Religious Affairs Office

Lola López is a cultural anthropologist, an expert in intercultural perspectives, and a researcher at the Centre for African and Intercultural Studies (CEA), and she was the commissioner for Immigration, Interculturality and Diversity at Barcelona City Council from 2015 until 2019. Alberto López Bargados is a doctor of Social Anthropology, an associate professor in the Social Anthropology Department of the University of Barcelona, and a member of the Social Exclusion and Control research group (GRECS). His research areas are Islamophobic discourses and practices in Europe and the processes of (dis)memory linked to the Catalan and Spanish colonial experience in Africa. Both are founding members of the Stop als Fenòmens Islamòfobs [Stop Islamophobic Phenomena] Association (SAFI).

They are the coordinators of the ‘Religious policy and pluralism in a secular world’ conference, organised by the Office of Religious Affairs. We talk to them about the importance of the conference, the concept of secularism, and the reasons behind the themes of the three round tables that will take place on 19 and 20 November.

First, we wanted to ask you, as coordinators of the conference, about the title ‘Religious policy and pluralism in a secular world’. The conference is about the concept of secularism. What does secularism mean today and why is it so important?

ALBERTO: Secularism refers to the process religions underwent in Western Europe, especially from the nineteenth century onwards. It is a gradual process of segregating religion from politics or the public space, which are then occupied by the modern State. In other words, secularism is any political or intellectual order that requires strict separation between the political sphere and the religious sphere, on the understanding that the public space is a worldly space that must be governed by secular rules – meaning rules set by humans – and that religion’s area of responsibility is limited to the supernatural. By extension, despite reducing religion to the supernatural, secularism posits that it is allegorical or imaginary: it implicitly denies religion’s ability to bring us closer to the truth, and links the sphere of truth to science only.

The first round table presents the secular frameworks of four different states (France, India, the USA and Canada). Why do these models stand out?

ALBERTO: We have chosen the French model, the North American model (USA and Canada) and the Indian model, because behind them are proposals of secular states that have significant differences between them, which seem a good starting point for approaching the secular issue in Barcelona and Catalonia.

The French case is the closest to us, the most familiar one. Laïcité – the French term for secularism – is a model that promotes the strict separation of the political and the religious and that causes major tensions that are easy to see in contemporary French society.

The North American case is also quite well known, and is called ‘denominationalism’. It is characterised as a model for a territory where religious faiths play an important role in the political space. They exert a considerable influence on political decision-making, through lobbies. It is interesting because it contrasts starkly with the French model, where this religious influence on the public space and political decisions is limited.

The Indian case, meanwhile, could be described as a hybrid model. It is an interesting model because India is a country with a highly complex religious landscape, which, over recent decades, has generated enormous tension and issues. However, all of this social tension is not reflected in a democratic, parliamentary political system that caters for this religious diversity quite well. In other words, the contrast in the Indian case is between the significant social tension caused by religion and the calm, assured management of the religious issue through the political system. During the conference, we hope all three models help us to think about and rethink religion here in Barcelona and Catalonia.

At the second round table, the participants will talk about what parties of different ideologies believe religion’s place should be in society. Is religious pluralism a challenge for some sectors of the traditionally secular left?

LOLA: First of all, it is important to note that religious pluralism is a challenge for everyone. For many parties that are not part of the secular left, the problem or challenge is not religion in and of itself, but rather the management of religious pluralism. As for right-wing parties, at first glance, it seems like they are not against religion, but they are against the respect or management of this religious diversity. What we have is a misuse of the terms secularism and laïcité. By that, I mean that secularism proper is a tool for peaceful coexistence among a diversity of people from different religious traditions and people without a faith. Then there is what we would call ‘radical laïcité’: a misinterpretation of secularism that puts an end to tolerance, freedom of conscience, the right to religious freedom, etc. What I mean is that an institution not being influenced by some religion or another does not mean that religion must be separated from society. Basically, religion should not influence decisions, but equally, it should not be made invisible or persecuted. And that is where the confusion lies.

The rise of the far right is worrying. What relationship do these far-right parties have with religion?

