Liberal Nationalism and Symbolic Religious Establishment

Abstract

The chapter examines whether religious markers can legitimately be part of a state supported national identity by considering symbolic religious establishment involving state endorsement of religion. The liberal neutralist position—rejecting any state endorsement of culture or religion—and the liberal culturalist position—allowing culture but not religion to be endorsed by the state—are mistaken.The chapter argues for a disaggregation approach that views religion (and culture) as phenomena with several dimensions, each raising different issues of legitimacy. The chapter considers arguments for symbolic religious establishment based on claims that it does not alienate religious minorities, is liberal in content, and draws on cultural rather than theological dimensions of religion. Therefore, while the disaggregation approach in principle allows for state support for a national identity with religious elements, especially in cases of vestigial establishment, actual cases of symbolic religious establishment, especially cases of neo-establishment, often fail at the bar of equal inclusion.

Othering, Alienation and Establishment

“…In this section, we deconstruct this position, showing both that it presents a highly -and unnecessarily -reductive account of alienation and that its proponents have not successfully shown that their alternative is as objective as they claim. In order to keep this task manageable, we focus in particular on the versions of this argument found in recent work by Laborde and Laegaard (Laborde, 2017;Laborde and Laegaard, 2020;Laegaard, 2017Laegaard, , 2020.…”

“…First, they imply that feelings of alienation are without cognitive or normative content; they are simply the affective reactions that people have to events they experience or to objects in their environment. For example, they suggest that an account of feelings of alienation is purely ‘descriptive’, in no way providing a ‘normative’ evaluation of the object of such feelings (Laborde and Lægaard, 2020: 179). Yet it is arguable that to make sense of their comments that affective reactions may be ‘crucial epistemic indicators that something has gone amiss’ (Laborde and Lægaard, 2020: 179), it is necessary to assume that such reactions have an interpretive and normative component.…”

Christmas, Crescents, and Crosses: When Is Symbolic Religious Establishment Permissible?

“…These crosses are usually not perceived as being divisive precisely because they are usually not perceived as being religious. This is partly due to the symbol of the cross itself; a cross can symbolize different things to different people and in different contexts, and it is not necessarily referring to something religious (Laborde and Lægaard 2019, 183). The same applies to the crescent; it can be a symbol of Islam, an attribute of Shiva in Hinduism, or simply a reference to the moon.…”

“…Furthermore, we should keep in mind that the value of heritage and the defense of one's identity are often used as dog whistles to those who actually wish to send a message of exclusion to minorities. Neo‐establishment is not “a benign cultivation of vestigial traditions and symbols” but a “distinctively reactive movement” that sends a clear exclusionary message (Laborde and Lægaard 2019, 184). The plausibility criterion helps to identify cases in which reasons compatible with equal treatment are used as cover‐ups for more questionable motivations.…”

Minimal Secularism: Lessons for, and from, India

“…Yet we witness the exclusionary power of secularized and cultural "thin religion" elsewhere. Consider what has been called symbolic religious establishment in Europe (Laborde and Laegaard 2020). Contested practices have ranged from the display of crucifixes in Italian schools and German public buildings to the preservation of the Christian character of the national landscape through a ban on Islamic minarets in Switzerland.…”