David Pollock discusses the varieties of humanist experience across Europe.

David Pollock, President of the European Humanist Federation

After nearly four years as President of the European Humanist Federation I suspect I have still not fully grasped how different are the approaches to Humanism and secularism in different countries.

Even the word ‘Humanism’ is difficult. Humanism in English is primarily now “our” Humanism – i.e., a positive, non-religious lifestance – and the churches struggle when they try to gain any ownership of the idea (“Christianity is the true Humanism – with  added God!”).  But in France humanisme and in Italy umanismo is still a broad concept close to Renaissance learning crossed with humanitarianism and is claimed by the church.

Not only that, but our colleagues there are highly suspicious of any attempt to develop non-religious beliefs – the idea of a non-religious ‘lifestance’ can be seen as a betrayal of their rejection of religion.

‘Secularism’ is another awkward word – after all, it is used with half a dozen meanings in English, from the political philosophy of separation of church and state to its pejorative use by church leaders to refer to a shallow consumerist attitude to life.

But in French laïcité is bound up with the very existence of the French Republic.  When the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) held its general assembly there in 2005, we were caught up in wall-to-wall celebration of the centenary of the 1905 law on separation of religion and the state – a separation that easily embraces a ban on Muslim schoolgirls wearing the veil and has led to strong public support for a legal ban on wearing the burqa – though even our secularist allies in France oppose that proposal.

Standing back, you can see a broad division between the Catholic south and the Protestant north.  In the former, with the need to challenge the domination of the Roman Catholic church and its interference in secular concerns, the emphasis is anti-clerical.

By contrast, in the northern countries not only has Protestantism resulted in a multiplicity of denominations with no single dominant church, so that religion bulks less large, but the emphasis on individual conscience has allowed the concept of a non-religious lifestance as an alternative to religion to emerge – specifically, the non-religious belief of Humanism.

But there is a significant division even in the north.  This emerges when we look at the question of what we mean by the political idea of secularism.

Broadly it is the difference between separation of church and state, or neutrality of the state as to religion or belief.

In the UK we tend to favour separation, reducing the churches to the status of any other non-governmental organisation.  The French think similarly but usually more ardently want a complete and total separation of church & state: French freethinkers deplore even any participation by religious organisations in public consultations.

But in the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Finland and parts of Germany the Government to a greater or lesser extent devolves functions that usually belong to the state to the main belief groups – typically the Catholic church, the Protestant church and the humanists.

The state remains neutral but it provides huge funds to the main ‘religion or belief’ bodies to provide services to the public – including straightforward religious worship and preaching!

This seems completely alien to us in the UK.

But the humanist organisations in the Netherlands (for example) are very happy to run some social services and community development, to have chaplains in the Armed services and hospitals, to run a university to train people to be humanist workers, to have a professional archive centre, and to dispense €70 or €80 m a year of public money in overseas aid.

However the result is that they are thoroughly incorporated into the state, where the churches remain the major players, and they seem to an outsider like me to have lost any wish to engage critically with religion.

Similarly in Belgium, where the humanists won a political battle in 1993 for equal recognition with the Catholics, other Christian denominations (mainly the Lutherans), Jews, and (since 1974) Muslims.

The result is that the two Belgian laïque organisations – one French, one Dutch speaking – have official recognition and (unlike in the Netherlands) direct government funding for their own organisations that provides premises and staff in every town, and radio and TV studios to produce programmes that are broadcast routinely on the national networks, and so on.

But the Government also pays for all the Roman Catholic  priests and their churches – and the division of funding in Belgium at the latest count was 86.4% to the Catholics and 7.8% to the laïques, with a total of 5.8% going to the Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox, Jews and Anglicans in that order.

This sort of arrangement – popularly known as a pillar constitution, where much is devolved to the main pillars of the community – is open in my eyes to severe criticism.

It gives overwhelming importance to religion or belief as a key personal characteristic – whereas we know from studies in England that here at least religion is a pretty unimportant factor in most people’s self-identification.

It assigns people to a very limited number of groups, which does not recognise the complexity of beliefs and almost forces them to act through these groups if they wish to pursue devolved activities – because they have the money & recognition.

And it therefore provides a life-support system for the churches long after their true support has – or would have – waned, as it has in the UK.

This is especially true where it carries over into religious education in schools: for example, in Belgium, parents opt for their children to get either Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim religious instruction or a humanist ethical education.

However, it is comfortable for the humanist organisations in those countries, which are far richer than those elsewhere – and that helps the European Humanist Federation: our member organisations from countries with pillar arrangements provide the bulk of EHF resources!

Do not run away with the idea that it is only these countries with pillar constitutions that provide financial support to the churches, though.  Financial support is the rule rather than the exception across Europe and it is often provided on a massive scale.

David Pollock has been active in Humanism for nearly 50 years. He has been on the British Humanist Association board of trustees from 1966 to 1975 and again from 1997 to the present, and on the board of the Rationalist Association (New Humanist magazine) since 1989.  From 2006 he has been President of the European Humanist Federation.