regime is to oppose Allah),” the report reads.

Just as Humanists International launched the report, the Center for Human Rights announced on Thursday that 23-year-old Mohsen Shekari was hung under the charge of “moharebeh,” after he was accused of wounding a paramilitary officer during a protest.

In Pakistan, the country’s legal environment is “notably repressive,” Wadsworth-Jones said, with “oppressive blasphemy laws, impunity for violence on religious grounds and systematic religious discrimination.” 

When looking at Barbados, while its constitution declares the state to be secular, “symbolic trappings of state religion remain,” Wadsworth-Jones said. The preamble to its constitution, for example, states that the people of Barbados “acknowledge the supremacy of God,” she said.

In France, where secularism is a fundamental principle of the state, Wadsworth-Jones noted that strict enforcement of such principles has been criticized “for leading to discrimination against religion or belief minorities by limiting their freedom of worship.” Discrimination against Muslims in France has increased in recent years, particularly after the 2015 terrorist attacks and during COVID-19, she said.

U.S. Ambassador-at-Large Rashad Hussain speaks at a meeting about the rights of nonreligious people, Thursday, Dec. 8, 2022, in Washington. Photo courtesy of American Atheists

The United States received a relatively good rating due to “strong constitutional protections in favor of freedom of thought, religion or belief.”

It remains on the “Watch List” because, according to the report, those freedoms mixed with Christian conservatism and a wealthy Christian right lobby, “means that secular, humanist and civil liberties groups find themselves facing a battle to preserve the inherent secularism of the constitution.”

---

RELATED: Major Christian leaders asked Jan. 6 committee to investigate Christian nationalism

---

This threat to secularism “gained a greater foothold” under the presidency and influence of Donald Trump, resulting in the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe and the federal right to an abortion, according to the report.

“Extremism and religion continue to pose a severe threat to our democracy,” said Huffman, who identifies as a humanist, adding that white Christian nationalist groups “continue to export their dangerous, violent ideology and to find more traction in the mainstream.”

“My colleagues are feeling more confident in calling out the threat of white Christian nationalism directly,” he said.

Huffman, who helped establish the Congressional Freethought Caucus, highlighted a bipartisan resolution passed by the House of Representatives last year that condemns “heresy, blasphemy and apostasy laws.”

---

RELATED: California congressman demands more transparency from health care sharing ministries

---

He also noted legislation he introduced that would require health care sharing ministries to disclose a range of information to federal agencies.

Hussain, with the Office of International Religious Freedom, spoke about Nigerian humanist and atheist Mubarak Bala, who was sentenced to more than 20 years in prison “following accusations he had committed blasphemy against Islam and Muslims,” he said.

Bala was arrested in 2020 and formally charged in 2021 “for causing a public disturbance by posting ‘blasphemous’ content.”

Early this month, the USCIRF called out the U.S. Department of State after it failed to include Nigeria or India in its latest designations of “Countries of Particular Concern.”

“Governments do not only weaponize blasphemy laws against humanists and atheists, they use them against Christians, Muslims and many more,” Hussain said. 

The report highlighted that “any rights violations and discrimination are important, even when only small numbers of people are affected,” adding that “the non-religious are not a small group.”

It cited findings from the 2012 WIN-Gallup International Association showing that atheism and the non-religious population have grown rapidly, with religion dropping by 9 percentage points and atheism rising by 3 percentage points between 2005 and 2012.

This story has been updated.