Laïcité ([la.i.si.te]; 'secularism')[2][3] is the constitutional principle ofsecularism in France. Article 1 of theFrench Constitution is commonly interpreted as the separation of civil society and religious society. It discourages religious involvement in government affairs, especially in the determination of state policies as well as the recognition of a state religion. It also forbids government involvement in religious affairs, and especially prohibits government influence in the determination of religion, such that it includes a right to thefree exercise of religion.[4][5]
French secularism has a long history: Enlightenment thinkers emphasized reason and self direction. Revolutionaries in 1789 violently overthrew theAncien Régime, which included the Catholic Church. Secularism was an important ideology during theSecond Empire andThird Republic. For the last century, the French government policy has been based on the1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State,[6] which is however not applicable inAlsace andMoselle. While the termlaïcité has been used from the end of the 19th century to denote the freedom of public institutions from the influence of theCatholic Church, the concept today covers other religious movements as well.[7]
Laïcité relies on the division betweenprivate life, where adherents believe religion belongs, and thepublic sphere, in which each individual should appear as a simplecitizen who isequal to all other citizens, not putting the emphasis on any ethnic, religious, or other particularities. According to this concept, the government must refrain from taking positions onreligious doctrine and consider religious subjects only for their practical consequences on inhabitants' lives.
It is best described as a belief that government and political issues should be kept separate from religious organizations and religious issues (as long as the latter do not have notable social consequences). This is meant to both protect the government from any possible interference from religious organizations and to protect the religious organization from political quarrels and controversies.
Proponents argue thatlaïcité itself does not necessarily imply any hostility of the government with respect to any religion, asserting that French state secularism is actually based upon respect forfreedom of thought andfreedom of religion. Therefore, the absence of astate religion—and the subsequentseparation of the state and church—is considered by proponents to be a prerequisite for such freedoms.
The French wordlaïc comes fromLatinlāicus, which is aloanword from theGreeklāïkós (λᾱϊκός, 'of the people'), itself fromlāós (λᾱός, 'people').[8][9][a] The French suffix-ité is equivalent to the English-ity.Secularism is a concept rooted in theFrench Revolution, beginning to develop since theFrench Third Republic after theRepublicans gained control of the state.
While the term was originally the French equivalent of the termlaity (i.e., everyone who is notclergy), this meaning changed after the Revolution, and came to denote the keeping of religion separate from theexecutive,judicial, andlegislative branches of government.[citation needed] This includes prohibitions on having astate religion and on the government endorsing any religious position, be it a religion or atheism.
From the end of the 19th century, the wordlaïcité has been used in the context of asecularization process—among countries where theCatholic Church had retained its influence—to mean the freedom of public institutions (especially primary schools) from the influence of the Church.[7] Today, the concept covers other religious movements as well.[7] Secularism took form for the first time during the French Revolution: the abolition of theAncien Régime in August 1789 was accompanied by the end of religious privileges and the affirmation of universal principles, including thefreedom of opinion and equal rights expressed by the 1789 Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen. The texts of theDeclaration of Rights of Man and Citizen were incorporated into the preamble to the Constitution of October 4, 1958. Among them is article 10 of the declaration "No one should be worried about his opinions, even religious, provided that their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law."
Public education has been secular since the laws of March 28, 1882, and October 30, 1886, which established "moral and civic instruction" in place of teaching religious morals and secularism of personnel and programs, respectively.
In the 19th century, secularization laws gradually separated the state from historical ties with the Catholic Church and created new sociopolitical values constructed on the principles of republican universalism. This process, which took place in a larger movement linked to modernity, entrusted the French people with redefining the political and social foundations: the executive, legislative and judicial powers; the organization of the state, its components, its representations; the education system, the rites of civil life, and the development of law and morality; regardless of religious beliefs. TheThird Republic notably recreated the organization of the school system, by establishing public, secular, and compulsory education (Jules Ferry laws). TheJules Ferry laws (1881–1882) are supplemented by theGoblet law (established in 1886) on the organization of primary education, article 17 of which provides that education in public schools is exclusively entrusted to secular staff. This process culminated in 1905 with the Law of Separation of Churches and State, which solidified secularization.
Although the term was current throughout the 19th century, France did not fully separate church and state until the passage of its1905 law on the separation of the Churches and the State, prohibiting the state from recognizing or funding any religion.
However, the 1905 law did not use the wordlaïcité itself, and so the notion oflaïcité as a legal principle is open to question, as it was never defined as such by the text of a law.[11] It was not until theConstitution of 1946 from theFrench Fourth Republic that the word appeared explicitly as a constitutional principle entailing legal effect, but without being further specified.[11] If built before 1905 religious buildings in France (mostly Catholic churches, Protestant chapels, and Jewish synagogues) became the property of the city councils. Those now have the duty to maintain the (often historical) buildings but cannot subsidize the religious organizations using them. In areas that were part ofGermany at that time, and which did not return to France until 1918, some arrangements for the cooperation of church and state are still in effect today (seeAlsace-Moselle).
