Secularism and Religion from Habermas's Perspective

Can religious and non-religious citizens have equal rights in a country? According to Jürgen Habermas, the answer is yes, provided that government officials and citizens adhere to democratic principles. Government officials must maintain a neutral stance towards the beliefs and expressions of citizens and protect freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Although the project of secular societies in Europe may seem exceptional compared to the political cultural situation in the world, Habermas emphasizes that the thesis of secularism has many defenders globally. This German sociologist and philosopher insists that to understand such issues, one must distinguish between the processes of secularization and modernization in a society. The reality is that there is no doubt that religious citizens can also lead the modernization movement and play a spearhead role in modernism. However, religiosity is a personal matter in modern societies, not a governmental duty. In progressive societies, religion does not necessarily lose its significance, and when discussing post-secular societies, it is because the level of religious thought in society has changed over time, making it difficult to predict the future role of belief in religion in society. Habermas writes that, firstly, secularists have lost confidence due to media reports regarding the power of Islamic fundamentalist movements and terrorism. Secularists thought they had triumphed over religions, but living in a secular society does not mean that the importance of religion in modern societies has disappeared. Secondly, religious communities in today's secular countries can influence social, political, and cultural views, for example, regarding abortion or ethical questions about nature and animal protection. Thirdly, even different religious communities influence each other; for instance, the activities of Muslims in Europe and America sometimes create challenges for intellectuals and Christian citizens. Cultural and political pluralism itself is one of the biggest challenges for modern societies. Habermas states that one characteristic of post-secular societies is that secular citizens are no longer certain that religion will disappear. A very important question posed by this German philosopher and sociologist is how the reciprocal relationship between non-religious and religious citizens should be. The foundation of his discussion is the separation of church and state. Habermas writes that today, religious minorities in secular societies enjoy equal rights and can freely engage in their religious customs. Freedom of expression and freedom of belief and religion are among the most important pillars of a country with a democratic constitution, which guarantees the basic freedoms of citizens. According to Habermas, the issue between secularism and religion can be resolved in civil society. In this civil society, every group, regardless of its beliefs, can have its place and status. The rights of all citizens in a civil society are recognized. In civil society, every citizen must abide by the laws of the country. Furthermore, every democratic citizen must respect the beliefs and opinions of others, even if someone else's theory negates their own belief. Thus, the key to solving issues between secularists and religious citizens lies in a proper understanding of the concept of civil society. Therefore, in a democratic country, both political and scientific enlightenment and freedom of religions must be guaranteed. In a secular society, both a religious citizen has the right to use freedom, and a non-religious citizen is allowed to insist that they do not want to be influenced by religious propaganda and wish to remain free from such religious advertising disturbances. Thus, being non-religious is not considered an insult. Habermas states that both citizens, religious and non-religious, have the right to freedom, provided they respect each other's freedom and tolerate each other's rights, despite having different lifestyles. Therefore, two democrats with different beliefs, one religious and one non-religious, must coexist. According to Habermas, civil society does not only have issues with religious fundamentalists but also with secular fundamentalists, for example, if they cannot or do not want to coexist with a religious person and exhibit political intolerance. Habermas believes that secularists must also respect the cultural past of religious migrants in a democratic civil society, as religious communities can also play an effective and positive role in solving social issues in civil society. This means that neither secularists nor religious individuals should belittle or demean each other. He reminds us that the Catholic Church only accepted the foundations of liberalism and democracy in 1965. Therefore, believers of different religions should be given time. Habermas sees the solution to these social issues in the democratic advancement of citizens' mentality. Both non-religious and religious citizens must accept the backgrounds of the laws of a secular and democratic country. For this reason, Habermas writes that Muslim centers and Muslim citizens should be given the opportunity to understand citizenship and benefit from its advantages. However, living in civil society also brings commitments. Thus, religious communities in a civil society must decide how far they are willing to reform and adjust their thoughts and behaviors. Just as the history of the Reformation in Europe transformed Christianity, Muslims in civil society must have the opportunity to reform themselves. However, the condition for accepting such transformation is living in a democratic country and in a free civil society. This German philosopher and sociologist provides an interesting example that Muslims can learn the concept of gender equality, and secularists must also learn that there is no reason to belittle any religious person. Habermas writes that in a country with a democratic constitution, civil society must also recognize and accept the language of law and learn the language of law as much as possible. However, every citizen must be allowed to establish their relationships in their religious language, provided they also adhere to the language of the constitution in their dealings with dissenters. Therefore, every religious person must be willing and able to interact with others in a worldly language beyond their sacred language and at least tolerate non-religious and non-believing citizens. Secularists must also accept that religious citizens are not necessarily less modern.