
Full text loading...
The debate about room for religion in public space is often framed in terms of a contrast between the subjective and the objective. In this context, religion is seen as subjective; after all, beliefs are considered to be merely personal opinions. In contrast, the government is viewed as objective; it is expected to rely on facts rather than prejudices, as Van Dale defines the term ‘objective’. The belief that the government can create a neutral public space from an objective starting point carries significant risks. Such a government assumes it knows what is best for its citizens and enforces that view. This reduces the space available for minorities to hold differing views. It puts pressure on tolerance for divergent opinions and practices, and thus threatens a pluralistic society. A government that acknowledges its own subjective position creates space for a diversity of views to exist side by side. This fosters tolerance.