Voltaire starts his book, A Treatise on Tolerance, by describing an account of the lawful but immoral death of Jean Calas, a Protestant living in Toulouse, France in the eighteenth century. Calas’ son, Marc Antoine, committed suicide. He was a gambler and was often described as depressed, but nevertheless, Jean Calas himself is blamed for the death of his son and is formally accused of parricide. 

This harsh judgment reflected the political setting of France at the time. Protestants—and specifically Huguenots—were considered heretics and were viewed suspiciously by the Catholic state. It was widely believed that the son was Catholic or else planning to convert, as a brother of his had done already. When Marc was found dead in the house of a Protestant father, suspicion fell on the staunchly Protestant Jean Calas, who was branded a murderer and executed by order of a French court. His deceased son Marc was publicly hailed as a hero. 

To Voltaire, this incident served as an illustration of the kind of injustice that can arise when religion and government are too closely intertwined. Religion and government have traditionally coincided in various ways, with religious morals of various faiths forming the essential bedrock of most laws in early states. However, modern states often try to erase traces of religion from society and from government. This effort raises an important question. Can humans exist without religion? And if so, is it possible for a state to replace the function of a religion? While, of course, the classical liberal seeks to protect individual rights and limit the powers of government, it is imperative we gauge the role of a limited government in society and consider the degree to which religion enters into that equation. 

There is, in my view, an inherent need for religion, which is a deep and important aspect of the human condition. In every age, human beings seek out order, beauty, and transcendence in the divine. This is the most universal take on all religions. It is also important, however, to establish that religion cannot be the sole determinant of a state’s law, as has been confirmed through the trials of human history wherein injustices have been committed in the name of religion. 

This point was highlighted in Voltaire’s aforementioned book. Suicide is condemned by the Catholic church, and indeed at the time, victims of suicide were denied proper church burial. However, since the law had decided that Marc Antoine was, in essence, a martyr for the Protestant cause, he was given an extravagant burial, while the townspeople practically canonized him and came to pray at his grave. Many things were wrong about this case, from the unfortunate deaths of both father and son to the lack of a non-biased investigation. But Voltaire was especially concerned about the deep and overriding role of religion in the matter. Religious prejudice made it easy for both the public and government officials to see Jean Calas as a heretic who would murder his own son for being Catholic, and that vantage point served the state well.

On first consideration, we may be inclined to suppose that religion, or at least some antediluvian idea of it, preexisted concepts of government. But before making that assumption, we should pause and consider what “government” really is. The two phenomena may in fact be quite closely connected.

One theory that explores this, developed by psychologist Ara Norenzayan, is called the “Moralizing God Hypothesis.” This hypothesis suggests that as early societies formed, they embraced the concept of a big god or gods who would punish them for immorality. This shared belief tied society together by a set of rules, ostensibly blessed by a higher power. It introduced an element of fear, but it also provided safety and sanctity, along with the first formation of proto-religious states. Even before the “Big Religions” (the Abrahamic ones as well as Eastern ones that are widespread and practiced today), religion was closely linked to state. A framework of moral divinity was established as a marker to “keep people in check.”

We’ve seen this with the Mesopotamians, the Egyptians, the Indus Valley, and so on. Their early concept of governance was a nexus hinged on religion and state; both were incomplete without each other. A theocratic state was the basis of all governments, usually making the priest an important person within the government. But as time went on, this became more difficult to sustain because of one key factor: pluralism. 

With early societies becoming more organized, and agriculture developing in the Levantine region, trade was an inevitability that brought with it the first form of international cooperation. Societies traded grain and stone, but also their ideas and religious values. This must have been a fascinating exchange, especially where moral attitudes differed. It is believed that the Eastern religions of Hinduism and Buddhism were unusually willing, for their time, to facilitate religious pluralism, allowing people of divergent religions to practice their faith in private as they wished, so long as they also obeyed the general laws of the state. This was particularly enshrined during the Mauryan Empire, around 320 BCE. 

It is especially interesting to consider how early constitutions, and societies themselves, worked around religious pluralism while still maintaining a religious state. The Romans had some interesting strategies here, which for a time helped to facilitate the growth of their empire. Before Christianity, they had a polytheistic set of beliefs that grounded and reinforced their social structure and moral beliefs. Priests and religious figures held some of the highest positions in court. But as they expanded and conquered the Mediterranean area, they faced a problem. How would this newly-acquired Roman territory adapt to the endemic gods of Rome? 

They worked around this conundrum in the most fascinating way; the Romans adapted foreign gods into their religion. This practice started with the comparison and adoption of the Greek gods into Roman mythology. Thus, the concept is called interpretatio Graeca. They moved on from the Greeks, adapting divinities from many places such as Iran (Mithras, the yazata from the Zoroastrian religion,) the Anatolian regions (Cybele, the mother goddess), and Egypt (Isis, the goddess of the afterlife.) 

The Romans believed strongly that maintaining the cultural identity and religion of the areas they captured would maintain social stability. This was a stroke of brilliance on their part. It allowed the Romans to maintain their established form of governance while adapting to regional differences, all the while squashing dissent from conquered lands. 

Of course, the biggest trial came when they encountered a very different kind of religion: monotheism. 