Secularism is a core concept in theFrench Constitution: Article 1 formally states that:
| French | English |
|---|---|
| La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l’égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d’origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances. | France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. |
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(October 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The principle oflaïcité in France is implemented through a number of policies, primarily based on the1905 law. TheFrench government is legally prohibited from recognizing anyreligion (except for legacy statutes like those of militarychaplains and thelocal law ofAlsace-Moselle). Instead, it recognizesreligious organizations, according to formal legal criteria that do not address religious doctrine:[citation needed]
French political leaders, though not by any means prohibited from making religious remarks, mostly refrain from it. Religious considerations are generally considered incompatible with reasoned political debate. Political leaders are not allowed to practice any religion and are expected to differentiate whatever religious beliefs from their political arguments.Christine Boutin, who openly argued on religious grounds against a legaldomestic partnership available regardless of the sex of the partners, quickly became the butt of late-night comedy jokes.[citation needed]
Many find that being discreet with one's religion is a necessary part of being French, which has led to frequent divisions with some non-Christian immigrants, especially with part of France's largeMuslim population. As such, the debate has taken place over whether any religious apparel or displays by individuals (e.g., the Islamichijab, Sikhturban,Christian crosses, and JewishStars of David andkippah) should be banned from public schools. Such a ban in France cameinto effect in 2004. In the spring of 2011, the official non-discrimination agency, la HALDE, reinforcedlaïcité in hospitals—as advocated by the Minister of the Interior,Claude Guéant—and in public service generally.[citation needed]
The strict separation of church and state which began with the 1905 law has evolved into what some religious leaders see as a "form ofpolitical correctness that made bringing religion into public affairs a major taboo."[12] Former PresidentNicolas Sarkozy initially criticized this approach as a "negativelaïcité" and wanted to develop a "positivelaïcité" that recognizes the contribution of faith to French culture, history, and society, allows for faith in thepublic discourse, and enables government subsidies for faith-based groups.[12] Sarkozy saw France's main religions as positive contributions to French society. He visited thepope in December 2007 and publicly acknowledged France'sChristian roots, while highlighting the importance offreedom of thought,[13] arguing that faith should come back into the public sphere. On 12 September 2008, in line with Sarkozy's views on the need for reform oflaïcité,Pope Benedict XVI said that it was time to revisit the debate over the relationship between church and state, advocating a "healthy" form oflaïcité.[14] Meeting with Sarkozy, he stated:
In fact, it is fundamental, on the one hand, to insist upon the distinction between the political realm and that of religion in order to preserve both the religious freedom of citizens and the responsibility of the state toward them. [...] On the other hand, [it is important] to become more aware of the irreplaceable role of religion for the formation of consciences and the contribution which it can bring to – among other things – the creation of a basic ethical consensus within society.[14]
In 2009, Sarkozy changed footing on the place of religion in French society, as he publicly declared theburqa as "not welcome" in France, and favoring legislation to outlaw it. In February 2010, two people inburqas managed to pass the security doors of a post office in their full veils, after which the two removed their head coverings, pulled out a gun, and held up the post office.[15] Following March 2011, local elections strong disagreement appeared within the governing UMP over the appropriateness of holding a debate onlaïcité as desired by the French President. On 30 March 2011, a letter appeared inLa Croix signed by representatives of 6 religious bodies opposing the appropriateness of such a debate.
A law was passed on 2011 April 11 with strong support from political parties, as well as from Sarkozy, which made it illegal to hide the face in public spaces, affecting a few thousand women in France wearing theniqab and the burqa.
ScholarOlivier Roy has argued that theburkini bans (2016) and secularist policies of France provoked religious violence in France, to whichGilles Kepel responded that Britain, which has no such policies, still suffered a greater number of attacks in 2017 than France.[16]
Lebanese-born French authorAmin Maalouf has criticized the characterization of France's political structure as truly secular, remarking: "I have never understand how a country that called herself secular could call some of her citizens 'French Muslims', and deprive them of some of their rights merely because they belonged to a religion other than her own."[17]
| This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(February 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Other countries have followed in the French model, having forms of secularism—examples include Albania, Mexico, and Turkey.[18]
Public discourse inQuebec, the only predominantly French-speaking province in Canada, has been greatly influenced by the secularism of France since the 1960s. Prior to this time, Quebec was seen as a very observant Catholic society, where Catholicism was ade facto state religion. Quebec then underwent a period of rapid secularization called theQuiet Revolution. Quebec politicians have tended to adopt a more French-style understanding of secularism rather than the rest of Canada which is similar to the United Kingdom. This came to the fore during the debate on what constitutes the "reasonable accommodation" of religious minorities.[19]
In September 2013, the government of Quebec proposedBill 60, the "Charter affirming the values of State secularism and religious neutrality and of equality between women and men, and providing a framework for accommodation requests." The bill would alter the provincial human rights law to prohibit public employees from wearing objects that overtly indicate a religious preference. The people who would be most impacted by such a law would be Muslim women wearing ahijab, Jewish men wearing akippah, and Sikh men (or women) wearing aturban. Employees who do not comply with the law would be terminated from their employment. The party that had proposed the bill, theParti Québécois, was defeated in the 2014 election by theQuebec Liberal Party (who gained a majority of seats), which opposed the bill. As a result, the bill is considered 'dead'.
