International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 3, 2012 11
“far Right”), such as England, have conspired to
put faith on a pedestal, to provide special
privileges to a mainstream faith because of a
commonly held presumption that the
propagation of faith is in the public interest. The
quid pro quo has been that the faith group
refrains from competition in the political sphere,
and indeed works in harness with the state to
achieve common objectives.
However, there are now influences working to
undermine the old status quos. One is the rise of
multifaith pluralism in hitherto homogenous
(faith-wise) communities, which leads to a
proliferation of problematic groups (cults)
claiming equal religious status and privileges.
Another is the increasing influence
(globalization) of rights-based fundamental
laws, which promote and extend vaguely defined
concepts that incorporate group rights along
with the rights of the individual. The United
States has taken upon itself to promote
worldwide its own lawyer-interpreted version of
religious freedom contained in the First
Amendment, with Congress passing the
International Religious Freedom Act 1998,
under which reports are made on the
transgressions of other countries.41 I argue that
these influences undermine both strategies, of
secularization and sacralization. The result
might arguably end in a laissez-faire religious
free-for-all, in which charlatans run riot and
authentic freedom of religion, for all, is the
casualty.
Competing Conceptual Frameworks
For several years, I have conducted a
colloquium for the Macquarie University Global
Leadership Programme on the topic “Religion,
Secularism and the State: Comparative
Perspectives from Around the Globe.” The
colloquium
…examines the intersection of religion
and politics and compares different
national approaches to the regulation of
religion … seeking to establish a
41 Toft, Philpott, and Shah, God’s Century: Resurgent Religion and
Global Politics, p. 222.
normative approach to the role permitted
religions in the public arena.42
While critics would say that this quest is
unrealistic (on the basis that there is such a
plethora of approaches in such different contexts
that it is just not feasible) or wrong (on the basis
that a plurality of responses provides a
smorgasbord of choice—which is a positive
thing), I would argue that, at the level of
philosophically inspired frameworks, the choices
can be narrowed considerably.
It seems to me there are three main choices (with
a further subchoice under the third option). We
might endorse the sacralization tendency, which
favors a mainstream religious grouping (but
which increasingly needs to recognize the
“rights” of other groups). Alternatively, we
might endorse the secularization tendency
(which favors no particular religious perspective
and supports none). Finally, we might favor an
approach that attempts to support all religious
groups, or multifaith promotion. Under this
approach, all “faith” groups are treated as
equally as possible, without “discrimination”
against new or controversial groups—or even
against nonreligious equivalent belief systems
such as humanism.
Including disbelief generally as an equivalent
worldview to religious faith (the suboption)
accords with the principle of structural
pluralism.43 However, groups accepted where
this suboption can be seen to be operating tend
to be restricted to those who adopt a noncritical
position viz a viz religion. Assertive atheists are
unlikely to be afforded equivalent teaching time
in state-supported religious education classes,
whereas nonconfronting humanists already have
been admitted in some places.44
From a policy perspective, I think the choice of
secularization is the most feasible option in light
42 Macquarie International GLP Team, “Student's Guide to the
Global Leadership Program,” edited by Macquarie University
(Sydney: 2008).
43 …which “charges the state in its dealings not to privilege or
disadvantage any religious or nonreligious perspective over any
other.” Christian Smith, The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests,
and Conflict in the Secularization of American Public Life
(University of California Press, 2003), p. x.
44 Michael Bachelard, “Religion in Schools to Go God-Free,” The
Age, 14 December 2008, Thomas, Religion in Schools:
Controversies Around the World, p. 65.
“far Right”), such as England, have conspired to
put faith on a pedestal, to provide special
privileges to a mainstream faith because of a
commonly held presumption that the
propagation of faith is in the public interest. The
quid pro quo has been that the faith group
refrains from competition in the political sphere,
and indeed works in harness with the state to
achieve common objectives.
However, there are now influences working to
undermine the old status quos. One is the rise of
multifaith pluralism in hitherto homogenous
(faith-wise) communities, which leads to a
proliferation of problematic groups (cults)
claiming equal religious status and privileges.
Another is the increasing influence
(globalization) of rights-based fundamental
laws, which promote and extend vaguely defined
concepts that incorporate group rights along
with the rights of the individual. The United
States has taken upon itself to promote
worldwide its own lawyer-interpreted version of
religious freedom contained in the First
Amendment, with Congress passing the
International Religious Freedom Act 1998,
under which reports are made on the
transgressions of other countries.41 I argue that
these influences undermine both strategies, of
secularization and sacralization. The result
might arguably end in a laissez-faire religious
free-for-all, in which charlatans run riot and
authentic freedom of religion, for all, is the
casualty.
Competing Conceptual Frameworks
For several years, I have conducted a
colloquium for the Macquarie University Global
Leadership Programme on the topic “Religion,
Secularism and the State: Comparative
Perspectives from Around the Globe.” The
colloquium
…examines the intersection of religion
and politics and compares different
national approaches to the regulation of
religion … seeking to establish a
41 Toft, Philpott, and Shah, God’s Century: Resurgent Religion and
Global Politics, p. 222.
normative approach to the role permitted
religions in the public arena.42
While critics would say that this quest is
unrealistic (on the basis that there is such a
plethora of approaches in such different contexts
that it is just not feasible) or wrong (on the basis
that a plurality of responses provides a
smorgasbord of choice—which is a positive
thing), I would argue that, at the level of
philosophically inspired frameworks, the choices
can be narrowed considerably.
It seems to me there are three main choices (with
a further subchoice under the third option). We
might endorse the sacralization tendency, which
favors a mainstream religious grouping (but
which increasingly needs to recognize the
“rights” of other groups). Alternatively, we
might endorse the secularization tendency
(which favors no particular religious perspective
and supports none). Finally, we might favor an
approach that attempts to support all religious
groups, or multifaith promotion. Under this
approach, all “faith” groups are treated as
equally as possible, without “discrimination”
against new or controversial groups—or even
against nonreligious equivalent belief systems
such as humanism.
Including disbelief generally as an equivalent
worldview to religious faith (the suboption)
accords with the principle of structural
pluralism.43 However, groups accepted where
this suboption can be seen to be operating tend
to be restricted to those who adopt a noncritical
position viz a viz religion. Assertive atheists are
unlikely to be afforded equivalent teaching time
in state-supported religious education classes,
whereas nonconfronting humanists already have
been admitted in some places.44
From a policy perspective, I think the choice of
secularization is the most feasible option in light
42 Macquarie International GLP Team, “Student's Guide to the
Global Leadership Program,” edited by Macquarie University
(Sydney: 2008).
43 …which “charges the state in its dealings not to privilege or
disadvantage any religious or nonreligious perspective over any
other.” Christian Smith, The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests,
and Conflict in the Secularization of American Public Life
(University of California Press, 2003), p. x.
44 Michael Bachelard, “Religion in Schools to Go God-Free,” The
Age, 14 December 2008, Thomas, Religion in Schools:
Controversies Around the World, p. 65.