LOLA: On one hand, in the social imaginary here, the idea that the far right are ultra-conservative Catholics reigns. Actually, there are many far-right groups that question and criticise the current pope for his progressive ideas. Some even do so through the media and public protests. These people are Catholic in quite a ‘peculiar’ way. On the other hand, in France – and in some cases here in Catalonia – far-right parties tend to appropriate words that are not part of their ideology. They have appropriated the word laïcité, for example. According to their use of the word, someone who has a faith and for whom religion is an important part of their life cannot be a republican. Once again, the word laïcité is being misused, as it does not mean the elimination of religion from society. Consequently, these discourses generate a sense of hatred towards people who practise a religion. In Catalonia, the far right has appropriated the word llibertat [freedom], for instance.

The third round table will discuss secularism in public institutions. Can you explain why you have decided to focus on the areas of schools, death management and cooperation?

LOLA: Schools are where work should be done in terms of respecting diversity, fighting for human rights, etc. However, in some education centres and in some political structures linked to education, this misused definition of secularism appears again, stating that religious expression must be kept out of schools, because at school, everyone must be equal. But not everyone is equal. For example, someone being prohibited from publicly manifesting their gender identity is unthinkable. But it is valid to issue bans on manifesting religious identity. What is more, the Agreements of 1992 indicate that schools must offer a menu adapted to their pupils’ religious beliefs, and this is not the case in practice. There is currently a contradiction between what is being done in many schools and what should be done in terms of respecting diversity and fighting for human rights.

The subject of death management is important for citizens’ well-being and mental and emotional health, and it is a topic that affects everyone. Death itself or the death of a loved one can generate fear, distress and uncertainty, and everyone tries to find a way to overcome it. Consequently, everything surrounding death management is closely linked to emotions and, clearly, to religious beliefs. It is therefore crucial to raise awareness of and incorporate the variety of ways of managing the emotions death stirs up, as well as the rituals that accompany it, regardless of whether a person has a faith or otherwise.

We also decided to include the field of international cooperation in this conference because, at first glance, it seems like it has nothing to do with the religious sphere. For years in Spain, cooperation has been the task of religious entities that, while remaining respectful of the beliefs of the places where they operate and have operated, are not aware of the intrinsic set of values, customs, ideologies, etc. they carry. Because religion is not just about believing in a particular deity or otherwise; in my opinion, it is a way of interpreting the world that is built in to us all. Consequently, it is likely that many who consider themselves atheist here in Catalonia carry significant religious baggage with them when they go to other countries to cooperate. Strangely enough, we have not found any in-depth studies into the field of international cooperation, and it has not been easy to find someone who would dare reflect on this subject for the conference.

Lola López, you were the commissioner for Immigration, Interculturality and Diversity at Barcelona City Council from 2015 to 2019. What do you think changed during those four years in the city in terms of the management of religious pluralism?

LOLA: From 2015 until 2019, there was a clear goal: to normalise the presence of religion in the city of Barcelona. This presence had to be normalised and the religious sphere had to be opened up to the public, not from a perspective of faith, but from the perspective of the city’s diversity. In my opinion, religious entities needed to participate in non-religious spaces and open themselves up to other areas with people with no religion. The way I see it is that religions are more than a belief or a faith; they have a perspective on many other spheres that involve them (social, cultural, etc.). We need to continue in this direction, without stigmatising groups because their connection is religious in nature, as they also deal with more cross-cutting issues. Personally, I think that this is the real, authentic secularism: religious entities not influencing policies but maintaining a normalised presence in school, in municipal plans, in the occupation of the public space, etc. Although part of this needs to be ensured by the public administration, efforts must also be made by the communities themselves in order to make connections.

Alberto, as a researcher, you have investigated Muslim communities a lot. What are the main challenges faced by religious minorities and Muslim communities in particular in Barcelona?