In 2019, PremierFrançois Legault'sCAQ government passedBill 21, a secularism law banning public officials in positions of coercive power from wearing or displaying any religious symbols. However, the display of religious symbols affixed in public institutions like hospitals will be left for each administration thereof to decide. To counter charges of hypocrisy, the crucifix in the Quebec National Assembly was also removed.[20]
Frenchlaïcité influenced theConstitution of Mexico despite theCatholic Church maintaining strong influence. In March 2010, theChamber of Deputies introduced legislation to amend the Constitution to make the Mexican government formallylaico—meaning 'lay' or 'secular'.[21] Critics of the move say the "context surrounding the amendment suggests that it might be a step backward for religious liberty and true separation of church and state".[21]
Coming on the heels of the Church's vocal objection to legalization of abortion as well as same-sex unions and adoptions in Mexico City, "together with some statements of its supporters, suggests that it might be an attempt to suppress the Catholic Church's ability to engage in public policy debates."[21] Mexico has had ahistory of religious suppression and persecution. Critics of the amendment reject the idea that "Utilitarians, Nihilists, Capitalists, and Socialists can all bring their philosophy to bear on public life, but Catholics (or religious minorities) must check their religion at the door" in a sort of "second-class citizenship" which they consider nothing more than religious discrimination.[21]
InTurkey, a strong stance of secularism (Turkish:laiklik) has held sway sinceMustafa Kemal Atatürk'sTurkish revolution in the early 20th century. On March 3, 1924, Turkey removed thecaliphate system and gradually after that, all religious influence from the state.Sunni Islam, the majority religion, is now controlled by the Turkish government through theDepartment of Religious Affairs,[22] and is state-funded while other religions or sects have independence on religious affairs. Islamic views that are deemed political are censored in accordance with the principle of secularism.
This system of Turkishlaïcité permeates both the government and the religious sphere. The content of the weekly sermons in all state-funded mosques has to be approved by the state. Independent Sunni communities are also illegal. Minority religions, likeArmenian orGreek Orthodoxy, are guaranteed by the constitution asindividual faiths and are mostly tolerated,[23] but this guarantee does not give any rights to anyreligious communities including Muslim ones. Turkey's view is that theTreaty of Lausanne gives certain religious rights toJews,Greeks, andArmenians but not, for example, to Syrian-Orthodox or Roman Catholics, because the latter ones did not play any political roles during the treaty.[23] However, theTreaty of Lausanne does not specify any nationality or ethnicity and simply identifies non-Muslims in general.
In 2009, the desire to reestablish theGreek Orthodox seminary on Heybeli Island near Istanbul became a political issue in regard to Turkey's accession to EU membership. The EU considers such prohibition to amount to suppression of religious freedom.[24]
In theUnited States, theFirst Amendment to the Constitution contains a similar federal concept, although the termlaicity is not used either in the Constitution or elsewhere and is sometimes used as a term to contrast European secularism with American secularism. That amendment includes clauses prohibiting both congressional governmental interference with thefree exercise of religion and congressional laws regarding the establishment of religion. Originally this prevented the federal government from interfering with state-established religions. However, after the14th amendment, these clauses have been held by the courts toapply to both the federal and state governments. Together, the "free exercise clause" and "establishment clause" are considered to accomplish a "separation of church and state."
Nonetheless, separation is not extended to bar religious conduct in public places or by public servants. Public servants, up to and including thePresident of the United States, often make proclamations of religious faith. Sessions of both houses of theUnited States Congress and most state legislatures typically open with a prayer by a minister of some faith or other, and many if not most politicians and senior public servants inWashington, DC, attend the annualRoman CatholicRed Mass at theCathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle regardless of their personal religious convictions. In contrast to France, the wearing of religious insignia in public schools is largely noncontroversial as a matter of law and culture in the US; the main cases where there have been controversies are when the practice in question is potentially dangerous (for instance, the wearing of theSikhkirpan knife in public places) and even then the issue is usually settled in favor of allowing the practice.[citation needed] In addition, the US government regards religious institutions as tax-exempt non-profit organizations,[25] subject to limitations on their political involvement.[26] In contrast to Europe, however, the government cannot display religious symbols (such as the cross) in public schools, courts, and other government offices, although some exceptions are made (e.g. recognition of a cultural group's religious holiday). TheUnited States Supreme Court has also banned any activity in public schools and other government-run areas that can be viewed as agovernment endorsement of religion.[citation needed]
The French philosopher andUniversal Declaration of Human Rights co-drafterJacques Maritain, a devout Catholic convert and a critic of Frenchlaïcité, noted the distinction between the models found in France and in mid-20th century United States.[27]He considered the US model of that time to be more amicable because it had both "sharp distinction and actual cooperation" between church and state (what he called "a historical treasure") and admonished the United States, "Please to God that you keep it carefully and do not let your concept of separation veer round to the European one."[27]
