Religious Affairs Office

The conference, organized by the Office of Religious Affairs, took place on November 19 and 20 in the Sala Martí l'Humà (MUHBA). Led by Carles Solà, curated by Lola López, cultural anthropologist, expert in intercultural perspective, and Alberto López Bargados, PhD in Social Anthropology and full professor of Social Anthropology at the University of Barcelona. Prominent experts took part such as Santiago Alba Rico, Pierre Tevanian (France), Rajeev Bhargava (India), Lori Beaman (Canada), Manuel Delgado, Víctor Albert, Maria del Mar Griera, Júlia Martínez Ariño, Sol Tarrés and Montserrat Santolino.

The two-day conference, which took place in person and was broadcast live on Barcelona City Council’s YouTube channel, was a great success and has led to reflection on secularism, a key aspect of public policy, by analysing models of the secular state and more specific areas within it, such as secular education, the management of death, and international cooperation.

For decades, there has been a school of thought that predicts an end to religion with the arrival of modernity. Today however, it is clear that religion is not in decline in the world. There may have been a fall in the number of people who consider themselves to be religious, and a reduction in the power of traditional religious institutions. However, new forms of religiosity are on the rise; above all, a plurality of traditions and forms of religious expression that are in part linked to migratory movements. All this leads to the need to promote public policies on religious diversity, and to critically question the paradigm of secularisation that dominates contemporary Western societies. In the first place, this is a governance model with multiple local variants depending on the prevailing religious traditions in each country and on the local coordination between the fields of politics and religion. The aim of the conference was to reflect on, and to discuss, the influence of these principles, to understand the complex relationship they have with other ideologies and to analyse the impact they have on public policies.

The conference invited participants to reflect on the concepts of secularism, secularisation, secularity and other similar concepts that speak of the relationship that we as a society have with religion. Khalid Ghali, Commissioner for Intercultural Dialogue and Religious Pluralism, opened the conference by saying that “our public policies have been based on the theories from the 1970s and on the myth of secularisation: the separation between religion and state is present at different levels in different countries. But separation is one thing, and the disappearance of religion is another. This is not the case in our city, which has almost 1,000 communities, some 27 different denominations and more than 500 places of worship. And not only due to migration. Protestant, Jewish and Muslim faiths have historical and historiographical roots, and over the last 100 years other identities and convictions have been added to these”. He went on to say that “there is a basic flaw in the concept of secularism: the neutrality of public authorities doesn’t mean going against or eradicating any specific collective, because the expression of religion goes beyond mere convictions. It expresses values, world-views, forms of identity and relationships, etc.”. Referring to the health crisis and its impact over the last two years, he stressed “the importance of the role of religious and awareness raising entities and communities within the context of the pandemic, and also the way in which at certain points fundamental rights have been violated during the crisis”. In the last term of political office, “Barcelona City Council, with Lola López as Commissioner for Immigration, Interculturality and Diversity did a great job, launching a much needed debate within the public arena, emphasising the importance of not confusing secularism with laicism, and continuing to generate a space for calm, unhurried debate that does not take place on social networks”.

The conference began with an OPENING SPEECH from Santiago Alba Rico “Can policies be implemented for safeguarding religious rights in a secular world?” which made it clear that “we take it for granted that religion is on the defensive in a secularised world, and forget that religious pluralism was born to confront religious unity in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), specifically in Article 18″. We need to recover that “laicism that obliges the state to do two things: allow freedom of expression for all religions, as stated in article 18, and to free the state from any pressure from the community or from lobbies, extending laicism beyond religious matters”. He added that “our obligation from here onwards is to consider what institutions might be able to do, remembering that there can be no democracy, freedom or human rights without religious freedom”. He also warned of the discrimination that occurs in the name of laicism, for example, Islamophobic dynamics in some countries.

