Abstract
The publication of Andrew Copson’s book Secularism in the ‘Very Short Introduction’ series is greatly to be welcomed, for what is badly needed is a concise and clear account of this widely misunderstood idea. The misunderstanding and confusion is in part the fault of the person who coined the term, George Holyoake, and who used it to refer both to a non-religious way of life and to a way of ordering society. The word has come to be used mainly in this latter more specific sense, and this is the secularism about which Copson writes. Secularism in this sense is something that can equally be espoused by the non-religious and by adherents of any religion, but too often it is seen as implying a hostility to religion because of the confusion with the earlier sense.
Copson begins with the three-part definition of secularism by the French writer Jean Baubérot: the separation of religious institutions and political institutions; freedom of thought, conscience and religion for all; and no state discrimination on grounds of religion or non-religion. Copson suggests that the case for secularism understood in this way can be made on three main grounds: that individuals should be free to make up their own minds on important questions; that everyone should be treated fairly regardless of their religious or non-religious convictions; and that secularism is the best way of achieving peace and harmony in increasingly diverse societies.
The definition seems clear and the case seems strong, but in reality things are not so simple. One of the great strengths of Copson’s thoroughly researched book is to convey the great diversity of arrangements in the modern world, none of which is a complete realization of Baubérot’s ideal secularism. As Copson says, ‘in reality there are many secularisms’ (p. 92), and they may to a greater or lesser extent emphasize different strands of that definition. The French tradition of laïcité, for instance, emphasizes a national identity that has no religious character, whereas in the US tradition, religion is prominent in public life but there is a considerable degree of freedom of religion and belief.
The other theme to emerge strongly from Copson’s discussion is that in the modern world ‘Secularism is an idea under siege’ (p. 93). The resurgence of political religion, fuelled both by intolerant versions of religious belief and by new forms of nationalism appealing to religion for their legitimacy, leads him to suggest that secularism is challenged as never before (p. 122). As chief executive of Humanists UK and president of Humanists International, he is very aware of the dangers, and this leads him to ask: ‘Is secularism too associated with the non-religious to have the objectivity it needs when confronted with … increasing diversity?’ (p. 115). He does justice to the more thoughtful criticisms of secularism, such as that it pretends to a neutrality which is in fact impossible. He rightly insists that secularism does not exclude religion from public life, and does not require citizens to be non-religious. Secularism is, he concludes, ‘the best way of organizing our common life in a way that is fair to all in the context of diversity’ (p. 125). His book makes an impressive and, it is to be hoped, persuasive case for that claim.