Abstract
This chapter examines two perspectives on the meaning of political laicism (laicidad). According to the traditional view, which the author calls “exclusive,” laicism requires the exclusion of all religious content from state institutions as well as from formal politics. The second, “inclusive” view emerged as a reaction against the traditional view and in response to both the growth of religious pluralism and the more public role assumed by some religious organizations in recent decades, placing no restrictions on the expression of religious content in society at large and therefore allowing it in both public institutions and formal politics. The author considers traditional laicism from a historical perspective in the case of Mexico in order to bring to light the fact that Mexican traditional laicism initially constituted a liberal response to the political challenges posed by the dominant Catholic Church. The author then presents the central features of an acceptable version of exclusive laicism that we should think of as an institutional arrangement that can develop within different political ideologies, such as republicanism or liberalism. The liberal (exclusive) conception of laicism constitutes an adequate response to the growing religious pluralism in Latin America today. A plausible version must be fully compatible with the protection of basic liberal values and freedoms, such as freedom of conscience and freedom of expression (which includes the expression of religious convictions in the public sphere).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For the “inclusive” view (and a criticism of it) see Chiassioni 2013.
- 2.
- 3.
See “Declaración Universal de la Laicidad” in Blancarte (2007).
- 4.
Marcel Gauchet (2003) suggests this possibility in La religión en la democracia: el camino del laicismo.
- 5.
For a taxonomy of inclusive and exclusive views see Greenawalt 1996.
- 6.
- 7.
As has been noted, these two conceptions of freedom are in tension; see Baubérot (2000).
- 8.
Here, and in what follows, by “religious content” I mean the religious content that institutionalized religions affirm.
- 9.
For a different view see Delarbe 2013.
References
Audi, R. (1997). Liberal democracy and the place of religion in politics. In R. Audi & N. Wolterstorff (Eds.), Religion in the public square: The place of religious convictions in political debate (pp. 1–66). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Baubérot, J. (2000). Histoire de la laïcité française. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Blancarte, R. (2004). Definir la laicidad (desde una perspectiva mexicana). Revista Internacional de Filosofía Política, 24, 15–27.
Blancarte, R. (2007). Laicidad: La construcción de un concepto universal. In V. Rodolfo (Ed.), Laicidad. Una asignatura pendiente (pp. 27–50). Mexico D.F.: Ediciones Coyoacán.
Chiassioni, P. (2013). Laicidad y libertad religiosa. Colección de cuadernos “Jorge Carpizo,” Para entender y pensar la laicidad, no. 10. Mexico D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México e Instituto Iberoamericano de Derecho Constitucional.
Delarbe, R. T. (2013). Laicidad y medios de comunicación. Colección de cuadernos “Jorge Carpizo,” Para entender y pensar la laicidad, no. 17. Mexico D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México e Instituto Iberoamericano de Derecho Constitucional.
Eberle, C. J. (2002). Religious conviction in liberal politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gauchet, M. (2003). La religión en la democracia: el camino del laicismo. Barcelona: El Cobre.
Greenawalt, K. (1996). Religious expression in the public square—The building blocks for an intermediate position. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 29, 1411–1420.
Guevara Niebla, G. (2007). Laicismo: un proyecto pendiente. In R. Vázquez (Ed.), Laicidad. Una asignatura pendiente (pp. 113–124). Mexico D.F.: Ediciones Coyoacán.
Hale, C. A. (1968). Mexican liberalism in the Age of Mora, 1821–1853. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hale, C. A. (1989). The transformation of liberalism in late nineteenth-century Mexico. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kymlikca, W. (1989). Liberal individualism and liberal neutrality. Ethics, 99, 833–905.
Laborde, C. (2008). Critical republicanism: The hijab controversy and political philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poulat, É. (2012). Nuestra laicidad pública. Mexico D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Rawls, J. (1999). The idea of public reason revisited. In J. Rawls (Ed.), The law of peoples: With “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” (pp. 129–180). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ryan, A. (2012). The making of modern liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rivera-Castro, F. (2017). Laicism: Exclusive or Inclusive?. In: Vaggione, J., Morán Faúndes, J. (eds) Laicidad and Religious Diversity in Latin America. Boundaries of Religious Freedom: Regulating Religion in Diverse Societies, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44745-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44745-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44744-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44745-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)