Pseudo-secularism

Pseudo-secularism in a societal setting is the state of implicit non-secular trends in the face of pledged secularism. This is usually an allegation by groups who perceive a double-standard exhibited within the established secular governing policy towards culturally different groups among the governed.

Some examples of allegations about Pseudo-secularism are (note, that these give the complaints brough forth, not necessarily a balanced represenatation of all issues involved.):

In Germany the state collects taxes for two Christian groups, while other religious or atheist groups have to collect their membership fees without the help of the state. Furthermore, there are religion lessons at school given by the state, but only for those two Christian denominations. Critics want the German state to stop supporting religious groups in this way.

In the United States, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has been judicially interpreted as calling for the separation of church and state (although it literally says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion").

However, because the nation's population is overwhelmingly Christian, the judiciary has allowed for some exceptions. For example, American currency bears the national motto "In God we trust", the Pledge of Allegiance was altered to include the phrase "under God," both Congress and many state legislatures have legislative chaplains, and many courts have a crier or clerk who opens proceedings with the phrase, "God save the United States and this honorable court."

In India where Muslims and Christians are in a minority, right wing groups allege that they are given special privileges and advantages over Hindus which is a consideration adopted by the government to accommodate for the religious differences (see Shah Bano case). However, many Indians (including moderate Muslims and Christians) are pressing for implementation of a uniform civil code as originally proposed in the Constitution of India. The issue is largely a red herring as all religions have different set of personal laws with no specific privileges for any religion. However Hindus legally have more rights than other religions through tax breaks for Hindu Undivided families and adoption rights only for Hindus(however undivided families have become increasingly rare). Many schools routinely teach Hindu religious songs in school, such as part of early morning prayers(while muslims/christians are legally allowed to have their prayers in minority schools the Hindu songs don't have similar constitutional privilegein the general schools). Muslims or Christians also have a right to open educational institutions completley controlled by them, a right which is denied to Hindus.

In the United Kingdom, which has no written constitution, the role of religion in the state machinery is well-established, although this is increasingly being viewed as anachronistic, given the relatively unreligious population, with, for example, the overwhelming majority of people claiming to be religious not engaging in regular worship. Examples of the relative deference to religious interests include the default allocation of over 20 seats in the upper House (House of Lords) to Christian bishops; an increasing level of state funding of religious schools, many of which will exclude both pupils and teachers not belonging to the prescribed faith; and a legal obligation on terrestrial television broadcasters to broadcast a minimum number of hours of religious programming. Increasing pressure from religious groups in the years 2000-2005 has led to the introduction of new laws promoting the interests of religious groups, such as a law banning incitement to religious hatred - a law which fails to protect other minorities (for example, homosexuals) from incitement to hatred. In addition, it is still illegal by case law to commit blasphemy in the United Kingdom, although nobody has been prosecuted for this crime since the mid-1970s.

Groups such as the National Secular Society (http://www.secularism.org.uk) have been campaigning for a stricter separation of religion and state in the UK since the late 19th century, asserting that British taxpayers' money should not fund religious schools; that religion itself, being a complex set of ideas which requires significant analytical thought, should not be 'taught' to young children; that bishops should not sit by default in the House of Lords, and that followers of humanism and atheist philosophies should be accorded equal rights to followers of faith-based philosophies. By contrast, the Church of England (and other religious associations such as the Muslim Council of Britain) argue that religion deserves a special place in society and that policy-making should reflect this. It is of interest to note that as of 2005, the current British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has repeatedly been described as a proto-Catholic, has a Catholic wife, and chose to have his children educated at a strongly Catholic school, The London Oratory (http://www.london-oratory.org); many pro-secular commentators have argued that it would be difficult for a leader with strong personal religious beliefs to actively pursue a secular agenda.