Report :

On 23 Sept. 2007 the activities of the program titled "Liberalism and Secularism" started in the International Academy for Leadership in Gumersbach, Germany, under the supervision of Brigit Lamm the Academy Director, Dr. Stephen Melnik, and Inico Gal.  Twenty-three countries participated in this Seminar: Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, Pakistan, Malisia, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Russia, Ukraine, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Argentina, Ghana, Tanzania, and South Africa.

On 24 Sept., the concept of religions was discussed from different viewpoints ranging from the benefit of religions, alternatives, fundamentalism, coexistence, tolerance, and the freedom of worship.

The opinions varied with respect to the various benefits of religions:

• Religions help social consolidation and unity, and the feeling of equality;
• Religions are the source of identity, hope, power, stability, security, and peace;
• Religions are a tool for promoting morality, and social justice;
• Religions are the compass of human beings determining the ends and the purpose of their lives.

Alternatives, on the other hand were identified as atheism, materialism, belief based on doubt, secular humanism, or life on the basis of some human foundations dubbed “wisdom.”

Common factors among heavenly religions and what were called secular religions, such as Marxism and Fascism were thought to be:

• The importance of having a way of life in addition to values and principles; and
• Self-fulfillment so that the individual would be able to identify the objectives and roles in life.

In an attempt to explore the possibility for coexistence among religions, atheism, and belief based on doubt, the majority of the participants agreed that coexistence among religions and non-believers within the framework of the same nation cannot be secured except within a secular state. The state in that case must play the role of the protector of secularism and the regulator of religious practice.

As for the belief in the superiority of some religions over others, participants agreed that religious practice and instructions affect the way with which people perceive their religion, as well as its relation to other religions. Moreover, the existence of a majority of followers of certain religions could affect their belief in the right to impose such a religion on the remaining individuals within the society.

In terms of dealing with fanaticism and fundamentalism, most of the opinions maintained that the only path is to create and foster the awareness of the importance and necessity of personal freedom, and human rights and the values they represent. There was a disagreement, on the other hand some differed on the use of the word “fundamentalism” and the positive connotations it could have; i.e. it could mean fundamental application of values and mores of a society, be they religious or societal

Religious tolerance was seen to be an inevitable matter should there be a true desire for coexistence in peace. Tolerance is a must to avoid conflict and wars.

Finally, the right and freedom to practice religion was seen something that needs a state, rule of law, and the will of individuals. A law is needed to protect the freedom of practicing religious rites, laws are also need to protect related rights. The state then must protect and enforce such laws. Finally, individuals need to comprehend such laws and act accordingly.

On 25 Sept. liberalism and its relationship to religions was discussed. The participants were divided into three groups:

1. Representatives of countries with Christian majority (Europe, Latin America, and the Philippines). They agreed on the importance of religion and its impact on the educational system, as well as the intense representation of religion in the mass media. They agreed as well that religion plays an important social role; as it gives hope to the poor, and clerics play the role of mediators in social conflicts. Furthermore, religion was used in some states as a tool for political pressure;
2. Representatives of countries with Muslim majority (the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia). They agreed on the importance of religion to the peoples in terms of observing its tenets in daily life. Islam is the guide to ethics and principles. Moreover, there is a very clear identity that plays a major role in social and sometimes political life; and 
3. Representatives of countries with mixed denominations such as Lebanon, Israel, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and West African countries.

On 26 September a discussion was held about liberalism and faith. The question posed was: what does liberalism mean?  Definitions varied from freedom to individualism, responsibility, tolerance, ideology, democracy, free market economy, and the rule of law.

The reasons for the gap between liberals and “believers” were discussed through three questions:

1. Why do many religious and traditional leaders consider liberalism their enemy?

• They believe liberalism to be an invitation to absolute freedom, and as such is a danger to ethics and religion.
• The link between liberalism and secularism and the call for separating religion from the state.
• In the secular state, religious leaders lose power and control.

Liberals can confront this fear through:

• Dialogue with all the strata of society including the religious;
• Spreading awareness about liberalism and liberal values;
• Working towards fostering freedom, human rights, equality, and the rule of law.