When the Romans first encountered Judaism, they eventually realized that assimilation would be uncharacteristically difficult, if not impossible. Judaism, as a monotheistic, Abrahamic faith, stood firmly on the tenet that God was one, that there was a certain, ascribed manner in which to reach Him, and that religious pluralism shouldn’t be tolerated because other faiths were false. That put the Romans in a bind. They could not simply assimilate a monotheistic religion into their panoply of gods, but they had to address the problem somehow to maintain control over the Levant region. The rule of Judea in particular led to conflicts amongst Roman leaders and the Jewish scholars who presided over the area, and although certain deals were struck (for example, allowing the Judean scholars to leave without execution), the Romans burnt down the Jewish Temple. Religious differences were a major factor in the First Jewish Revolt, as well as the Bar Kochba revolt. 

Later on, of course, the Romans were introduced to Christianity, which raised the same problem. Over time, it became increasingly clear that the Abrahamic religions could not undergo interpretatio Graeca, though several attempts were made. Of course, the bitter strife that followed was somewhat quelled when Constantine became the first emperor to adopt Christianity as a state religion. This was another important development in the demarcation of church and state, and soon nearly all of Europe followed, but not without lots of opposition and tension. 

Christian theocratic states became the norm in Europe, and this reality tied a lot of states together with similar values and beliefs. Some thought was given to religious pluralism, with the Edict of Nantes standing in France as a good early example of an early effort to increase religious tolerance. In general though, medieval Christians believed that it was appropriate for the state and the Church to be closely interrelated. For the most part, early efforts to embrace pluralism openly were unpopular and short-lived. For instance, the Edict of Fontainebleau overturned The Edict of Nantes, again marginalizing the Huguenots in France. 

Eventually, when The Enlightenment flourished and free speech was touted as an inalienable right, Europeans began working through the idea of secularism, which became mainstream in the early modern period, though it took more time to work out the practicalities of constitutional government. In Christendom, however, religious leaders had a great deal of power, which rarely worked out well for religious minorities. This of course, brings us back to the story of Jean Calas, who unfortunately had the shorter end of the stick when living in France during its time as a Catholic theocracy. 

While religious pluralism is indeed admirable and is much-needed in our cosmopolitan world, there is another concern that comes with increasing secularism. In the twentieth century and beyond, some states have embraced more extreme forms of secularism. They have formed a wholly different kind of government, which forbids traditional religion, and replaces religion with the state. This can lead to a twisted form of theocracy, where the state is the religion.

The potential for religion to provide moral guidelines, establish a way of life, or disincentivize certain behaviors with a fear of punishment was noted above. Interestingly, an observation can be made that many modern states use aggressive secularism to serve a similar purpose. This leads to the question: Must it always be so? To wit, does the total rejection of religious authority incur states to take over the same role? 

The first glimpses of this were perhaps made calescent during the French Revolution, where secularism (or laïcité) was the tour de force that toppled a monarchy. But the beast became far more visible when the world began flirting with communism. Soviet Russia forbade religion, as did Mao during the cultural revolution. Cambodia witnessed the executions of religious and cultural figures during the Khmer Rouge, and even today, religious practice is forbidden and harshly punished in many countries, such as North Korea. However, there may be a sense in which these states are not actually secular or irreligious; they just worship their own political leaders, either out of fear or because they have been trained through indoctrination to revere them. For authoritarian states, it is most beneficial when people are servient to the state, do not question authority, and put all their resources towards the government. But this corrupted view of government, wherein the people exalt their leaders, is indeed an abomination; history has taught us hundreds of times that humans should not be granted quasi-divine power, or be permitted to exercise tyrannical authority over others. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and hyper-secular states, with their aggressive forms of political religion, are no exception. 

Aggressively secular states often seek to undermine traditions and values. They may start with small steps, such as banning the wearing of religious symbols in public. Over time, in the name of law and order (and indeed, tolerance), we see the rise of secular ideas that try to take away religious aspects of life. Governments start banning crucifixes, kippahs, turbans, or hijabs, preventing worship, and sowing seeds of fear that allow for the duplicitous control of people. 

Omitting religion and world religion studies from school education is another dangerous misstep, which only increases fear and animosity between people from different faiths. A good example of a tormented form of secularism comes from India, a nation that has enshrouded the French ideal of secularism in its constitution. In a country where many different faiths dwell, the idea of imposing a non-religious identity seems to be backfiring. The current administration of the BJP government banks on the card of the Hindu sentiment, which works out well for the large population of Hindus in India. The saffron-coloured flags of the political party are consciously synonymous with the Hindu religion. Unwittingly, sentiments against Muslims have risen, which has led to the ban of hijabs in some areas, as well as public opinion driving both polls and court cases in absurd directions. The imposition of secularism has also led to a “reservation system,” an iteration of affirmative action that imposes a quota in education and jobs based on ancient biases of the caste system. This to me seems an absurdist interpretation of secularism, which is meant to harbor irreligious governance, all the while allowing governments to use religious sentiments as a political tool.

It should certainly be acknowledged that, even though religion has played a traditional and irreplaceable role in the formation of societies, it can no longer function as a model for governance. The increase of religious pluralism has only made this clearer, pointing to a need for a liberal governance wherein people are free to practice any religion without coercion from the state. Of course, this is much easier said than done, as religion is a sentiment that is all too often used for purposes that undermine the integrity of civil communities.

At the same time, a truly secular state may create in itself a whole new religion that exalts people to divine conditions. In a twisted sense, it’s a return to the same monarchical systems that Voltaire once decried, and that showed the need for a middle ground, classical liberalism. What is the role of government? Surely not to change the individual rights and traditions of a citizen. Ultimately, however, irreligious states that fail to cultivate this middle ground tend to try to replace religion, creating new morals, inculcating fear, and cultivating an attitude of intolerance that seems to negate its very existence, further highlighting the importance of limitations on government power.