‘Secular Sectarianism’ Is About Factionalism Within A Secular Ideology
By
Nadeem F. Paracha
July 05,
2020
The concept
of sectarianism is largely associated with factions and divisions within a
religion, especially in two major faiths, Christianity and Islam. However,
there is also now an increasingly used expression called ‘secular
sectarianism.’ This is about factionalism within a secular ideology, especially
one which directly or indirectly sees itself as being as grand an idea as the
idea of faith. In fact, in some cases, it wants to actually replace it as a new
kind of faith.
Illustration
by Abro
----
Most
secular ideas, however, retain a democratic respect for religion, as long as it
remains relegated to dealing with the people’s personal spiritual matters, and
does not interfere in the worldly workings of the state and government. But
there have been episodes where some followers of a secular ideology broke away
to re-mould this ideology into a new faith that was to replace the old
religions. In the late 18th century, when a violent revolution in France
overthrew the French monarchy and Catholic clergy, the intellectual leadership
of the revolution looked to create a secular democratic republic.
However,
within this group were also those who believed that the revolution had only
been able to weaken the political role of Catholicism, and that a new religion
was needed to completely expunge it from French society. In the 1987 anthology,
Readings in Western Civilisation, the American academic Keith M. Baker writes
that a faith called ‘Cult of Reason’ was founded complete with ‘temples of
reason.’ This did not go down very well by most of their compatriots who saw it
as a contradictory act. How could secularism, which insists on separating
Church and state, become the source of a new state religion? Secondly, the
detractors also pointed out that the idea of reason, in the political context
at least, rationalised this separation instead of becoming a theological
doctrine itself.
The Cult of
Reason was therefore a short-lived idea and sidelined. However, soon it was
replaced by the ‘Cult of the Supreme Being.’ This was mainly conceived by the
radical French republican, Maximilien Robespierre.
When his
faction of French revolutionaries overwhelmed the ‘moderates,’ Robespierre
declared the new faith as the state religion. In the 1989 book, A Cultural History
of The French Revolution, historian Emmet Kennedy writes that Robespierre
insisted that a belief in a godhead was important for social order, but it
needed to be done through reason. This, however, did not stop him from
organising festivals to honour the ‘god of reason.’
With
intensifying economic and political tensions and polarisation, the nature of
internal conflicts in societies is evolving. What was once purely a religious
construct is no longer limited to matters of religious faith.
This again
was problematic. The ‘moderates’ in the French assembly, that had come into
being after the revolution, had agreed with the revolution’s pursuit of
completely abolishing the monarchy and neutralising the political power that
the clergy and the Church once exercised. However, many of them were also of
the view that religion’s social utility need not be attacked. Ironically,
Robespierre, who detested his moderate colleagues, agreed. But he suspected
that remnants of the Church might be used to usurp his faction’s power in the
assembly. So, he decided to create a whole new faith to fill the void left
behind the receding avenues of Catholicism.
The
contemporary Slovenian philosopher, SlavojŽižek, in his book Virtue and Terror,
explains Robespierre as a highly contradictory character who placed the
‘necessity’ of violence and terror in the context of ideas that were actually
opposed to those that he was propagating. In fact, in an early exhibition of
secular sectarianism, he opposed the idea of separating faith from politics, by
quoting the 18th century French philosopher Voltaire as follows: ‘If God did
not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.’
Secondly,
Robespierre fully understood how, for centuries, the Catholic Church in Europe
had managed to gather tremendous degrees of political and economic power. But
since the French revolution was directly aimed at abolishing this power along
with the monarchy, Robespierre decided to replace Catholicism with an
alternative faith. However, he planned to use it in exactly the manner in which
the clergy and the monarchy had used Catholicism to sustain their power.
To
Robespierre, the ‘Supreme Being’ was a deity called Liberty. This, to him, was
a ‘living deity’ which was to be worshipped through democracy and reason. This
then would lead to a life of virtue and the immortality of the human soul. The
moderates were left horrified when Robespierre started to hold festivals which
looked quite like the ones held by the fallen clergy of yore.
Even though
he was already ordering the beheading of critics, he also made it unacceptable
to reject the new faith. When his faction’s acts became too radical, the
moderates managed to remove him through an internal coup. His faith too was
abolished.
The
contemporary Slovenian philosopher, SlavojŽižek, in his book Virtue and Terror,
explains Robespierre as a highly contradictory character who placed the
‘necessity’ of violence and terror in the context of ideas that were actually
opposed to those that he was propagating.
Robespierre’s
faction, believing itself to be purer republicans and revolutionaries (compared
to the moderates), could not help but fall into a ‘god complex,’ with the right
to judge what was politically correct and what wasn’t.
In the
1960s, the Red Book that carried quotes of the founder of communist China, Mao
Tse Tung, became a sacred tome in China and Mao became a living deity of sorts.
Of course, in theory, communism is atheistic, but when Mao whipped up a
‘Cultural Revolution’ in 1966, ‘Maoism’ almost became a religion. Those in the
Chinese Communist Party who exhibited distaste or concern towards what Mao had
triggered, were cut down by fanatical mobs, waving the Red Book and claiming to
be on the right sides of the revolution. International communism split into
various factions.
Ajay
Gudavarthy in his book, Secular Sectarianism: Limits of Subaltern Politics,
writes that, over the years, because of intensifying economic and political
tensions and polarisation, the nature of internal conflicts in societies is
changing. According him, old class and ethnic conflicts remain, but they are
being increasingly added to by conflicts within marginalised groups who were
once most likely to remain united.
He gave the
examples of racial equality and women’s rights groups who, after finding the
need to expand their identities beyond the usual ‘binary’ ways that race and
gender are perceived and debated, have ended up spending more effort battling
other such groups who may think otherwise. It’s like standing in front of a
mirror and shouting at your own reflection, believing the reflection to be the
enemy. In a way then, sectarianism is not unique to religions alone.
Original
Headline: SECULAR SECTARIANISM
Source: The Dawn, Pakistan
New
Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African
Muslim News, Arab
World News, South
Asia News, Indian
Muslim News, World
Muslim News, Women
in Islam, Islamic
Feminism, Arab
Women, Women
In Arab, Islamophobia
in America, Muslim
Women in West, Islam
Women and Feminism