The first ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION “The secularisation of State Regulatory Systems. The cases of France, India, the USA and Canada” took place with the participation of experts from these three models of the secular state. As moderator Lola López commented, “the review of these paradigmatic cases of consolidated secular states with their different models is enriching, and allows us to reflect on our own model of the state with reference to secularism”. Pierre Tevanian, speaking of the model of laicism in France, distinguished between historical French laicism and more recent tendencies that in his view curtail individual liberties and prey on religious minorities, especially Muslims. Rajeev Bhargava, speaking of the model of laicism in India, explained that despite the religious diversity and social tensions in the country, political coexistence there is relatively peaceful. He referred to a model of secularism that is very different to the European one, a model that is not based on individual liberties, but on the idea of communal harmony fostered by Ghandi and protected by both the constitution and by the laws of the country. Lori Beaman, speaking of the cases of Canada and the USA, highlighted how religious tradition impacts on institutions and everyday social life in North America. Although there are differences between the regulatory framework in Canada (the Canadian constitution recognises the supremacy of God, as well as recognising rights and freedoms) and the United States (the US constitution states that Congress shall not pass any law relating to the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion), it is necessary to be aware of the privileges of the majority religions, for example in religious symbolism.

The conference continued on Saturday with the ROUND TABLE discussion “Secularism as a Programme. Ideology and Party Structure”, moderated by Alberto López Bargados. Three experts reflected on how secular programmes are the result of the evolution of modern states over a long period of time. The aim of this round table was to reflect on how the secular programme both converges with, and stands in opposition to, some of the key political ideologies that underpin the contemporary world. Manuel Delgado talked about the difficulties involved in defining and circumscribing the religious, and separating it from other forms of ideology, politics, culture etc. These difficulties are even greater in the contemporary world in which, in the words of Pierre Bourdieu, religion is dissolving, and these divisions are becoming ever more blurred. He argues that the historical secularism characteristic of 19th century bourgeois reformism was not anti-religion, rather it sought to reduce the power of religious institutions, foster individual freedoms, and develop the concept of the individual as citizen. Some of the ideologues of what we now call left-wing ideology, such as Marx and Engels, already sensed how difficult it was to separate religion and ideology. Delgado believes that the function of “distributing truth, reasons for existence and the norms that give meaning to our lives” that religious institutions once had is today largely assumed by politicians and social scientists. Víctor Albert talked about the role of European institutions in defining models of laicism or secularism, and in the management of religious diversity. He argues that they are models that have traditionally been specifically designed for each nation state. The institutions of the European Union do not have a specific policy on this issue, but it can be observed that there are spaces in which alliances of MEPs have been created to talk about religious freedom, but these are members of right and far right parties in the European parliament. Religion is not absent from European policies, but the role it plays is a discreet and ambivalent one. It has an important symbolic role and is mobilised in certain debates, for example on moral policies. Maria del Mar Griera prefaced her contribution by saying that there is no single modernity, stressing that we need to speak of multiple modernities, and in the words of Marian Burchardt and Monika Wohlrab-Sahr, also of multiple secularities. She talked about the relationship between the far right and religion, arguing that in recent decades religiosity has escaped the confines of classical institutions, and also those of far right movements. From the Moral Majority of the 1970s in the US and the expansion of the conservative evangelical movement in Latin America to the anti-gender campaigns in Spain, it is expressed in the form of social and political movements; through events rather than through institutions.  There is an elaborate construct here, in terms of ideology and of thought. With regard to identity, the far right has responded in terms of Christian civilisation by “buying into” Huntington’s idea of the clash of civilisations. Conversely, some secular parties try to define identity in terms of secularism – what makes us unique is the legacy of the French revolution. We are trapped in a dichotomy from which it is very difficult to escape, except by reviving a narrative of plurality from the political left. With regard to what we might call “moral politics” (abortion, euthanasia, etc.), the right maintains a discourse of wanting to regain control over certain domains, but the left too has entered this debate, also wanting to regulate certain practices and behaviours. In relation to the management of religious pluralism, the far right dominates the debate, and the left has withdrawn from it. Only certain sections of the left with positions that are clearly more secularist have entered the debate, but it has become a polarised battle, and this makes it very difficult to understand the nuances.

