On July 23 and 24, a conference on religious freedom and polarization was held at the University of Oxford, with a special focus on legal issues. One of the speakers was Professor Rafael Palomino, Professor of Law at the Complutense University of Madrid. We spoke with him about some of the issues addressed during the meeting.
In your speech you address the judicialization of conflicts over religious freedom and polarization in Europe. What main causes do you identify in the growing transfer of these debates to the judicial sphere?
- There are fewer and fewer non-state instances shared by all that have a recognized authority to resolve social conflicts. This means that we transfer all our conflicts (from family conflicts to major moral issues) to the courts of justice.
Moreover, social claims and personal aspirations of all kinds are transformed or translated into fundamental rights; and since the protection of these so-called rights is the responsibility of the courts of justice, there is also a judicialization of conflicts.
And this puts democracy at risk?
- This is so. Among other things, the risk is that judicialization inevitably leads to a narrative of winners and losers: there is no negotiation, there is no dialogue, some win and others lose, some are welcomed with open arms by the State, others are repudiated. Civil society is divided and democracy is instrumentalized.
Religious polarization is often linked to secularization. Is there a consensus among experts as to whether secularization is being replaced by a new type of public or identity religiosity?
- There is no agreement on this point. Some experts argue that the instrumentalization of religion by populist parties may even accelerate secularization. But national processes are very different from each other. For example, in Italy, the Catholic religion has played an important role in the construction of a cohesive civil religion, regardless of what populisms have or have not advocated.
In France, populism has been pointed out against Islam, but not in favor of Christianity, but in defense of republican secularism. In the Netherlands, there is no religious identity assumption on the part of political actors. Perhaps Poland and Hungary are the countries that have incorporated religious identity into political action.
Have examples been discussed of how European governments have managed in a balanced way (or not) the relationship between religious freedom and public health, for example during the pandemic?
- This continues to be a topic of interest to experts, despite the fact that some years have passed. There are two elements that have been particularly criticized in relation to the situation of religious freedom during the pandemic. First, the lack of legal sensitivity to proportionately limit fundamental rights, especially religious freedom, in situations where public health is compromised.
Second, the discrimination of religion with respect to other social activities that are considered "essential": there is a kind of somatic bias or prejudice according to which the State understands that supermarkets, coffee shops, hairdressing salons or tattoo studios are essential activities, while activities in places of worship are not: after all, it is argued, you can pray anywhere....
With respect to the United States, what structural differences have been highlighted between the U.S. and European models in terms of the role of religion in the public space and the management of ideological conflict?
- In general, it seems that in the United States, in relation to Europe, social polarization has become much more acute, especially since the Obama presidencies, so that the two major parties, Republican and Democrat, completely absorb all other identities and positions on all possible issues: immigration, religious practice, gender ideology, identity politics, health care, etc. This seems to make understanding and dialogue difficult, both at the social and institutional level. In Europe, however, we have not reached such a marked situation.
Do you have an assessment of the report "The Next Wave: The next wave: how religious extremism is regaining power."by the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights
- In some of the Seminar sessions, this report was commented on because it was in line with the content of the topics discussed. Apart from the specific content of the report, I think that there is nothing special about the fact that different groups, foundations or countries (also secularists, secularists, promoters of reproductive rights, etc., which are not the subject of the report) support or finance activities in other countries or on other continents to further their cause. This report is probably also the result of this type of financing or promotion.
