Dual Citizens in a Secular Society

"Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord..."

St. Augustine
The City of God

Every Christian is a dual citizen:  he belongs to a "City of Man" and a "City of God."  In both Canada and Europe today there are arguments about the extent to which religious people of all faiths are permitted to openly signal their membership in God's city.

 The example before us today is the Parti Québécois’s Charter of Quebec Values.  This measure would forbid public servants (government workers) from wearing "ostentatious" religious symbols while carrying out their functions.  The argument of the Charter's supporters is that this is necessary to reinforce the state's neutrality with regard to religion:

"cette charte de la laïcité visera notamment à interdire les signes religieux ostentatoires dans la fonction publique, c’est-à-dire que les institutions publiques et les agents travaillant dans ces institutions doivent refléter la neutralité de l’État."

This has provoked a bitter public debate.  My purpose here is not to add to the very good commentary about this charter one can find in any number of on and off-line articles.  (For a good round-up  of what has been said so far about the charter, see Andrew Griffith's fine blog Multicultural Meanderings.)  Instead I would like to broaden the discussion and talk about general efforts in some parts of the world to create (or reinforce) what is referred to as a "secular" society - an ideal world (some say) where religious beliefs no longer have a place in the public sphere and where, as Peter Berger puts it, "signals of transcendence" become rumors, "and not very reputable rumors at that."  

To many Europeans and Canadians (and even some Americans) this is a worthy goal and, in Europe at least, it has been moderately successful.  The recent battles over marriage in France notwithstanding, religious beliefs have much less voice in the public sphere than they had in times past.  It is worth pointing out, however, that when one looks around the world, there is a sort of European exceptionalism at work here.  In many parts of the world  (and especially in the Global South) religious beliefs are part and parcel of the public conversation on all issues and religious affiliation is growing, not shrinking.  Efforts by the Global North to convince such places that they must become less religious in order to become more modern are generally met with skepticism, if not outright contempt. 

Even more interesting is that there is another on-going debate within the world community of Christians (and this one began centuries ago) over the extent to which Christians should be involved in the earthly city and use their faith-based beliefs to weigh in on the pressing social issues of our time. A passion for politics is a passion for things of this world which Christians are asked to think of as transient and inferior to the city of God. Some argue for disengagement - leave Caesar to Caesar. As for signaling one's citizenship in the Heavenly City there is a line of thought that believes that this is a futile exercise. Religious beliefs are best spread by example (or as AA puts it) they prefer attraction to promotion.  A few even believe that complete separation is necessary in order for believers to avoid the taint of their secular neighbors and compatriots.  The last implies a certain common ground between the most rabid of the secularists and their fundamentalist Christian counterparts.

Most people of faith (whatever their affiliation) are not separatists.  Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, and all other people of faith who end up in countries where the secular society is taking on the aura of a national project, have to struggle with this daily.  How open can one be about the sources of one's opinions if they are faith-based?  What kinds of religious signals are allowed - not only by law - but within a particular cultural context?    These questions are particularly challenging to those who belong to a minority religion practiced by immigrants or their children.  It is, however, not confined to them.  I am a Roman Catholic in a country that has traditionally been a "daughter of the Church" and even I thought twice before placing a small discreet statue of Mary in the niche on my front porch where it is visible from the street.

This is the "freedom of conscience" touted by democracies like France and Canada?   

This is not about separation of church and state - something that most established churches have discovered works quite well in their favor.  This is a purging of religious discourse and signs from the marketplace of ideas.  What is even more disturbing to me is that in the Global North we live in a context of religious pluralism.  The days when one church or one religion spoke with one institutional voice, controlled the message from the faithful, and were synonymous with the local culture and government are long behind us.  Instead what we see is that these "twin tolerations" (Alfred Stepan) have led to the empowerment of the faithful to speak as individuals and to participate as they see fit in the "City of Man" - the political community in which they reside or in the world.

I believe that the ideal secular society as proposed by some would be an impoverished one.  Even worse, I see a sort of separatism being forced on people of faith who for want of public spaces to express themselves, retreat to their communities, churches/mosques/temples, schools and homes, and let the earthly realm (one that does not seem to value their opinion and strongly condemns the source of them) sort itself out without them.

Furthermore, the attempt to generously allow some religious signs and activities to proceed under the umbrella of "tradition" is one that I am hardly thankful for (even where it graciously permits discreet expression of my religious tradition).  It is a hollowing out, a capture of religion and its symbols, in the name of a national culture, ideology or state.   A cathedral in Montreal is not just another pretty example of local architecture, and a baptism in France is not just a quaint little French custom and an excuse for a family party.  These things are part and parcel of a world religion (among others) which transcends borders and culture.  There is nothing particularly French or Quebecois about Catholicism just as there is nothing strictly American or British about Protestantism, or Indonesian or Saudi Arabian about Islam.

Sending people of faith into internal exile or placing them outside of the plausible public discourses is not a solution to what ails Europe or Canada.  On the contrary there is something very ugly and repressive (dare I say "predatory"?) in making  European or Canadian secular identities the only acceptable basis for conversation (speech and signs) in the public sphere in democratic societies.

Some of us feel called to be dual citizens of the "City of God" and the "City of Man."  Our membership in one should never make us inferior citizens in the other.