10 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 3, 2012
The proviso is that “no substantial part of the
activities” of the charity is
…for propaganda, or otherwise
attempting, to influence legislation …
and [that the charity] does not
participate in, or intervene in (including
the publishing or distribution of
statements), any political campaign on
behalf of (or in opposition to) any
candidate for public office.36
In France, the strategy dealing with the question
of the role permitted religion in the public arena
is enshrined in the official all-of-government
policy of secularism or laïcité noted above.
Theoretically, by not providing financial
privileges to religious groups (apart from tax-
exempt status for places of worship), the
political influence of religion is not artificially
enhanced by government largesse, although
there has been some erosion of the principle in
practice.37
The regulatory frameworks adopted in most
countries are generally aimed at social control of
religion (an irksome thought to most faith
groups, which would rather not be regulated at
all). In addition, an underlying objective of
political actors is to keep religion out of the
political sphere. Various examples of this have
been noted above. Toft, Philpott, and Shah
argue that strategies to keep religion out of
politics fall into two main tendencies. On the
“Left” is the ‘radical secularization of life
through the coercive expulsion [of religion]
from politics and containment within the private
sphere. China and Cuba are given as proponents
of this tendency. On the “Right” is the
“controlled sacralization of political life through
state-managed support of religious symbols,
legislation, and institutions.” Examples given of
36 Hon. Ian Sheppard, “Report of the Inquiry into the Definition of
Charities and Related Organisations” (Canberra: The Treasury,
Commonwealth of Australia, 2001), p. 349. Citing Internal
Revenue Code 26 USCA s. 501 c (3).
37 In Australia, the government directly funds religious schools
(which also have exempt status). Most recently, chaplaincy
funding has been made available to state and religious schools. In
France, article 1 of the 1905 law states that “the Republic does not
recognize, nor subsidise any religion.” However, this restriction is
flaunted in some instances. See Max Wallace, The Purple
Economy: Supernatural Charities, Tax and the State (Elsternwick,
Victoria: Australian National Secular Association, 2007), pp. 125,
127.
this strategy include the Salazar regime in
Portugal and the Franco regime in Spain, as well
as contemporary authoritarian governments in
the Arab world.38
It is said by Toft et al. that neither of these
approaches has been entirely successful, which
has led the authors to advocate “strategies that
accommodate the political presence of religious
actors in ways that maximize the likelihood that
their activism will yield positive rather than
negative political outcomes.”39 However, this is
easier said than done, and, before any strategy is
considered redundant, it might be worth
considering why different strategies have been
devised and why it has been felt necessary to
keep religion out of the political sphere.
Although not considered to be on the “far Left,”
France (and Turkey) subscribe to the
secularization tendency. Some critics allege that
the so-called “neutral” stance of the French
government (in remaining detached from any
and all religious groups) has been accompanied
by the adoption of a world view that competes
with religion—rationalism. Hence, the ideology
of secular republicanism, or laïcité,
regards religion as, at best, acceptable in
the private sphere although
fundamentally incompatible with the
institutions of a secular Republic and, at
worst, antithetical to the capacity for
rational free-thinking and to the primary
loyalty of French citizens to their
country … It refers to a strongly positive
commitment to exclude religion from
State institutions and, in its place, to
inculcate principles of nonreligious
rationality and morality.40
Alternatively, governments that conform to the
sacralization tendency (not necessarily to the
38 Monica Duffy Toft, Daniel Philpott, and Timothy Samuel Shah,
God’s Century: Resurgent Religion and Global Politics (New
York, London: W W Norton &Company, 2011), p. 211.
39 Ibid., p. 212.
40 James A Beckford, “Laicite, Dystopia, and the Reaction to New
Religious Movements in France,” in Regulating Religion: Case
Studies from Around the Globe, edited by James T. Richardson
(NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2004), p. 28. To the
contrary, it might be argued that governments are elected to assert
principles that rationalism is the correct principle because it
underpins evidence-based decision making (based on science
rather than faith).