ALBERTO: There are challenges that affect worship directly, such as the need for local prayer facilities in the neighbourhoods where Muslim communities live. This is an obvious need. Then there is the need for institutional acknowledgement of Islamophobia. People in these communities suffer from terrible, humiliating racism in their daily lives, whether that is in the public space, on public transport, at work, when renting housing, etc. Public administrations must therefore make sure these people’s fundamental rights are guaranteed. In reference to this conference, they also need to be able to view religion in a less strict or rigid way than before. Because this secular perspective is certainly dominant in public administrations, and sometimes it is misconstrued as an anti-religious perspective. This misconstrued secularism affects Muslim communities and indeed all other religious minorities.

Both of you are founding members of the Stop als Fenòmens Islamòfobs [Stop Islamophobic Phenomena] Association (SAFI). Tell us about this organisation: why was it created and what does it do today?

ALBERTO: SAFI was created to become aware of, signal and highlight the Islamophobia suffered by members of Muslim communities and to establish tools to fight Islamophobia. From SAFI, the Islamophobia Observatory in Catalonia (ODIC) has emerged, with a view to monitoring and centralising all reports of Islamophobic acts and aggressions made in Catalonia and analysing them. Its fundamental goal is to continue to fight and condemn Islamophobia. SAFI has two spheres of action: one is more activism-based and educational (it takes part in the International Day against Islamophobia on 12 December every year and it organises activities, seminars and courses aimed at public administrations or at various groups and organisations), while the other revolves around research into the issue of Islamophobia, as part of SAFI’s members are researchers, some of whom are affiliated with Catalan universities. This research enriches the Observatory’s detection work.

Finally, why do you think this conference is necessary? Why is it important for a city like Barcelona?

ALBERTO: I mentioned the limitations I believe this strict secular perspective has earlier. It is a kind of ‘repressive secularism’, in the words of Jean Baubérot, that all too often gets mixed up with a directly anti-religious perspective and makes administrations insensitive to requests coming from religious communities or minorities. This affects the left in particular, because for these parties, this secular perspective and this anti-religious discourse are a constituent part of emancipatory left-wing ideologies (from the nineteenth century onwards). Today, it is obvious that the myths these ideologies put forward, of religions slowly disappearing and declining, have not and will not become a reality. I think we have a duty to rethink the role religious minorities have to play in the public space. Therefore, the aim of this conference is to help to rethink religious minorities’ role, without distinguishing between different political ideologies, and particularly, to help to rethink the political ideologies in which the secularist discourse is most present.

Barcelona has two characteristics that are interesting from the perspective of this conference. First, the conference will provide continuity for the work that has long been done by the city’s Office of Religious Affairs: a rare sight on the Spanish and European scene. In other words, a city like Barcelona having an Office of Religious Affairs is still an exception to the rule. Second, though it is true that sensitivity to religion in the institutional sphere in Barcelona is not new, it is unusual in that – if I may digress – since 1977, Barcelona has been governed exclusively by parties that define themselves as left-wing. These parties are especially invited to participate in this rethinking of religion in the public space. It must be acknowledged that Barcelona City Council has been looking at this issue for a while, and that is always welcome. But at the same time, this conference is intended to enrich this participation even more, because we believe, obviously, that simply speaking to the members of these religious minorities is not enough. They have experienced a certain lack of understanding from administrations, including on a municipal level.

LOLA: Personally, I think the conference is necessary because we need to reflect together on this subject, which affects most of the population, and certain groups in particular. It is a subject that impacts various spheres (social, cultural, etc.), not just politics. Beyond having an Office of Religious Affairs, in Barcelona, we need to think about and rethink municipal policies and reflect on the City Council’s relationship with religion and religious entities. Because it seems unthinkable that such a diverse city, with more than nine hundred religious communities and almost five hundred places of worship, could not have cross-cutting public policies on the subject of religious pluralism. Religion and spirituality are parts of personal, community and public life for a significant part of the population. This conference should be used to start to reflect on this fact and, more specifically, to bring these issues to life in Barcelona, a cosmopolitan city that strives to respect diversity. In my eyes, Barcelona’s diversity is incomplete if the city does not deal with these issues, with respect for people and their human rights, and with the intention of being intercultural and generating spaces for dialogue, for defending rights, and for recognising this diversity and its history.