The final ROUND TABLE discussion “What Secularism is there behind Public Institutions?”, brought the conference to a close. Moderated by Anna Salvador, there was a dialogue about how secular principles not only have a place in legal texts, but also intervene in the modes of governance, and therefore influence practice in both public and private institutions. Specifically, three areas were discussed: Schools, the management of death and bereavement, and international cooperation. Júlia Martínez Ariño pointed out that religion in the sphere of education is conditioned by political ideologies, specific historical context and local discussions, and that all of these have an important role to play. She also discussed the aspects of religion and religious education that generate most debate in schools: whether or not religion should be taught as a subject, and if so what form it should take; the calendar of religious festivals; religious symbols at school and for pupils and their families; the food that should be offered in the school dining room; extracurricular and sports activities; how the history of the nation is explained, and the content of biology and sex education classes, among other issues. With reference to funeral rites, Sol Tarrés explained about the process of the secularisation of death in Spain, and the progressive separation of the management of the Catholic Church from public administration. She explained how the scenario changed from more intimate funeral vigils in the home to vigils held in a funeral parlour. And finally, she noted the role of the authorities in terms of health regulations and the established legal framework, as well as the role of insurance and funeral service companies, making it clear how private management has also been a pioneer in meeting the needs of the religious diversity present in society. In referring to the sphere of international co-operation, a territory yet to be explored, Montserrat Santolino, discussed the lack of reflection on secularism in the international cooperation sector, a sector in which paradoxically faith-based organisations are very prominent. She also recognised the fact that this lack of knowledge has an impact on the work of co-operation organisations, without losing sight of the “original sins” of colonialism, progress and development.

Lola López and Alberto López Bargados, the organisers of the conference, brought the proceedings to a close by summarising the main conclusions. It has been made very clear that the struggle between secularism and religion is a false one, as secularism does not necessarily have to be an anti-religious discourse. Of course, it is essential to bear in mind that links with colonial Europe need to be taken into account when considering the secular perspective. Furthermore, they stressed that secular principles are translated into concrete practices that affect people’s lives. They also pointed out that the links between religion and culture were present in all the contributions to the conference; the line that divides them is a fine, sometimes invisible one, which means that the considerations and consequences of certain aspects are either accepted or rejected. One of the debates in which this is reflected is the distinction between culture and religion at school, bearing in mind that school is a space that enshrines and disseminates civic morality. There seems to be a ‘dissolving’ of the word religion due to the impossibility of defending it academically, but it is a word used by communities and by people everywhere. In general, there is a fear of “communitarianism”, as the law of separation, understood as the exclusion of religion from the public sphere, causes the religious to be considered as somehow “suspect”. There are difficulties in managing and accepting religious practice as a collective activity. With regard to political ideologies, the far right feel comfortable in the field of religion. A tainted moralistic discourse also exists, stemming not only from conservative ideologies, but also from progressive ones. The latter have abandoned all hope of embracing transformative discourses, and have therefore ended up resorting to the moral discourse that until recently was espoused by the Catholic Church in our country. Left-wing parties must be called on not to shirk their responsibility, and to intervene decisively, taking on board the evidence that religion still exists, and is not about to disappear. It is clear from all this that it may be necessary to abandon the desire to reach a definitive assessment in the face of such great diversity in secular situations and practices. There is a diversity of different models, and the processes are difficult to homogenise. We could perhaps speak of multiple secularisations. One thing that is extremely important, and that should be clearly noted is that all the participants believe that there is great confusion when it comes to the meaning of the terminology used, between the words secularism, secularisation, and laicism. These are words whose meanings are constantly shifting, and this needs work.

An interview with Pierre Tevanian will soon be published on the OAR website, and below you’ll find details of the contributions made by all the participants, which you can also watch on YouTube:

• Contribution by Santiago Alba Rico: 32:25 i 0:01
• Contribution by Pierre Tevanian: 39:37
• Contribution by Rajeev Bhargava: 01:10:41
• Contribution by Lori Beaman: 01:40:02
• Contribution by Manuel Delgado: 36:10
• Contribution by Víctor Albert: 01:08:04
• Contribution by Maria del Mar Griera: 01:32:29
• Contribution by Júlia Martínez Ariño: 03:15:17
• Contribution by Sol Tarrés: 03:43:59
• Contribution by Montserrat Santolino: 04:15:20