Religion, Pluralism and the Secular State: Commentary on Marriage Equality and Disability Rights

Abstract

The revival of theological thought in political discourse has lent rise to criticisms of secularism, which allege an antiseptical and distorted evaluation of the place of religion in the public square. Such critics often propose a return to a Tocqueville-esque state of secularism contained within the greater Christian sphere. Connolly asserts that the intersections between religion and the secular state need not be so dichotomous and zero-sum. However, some religionists and secularists do approach this ‘culture war’ with a mutually exclusive zero-sum mindset.The basis of rights-based liberal societies in the Global North is individual spiritual autonomy. As described by Diana Eck, pluralism is the engagement that creates a common (liberal) society from plurality. John Rees presents a theistic-secular middling on claims to legitimacy and the national ‘centre’, where religious institutions are subordinated by certain state (and interstate) norms inherent in the social contract (i.e. basic human rights necessary for the function of a liberal democracy), while providing for the free exercise (i.e. negative right) and freedom from state intervention of the manifestation of religious customs and identities.In light of the recent Australian controversies, tensions and conflation of Islamic identities with the emergence and security response to the Islamic State (IS), this paper seeks to engage discourses of liberal secularism, pluralism, and postsecular logics. Throughout the paper, the story of a mentally ill individual is recounted to demonstrate instances of state-perpetuated suppression of personhood. Responding to and using Connolly and Rees’ postsecular and liberal pluralistic narratives, this paper examines marriage equality and the state of LGBTQ equality in the United States, Canada, and Australia.