This unaltered story [1] was originally published on OpenDemocracy.org.
License [2]: Creative Commons 4.0 - Attributions/No Derivities/Int'l.
------------------------

Secularism defined: a tale of two courts

By:   []

Date: 2021-12

In May 2021, Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs issued an order to lower the volume of mosque loudspeakers and use them only for calls to prayer, rather than to broadcast full sermons. Faced with a conservative backlash, the minister explained that the decision was in response to complaints from citizens.

In Turkey, the coverage of this news caused some excitement. Many Turkish citizens also complain, albeit timidly and unsuccessfully, about the high volume of the ezan (call to prayer) issuing from numerous mosques in each neighbourhood. It seems highly unlikely, however, that formal complaints through bureaucratic channels would achieve anything, given the political and ideological sensitivity of the matter.

National unity was achieved through religious homogenisation in Turkey. A popular nationalist slogan that long predates the Islamist rule of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) declares: “The flag will never be lowered and the ezan will never be silenced.”

Indeed, a recent decision of the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC) has ruled out the possibility of any successful litigation against the administration on this matter. This case, in ostensibly secular Turkey, contrasts with a parallel case judged by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). A brief comparison between these cases will reveal the substance of secularism in relation to freedom of religion.

But first a few words on the meaning of this concept, heatedly debated since the 1980s. As a firm supporter, I take secularism to be a normative principle for free and equal citizenship and propose the following definition:

“Secularism is a political principle that aims to guarantee citizens the right to freedom of ‘conscience and religion’, as spelled out in international human rights documents… [and as such] entails the existence of a political space separate from and independent of religions for the purpose of negotiating common issues and areas of concern, so that the social and political needs of all religious and irreligious members of society may be met.”

I take my cue from the rulings of the ECtHR. This may seem ironic to those familiar with the court’s jurisprudence, because a clear position on secularism is never spelled out, if secularism is defined as the way in which state-religion relations are structured.

In all relevant rulings, the ECtHR repeats the same statement:

“Where questions concerning the relationship between State and religions are at stake… opinion in a democratic society may reasonably differ widely... Rules in this sphere will consequently vary from one country to another according to national traditions… The Court’s task is to ascertain whether the measures taken at the national level are justified in principle and proportionate.”
[END]

[1] Url: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/global-extremes/secularism-defined-a-tale-of-two-courts/
[2] url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

OpenDemocracy via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/opendemocracy/