In Praise of the Lay State

by Lamnia Mekhemar

Lamnia Mekhemar Ambassador of Egypt
to The Holy See

The debate that has evolved around the relationship between the State and religion is becoming all the more an issue of vital interest to all our societies regardless of political posture, economic power, cultural background, or predominant religion; whether Moslems, Christians or Jews. For years, it was thought that the demarcation line between the two realms of State and religion was well defined and established. But every day we see new elements added, new questions asked about whether a matter that has its roots in religion should be introduced to the political sphere …, whether religion should influence politics … whether after centuries of almost total separation between religion and State, religion should once again occupy more space in public life, putting the principle of secularism to the test. I shall not discuss the reasons behind this new trend, which may be attributed to the ending of the cold war, injustice, the emergence of religious groups as important players in the political arena, the growth of religious fundamentalism evidenced in the use of violent means and terrorism, racism or any other reasons whose impact we could argue over. But, what we cannot argue about is that religion is becoming an important factor in shaping the political scene, whether within nations or at the international level.
Hence, the question becomes whether the model of secularism adopted by many countries, including my own, is still valid. Could it cater to the aspirations of the ever renewed needs of modern societies? If not, what other formula do we need to adopt to put up with the realities of today? It seems very fitting at this stage to explain what is meant by the concept of secularism.
This might appear naïve to many, but in view of the confusion and vagueness that ramble around it, I believe that it is necessary to draw a line between what belongs to this term and what does not by tying up some loose ends. Secularism, as some philosophers put it, is about approaching what is relative or variable (in this case politics) with what is relative (temporal thinking). This infers that mixing politics with religion would be seen as approaching what is relative with what is absolute. This incompatibility between the two approaches resulted in what is known as the separation between State and religion.
Often, and especially nowadays, we find some derailment from the real meaning of this concept, and I mean here the obdurate insistence by some to equate secularism to atheism. They use both terms as equivalents and interchangeable in an attempt to provoke repudiation and produce an aura of resentment of that concept by people who believe. This is a mere misconception, for secularism is about allowing everyone the liberty to decide on his or her own faith, whatever form it takes as long as it does not have an impact on the public life. It is about the inclusion of everyone, every faith, all working towards the realization of the public good.

The Egyptian model is rather secular. Although the constitution stipulates in its 2^nd article that Egypt is an Islamic country and that Shariah is the main source for its laws, the country is still governed by a secular legal system that finds its base mainly in the code napoleon. (This is of course with some exceptions like matters related to the family status, which are governed by Shariah for Moslems and ecumenical law for Christians, each according to their faith). With the advent of the rampant religious hegemony in many countries, Egypt being no exception, and the growing aspirations of religious groups for more presence and their systematic pressure on the policy makers in order to infuse more religious values in the public sphere, the debate should reflect on how much space should be allowed in order to accommodate what is religious at the expense of what is secular. The real challenge is how to make the secular model survive a possible takeover. If we agree that the secular model can offer the society a common platform where all can live together, while preserving the public interest, putting private differences aside and cooperating and interacting with each other harmoniously, then we should look for ways and means to give this concept a more accommodating meaning. Nevertheless, whatever such ways and means would entail, we must not allow them to infringe upon the rights and freedoms guaranteed to citizens by the respective constitutions and laws. Any proposed ways and means should be subject to strict criteria on the understanding that: First, religion, while being a prime source of values and principles in society, should not be perceived as the sole reservoir of morality. Different community groups should not be isolated and marginalized because of their beliefs. They can be a driving force in their communities for attaining property and peace. Second, religion, as a set of values, should not and cannot be considered a ‘direct’ source for legislation. It may even not be fit to become applicable as an autonomous legal rule in certain respects. The need to incorporate certain religious dictates into the rules governing a society should follow the normal procedures for processing desiderata into rules; that is of converting morality into law. True, there is no single way or mechanism by which morality can be transformed into binding law, but time and circumstances tend to transform situations of fact, which are not intended to have legal effect ab initio, into situations of law through different legal processes, whether customary or through legislation. This entails a degree of consensus obtaining among the parties over the contents in question and a degree of concreteness of this content, i.e., whether it is specific enough to become operational as law if adopted. At this juncture, I must remind you that morality has always been a major source for legislation in all different legal systems and that by allowing religion to become a source of inspiration and eventually contributing to the legal ensemble of rules, we are in no way reinventing the wheel.
I would like to conclude by saying that in order to survive the onslaught of religious forces currently sweeping a significant portion of our planet, deference should be given to accommodating aspirations of the various groups, while at the same time, paying maximum attention to protecting basic freedoms and human rights as well as the integrity of the legal system in question. This could be only realized through a secular model that could host a variety of ideas, enacting some of them, whenever possible, through the recognized means, in an atmosphere of tolerance, acceptance and respect.