Basic HTML Version
Is religion compatible with democracy?
Some believe that
religious arguments
must be excluded from
public debate. But
citizens with strong
religious beliefs are also
entitled to freedom of
speech.
A public debate can be defined as two total-
ly opposite attitudes presented in the public
domain. Through discussion and dialogue,
in a situation where more people can be
involved, the participants will hopefully
come to an agreement on issues where they
share the same opinion, and where they
disagree. Society as a whole will then have a
basis for further discussion about how the
debate should proceed. This is the essence
of what Jürgen Habermas calls deliberative
democracy - where the process of discus-
sion and debate helps us in our search for a
common understanding.
"The question then becomes whether religi-
ous language can be used in public debate.
Arguments that are based on divine truths
are too restrictive to engage anyone other
than the believers themselves," says Jonas
Jakobsen, a PhD candidate in philosophy.
If someone argues that gays are entitled
to the same human rights as others, while
others say that God thinks that they are
sinners to be punished, then it becomes
difficult to find a common basis for discus-
sion.
Christians have mastered the
debate
"During the so-called crisis over the
Mohammed caricatures in Denmark, the
former Danish prime minister stated that
religion must be kept out of the public
debate. Habermas thinks that citizens with
religious beliefs must have a place for free
speech in public. But if their statements
are to be integrated into official policy, that
is, to be used in the legal system, laws and
public institutions, they must be translated
into a non-religious language that can be
understood, discussed and criticized by all.
An example is the Norwegian philosopher
Nina KarinMonsen, who has a decidedly
conservative Christian attitude to gay mar-
riage. Instead of referring to the Bible in her
arguments, Monsen has recast her argu-
ment into secular language and discusses
instead the rights of the child or marriage's
role in society. The Christians in Europe
has been good at this, says Jakobsen.
A disadvantage for Muslims?
A number of Islamic scholars and political
philosophers believe that this approach
gives Christians an advantage when it
comes to speech, because making a distinc-
tion between secular and religious language
stems from a Christian tradition.
"The anthropologist Talal Asad goes so far
as to say that considering religious argu-
ments to be unreasonable in a debate is
a cunning way to suppress Muslims. He
believes that Muslims may feel divided,
because they come from countries where
religion permeates everything in society.
They are thus not schooled in the (secular)
language that comes from the West."
Jakobsen says that Asad believes secularism
can be considered an attack on the Muslim
worldview. Asad argues that Western
notions of knowledge, rationality, criticism
and free speech make it almost impossible
for Muslims as people of faith to participate
in democratic debate. Thus, under Asad's
view, deliberative democracy becomes
incompatible with Islam.
"Asad's claims are problematic, because
they rest on a simplistic distinction between
'us' and 'them'. Asad's descriptions of
'the West' and 'Islam' are based on a false
assumption of cultural uniformity in the
two groups. Moreover, there is a great deal
of evidence that Muslims can participate in
secular debates," Jakobsen says. "During the
Danish cartoon crisis, EuropeanMuslims
rarely cited the Quran in a religious con-
tent, but often relied on secular concepts of
solidarity, respect, democratic dialogue and
human dignity."
But it is also possible that we should pay
closer attention to religious speech if we
want deliberative democracy to work.
"We cannot require Muslims or Christians
in informal public debates, such as on radio
programmes or TV debates, to only use
secular language. Deeply religious individu-
als should be allowed to express themselves
in a democratic society," Jakobson adds.
"Habermas also stresses that there are
good reasons not to close religion out of
democracy. Who knows, perhaps religions
can provide moral motivational resources
fromwhich modern civil society could
benefit?"
in a minority. Merciless criticism is not a
good tool if you want to change some-thing
about a culture that you think is unac-
ceptable. The Danish philosopher Søren
Kierkegaard has said 'If you want to help
another person, you first have to under-
stand what that other person understands.'
This means that we have to understand
why some people value their own reli-
gious or cultural practices, if we want to
change them through critical dialogue.
Otherwise what you say falls on deaf ears.
What Kierkegaard forgot to add is that we
ourselves can be changed as a result of such
a dialogue."
50
•••
Labyrint E/11
– University of Tromsø