2. Does liberalism stand for western “imperialism”, and the decline of values and moral standards, as its critics claim it is?

• Liberal values have roots in non-western cultures, and Ibn Khaldun is the best illustration of such a thing;
• In Latin America, however, liberalism was linked to dictatorial regimes, such as that of Augusto Pinochet.

Liberals could refute such allegations through:

• Respecting moral values and the boundaries between freedom and responsibility; and
• Combating monopoly practices and focusing on social justice.

3. Is it possible for a liberal to be a member of a religious group?

Liberalism is a political theory for respecting rights and freedoms, and one of such freedoms is that of worship.

On 27 September, voting was made to select three case studies about religion and politics and their connection to contemporary issues: Northern Ireland, ethics and curricula in the US, al-Qa’eda and Islam.

Furthermore, the issue of religion and the freedom of women was discussed through two debates: the first was about violence, exclusion, and discrimination against women against the background of communication among cultures and the responsibility of religions; and the second was about the right of women to abortion, autonomy, and the right of the fetus to life.

After each debate, each participant was asked to stand next to one of the representatives of a point of view, to indicate the personal inclination of each participant. It became very clear that the opinions ranged along the broad spectrum of the argument.

On 3 October after the visit to Dresden in Eastern Germany, through Weimar, and the city of Buchunwald where the Nazi camps once existed, the issue of liberalism and secularism was discussed through three perspectives: contempt of religions, legitimate criticism, education and religion, and finally the secular advantages to the individual and religious institutions.

 
Secularism – what is it? Ideology, or a concept? Does secularism mean more than the separation between the state and religion? It is a concept as well as an aspect of the liberal ideology.

The beginning was the separation between the state and the power of the church in order to get rid of religious and creed-related conflicts. It is a compromise for everybody that precludes dispute and fosters equality.

The participants disagreed on the importance of a role to be played by religion or the state to protect the moral criteria that, for some, do not include absolute freedom, such as the expression of contempt to religions, or being lenient on illegitimate relations as adultery and homosexuality. Others believed that it is not possible to agree on the moral criteria even within the single society.

The impact of secularism on the relations between the state and religion
Blasphemy (Contempt to religions):  Is it possible for the liberals to adopt a moderate attitude towards absolute freedom of expression? The participants were divided into two camps: the first saw that freedom of expression should not be absolute, but needs to be limited, because mutual respect and tolerance are the bases for peace. As such, the society needs to be protected, and not have the feelings and beliefs thereof held in contempt; the second, believes that freedom should not be limited to protect the feelings, individual freedom, however, can be regulated and sensitized through civil society organizations.

Religion and Education: Should religion be part of school curricula?
The participants agreed that religion should be part of the curriculum titled “An Approach to Culture and Religion”, in order to foster mutual understanding.

The advantages of secularism for the individual and religious institutions
For the individual secularism gives the advantage of freedom of practice of religious rites, or of acting outside the limits of religion; the freedom of choice, and the exchange of ideologies and beliefs; and equality. In terms of religious institutions, the advantages of separating state from religion lies in distancing religion from the game of politics that can abuse it by exploiting religion for worldly purposes. Religion, moreover, could reinforce moral values without abusing political regimes or other religious institutions. As such, secularism could create the neutral atmosphere appropriate for dialogue and understanding.

On 4th October, the last day, the rule of law was discussed. The discussion also included what the liberals should do to establish a secular state to protect it from any potential dangers.

The participants agreed that the rule of law should be guaranteed by certain basics and principles such as equality and respect to the constitutions, the independence of the judiciary. The only exception is the existence of different laws arising from different religions; some participants from Muslim countries maintained that there are laws based on Shari’ah (Islamic Law/legislation) and that it would be difficult for non-Muslims to accept these laws. Therefore, they believed it was necessary to have special laws. However, most of the participants refused the idea of what they believe to be a prejudice to the rule of law.

Finally there was a consensus on the importance of establishing a secular state within the framework of the rule of law, the protection of human rights, the awareness of the importance of respecting rights and freedoms, and equality among the members of the single society, and tolerance as the basis for coexistence in peace.