When the South African Secular Society (SASS) was established in 2014, a Secular Charter was adopted. This outlines the principles of the secular state that SASS strives to achieve.
Comparative approaches to secular charters around the world
Across the world, societies have found different ways to formalise the principle of secularism — the separation of religion and state and the equal treatment of all citizens regardless of belief. Some use official charters, others enshrine the principle in constitutions or laws. Below is a brief comparison of how various nations express secular values in public life.
Charter-Based Approaches
Some countries and organisations express secular values through explicit charters — short, accessible statements outlining the principles of neutrality, freedom of conscience, and equality. There a strong examples to be found in France and the United Kingdom.
These charters serve an educational and symbolic role — they make secularism visible and understandable to the public, rather than leaving it as a purely legal concept.
Constitutional Models
In many countries, secularism is embedded in the founding legal framework of the state itself. The United States of America has its First Amendment.
Turkey’s Constitution names laiklik (secularism) as a fundamental principle. Spain’s 1978 Constitution defines the State as non-confessional while recognising cooperation with religious groups.
Statutory or Legislative Approaches
Some regions, such as Quebec (Canada), implement secularism through specific laws rather than charters or constitutional clauses.
The different models show that secularism can be expressed through different instruments — what matters is the shared commitment to freedom of conscience, equal citizenship, and evidence-based governance.
Detailed Explanation of the SASS Secular Charter
- “There is no established state religion.”
This is the cornerstone of secular democracy. It means that the state itself does not officially endorse or identify with any religion — whether through its constitution, symbols, laws, or public ceremonies. In practice, this ensures that all faiths — and none — are treated equally before the state. - Why it matters: An official religion often leads to preferential treatment in funding, education, and social status.
- South African context: Although South Africa has no “established church,” remnants of Christian privilege persist — for instance, state functions often open with Christian prayers, and public holidays reflect Christian calendars. The Charter advocates a truly neutral state stance.
- “There is one law for all and its application is not hindered or replaced by religious codes or processes.”
This principle affirms that civil law takes precedence over religious law.
- Meaning: Religious tribunals (e.g. sharia councils, church courts, or customary religious arbitration) may guide private worshippers but have no authority in civil or criminal matters.
- Why it matters: Parallel legal systems fragment citizenship and can undermine equality, particularly for women and minorities.
3. “There is no privileged position in society or advantage in law for any individual or group by virtue of their religion or belief, or lack of religion.”
This ensures equal treatment regardless of belief or non-belief.
- Meaning: Religion (or its absence) must not determine access to public office, funding, education, or justice.
- Why it matters: Historically, religious identity often dictated privilege — e.g., “Christian schools,” “Muslim councils,” or “faith-based bursaries.” The Charter argues for merit- and rights-based equality, not belief-based hierarchy.
- South African context: State partnerships with “faith leaders” can unintentionally privilege organised religion over secular community organisations — precisely what this clause cautions against. SASS is campaigning against the exemption of South African religious organisations from paying rates under the Municipal Rates Property Act.
- “Freedom of expression is not restricted by religious considerations.”
This clause defends the right to speak, question, criticise, and satirise religion, without fear of legal or social reprisal.
- Meaning: Laws against “blasphemy” or “offending religious feelings” have no place in a free society.
- Why it matters: Freedom of conscience and freedom of expression are inseparable — one cannot have genuine belief if dissent is forbidden.
- South African context: Section 16 of the Constitution already protects freedom of expression, but religious pressure sometimes seeks to curb art, theatre, or speech deemed “disrespectful.” The Charter reinforces the constitutional right to free inquiry.
- “Neither the state, nor any emanation of the state, expresses religious beliefs or preferences.”
This clause calls for institutional neutrality.
- Meaning: State officials, schools, courts, and parastatals must not promote or endorse religion — no public prayers, religious slogans, or scriptural references in official capacity.
- Why it matters: State neutrality protects everyone’s freedom — believers and non-believers alike — by keeping government impartial.
- South African context: Opening municipal meetings or parliamentary sessions with prayers still signals religious preference. The Charter calls for inclusive or secular alternatives.
- “Religion plays no role in state-funded education, whether through religious affiliation, organised worship, religious instruction, pupil selection or employment discrimination.”
This clause safeguards education as a space of freedom and critical inquiry.
- Meaning: Publicly funded schools should be free from religious control, proselytising, or worship, and admission or employment should not depend on belief.
- Why it matters: Religion in education risks indoctrination, exclusion, and unequal access.
- South African context: Many public schools still conduct Christian prayers or instruction under the banner of “religious observance.” The Charter calls for inclusive, evidence-based education that respects all learners.
- “The state does not engage in, fund or promote religious activities or practices.”
This principle insists that public money serve public purposes, not religious ones.
- Meaning: Government funds should not support churches, faith-based events, or religious missions.
- Why it matters: Taxpayers include believers and non-believers; public spending must benefit all equally.
- South African context: Municipalities and departments sometimes sponsor prayer days or religious festivals. The Charter argues for secular, community-focused spending instead.
- “Public and publicly-funded service provision does not discriminate on grounds of religion or belief.”
This ensures that all citizens have equal access to services — from healthcare to housing — regardless of their faith identity.
- Meaning: No service provider (hospital, NGO, or social worker) should favour or exclude people based on belief.
- Why it matters: Discrimination erodes trust and equality in state services.
- South African context: This aligns with Section 9 of the Constitution (Equality Clause) and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA).
- “The state does not intervene in the setting of religious doctrine or the running of religious organisations.”
This final clause guards freedom of religion itself.
- Meaning: While the state must remain separate from religion, it must also not control or dictate to religious bodies.
- Why it matters: Secularism protects both sides — it prevents religion from ruling the state and the state from ruling religion.
- South African context: This principle upholds the independence of religious institutions within the bounds of the Constitution and general law.
South African Parliament in session.
Summary
The SASS Secular Charter envisions a society where:
- The state is neutral, not hostile to religion;
- Citizens are equal, not categorised by faith or disbelief; and
- Public institutions serve everyone, guided by evidence, reason, and human rights.
In short, it promotes a human-centred state — one that protects freedom of belief by ensuring that belief itself remains a personal, not political, matter.