The proviso is that “no substantial part of the
activities” of the charity is
…for propaganda, or otherwise
attempting, to influence legislation …
and [that the charity] does not
participate in, or intervene in (including
the publishing or distribution of
statements), any political campaign on
behalf of (or in opposition to) any
candidate for public office.36
In France, the strategy dealing with the question
of the role permitted religion in the public arena
is enshrined in the official all-of-government
policy of secularism or laïcité noted above.
Theoretically, by not providing financial
privileges to religious groups (apart from tax-
exempt status for places of worship), the
political influence of religion is not artificially
enhanced by government largesse, although
there has been some erosion of the principle in
practice.37
The regulatory frameworks adopted in most
countries are generally aimed at social control of
religion (an irksome thought to most faith
groups, which would rather not be regulated at
all). In addition, an underlying objective of
political actors is to keep religion out of the
political sphere. Various examples of this have
been noted above. Toft, Philpott, and Shah
argue that strategies to keep religion out of
politics fall into two main tendencies. On the
“Left” is the ‘radical secularization of life
through the coercive expulsion [of religion]
from politics and containment within the private
sphere. China and Cuba are given as proponents
of this tendency. On the “Right” is the
“controlled sacralization of political life through
state-managed support of religious symbols,
legislation, and institutions.” Examples given of
36 Hon. Ian Sheppard, “Report of the Inquiry into the Definition of
Charities and Related Organisations” (Canberra: The Treasury,
Commonwealth of Australia, 2001), p. 349. Citing Internal
Revenue Code 26 USCA s. 501 c (3).
37 In Australia, the government directly funds religious schools
(which also have exempt status). Most recently, chaplaincy
funding has been made available to state and religious schools. In
France, article 1 of the 1905 law states that “the Republic does not
recognize, nor subsidise any religion.” However, this restriction is
flaunted in some instances. See Max Wallace, The Purple
Economy: Supernatural Charities, Tax and the State (Elsternwick,
Victoria: Australian National Secular Association, 2007), pp. 125,
127.
this strategy include the Salazar regime in
Portugal and the Franco regime in Spain, as well
as contemporary authoritarian governments in
the Arab world.38
It is said by Toft et al. that neither of these
approaches has been entirely successful, which
has led the authors to advocate “strategies that
accommodate the political presence of religious
actors in ways that maximize the likelihood that
their activism will yield positive rather than
negative political outcomes.”39 However, this is
easier said than done, and, before any strategy is
considered redundant, it might be worth
considering why different strategies have been
devised and why it has been felt necessary to
keep religion out of the political sphere.
Although not considered to be on the “far Left,”
France (and Turkey) subscribe to the
secularization tendency. Some critics allege that
the so-called “neutral” stance of the French
government (in remaining detached from any
and all religious groups) has been accompanied
by the adoption of a world view that competes
with religion—rationalism. Hence, the ideology
of secular republicanism, or laïcité,
regards religion as, at best, acceptable in
the private sphere although
fundamentally incompatible with the
institutions of a secular Republic and, at
worst, antithetical to the capacity for
rational free-thinking and to the primary
loyalty of French citizens to their
country … It refers to a strongly positive
commitment to exclude religion from
State institutions and, in its place, to
inculcate principles of nonreligious
rationality and morality.40
Alternatively, governments that conform to the
sacralization tendency (not necessarily to the
38 Monica Duffy Toft, Daniel Philpott, and Timothy Samuel Shah,
God’s Century: Resurgent Religion and Global Politics (New
York, London: W W Norton &Company, 2011), p. 211.
39 Ibid., p. 212.
40 James A Beckford, “Laicite, Dystopia, and the Reaction to New
Religious Movements in France,” in Regulating Religion: Case
Studies from Around the Globe, edited by James T. Richardson
(NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2004), p. 28. To the
contrary, it might be argued that governments are elected to assert
principles that rationalism is the correct principle because it
underpins evidence-based decision making (based on science
rather than faith).
