Secularism and Freemasonry

Secularism and Freemasonry—here is a subject that stirs up many passions, particularly in France. Are secularism and Freemasonry indissolubly and necessarily linked? Do they share common origins? Is Freemasonry an indispensable auxiliary to secularism? And ultimately, what kind of secularism are we talking about, both in society and within Freemasonry? Isn’t there a fair amount of misunderstanding surrounding the notion of secularism, including within Freemasonry?

The Notion of Secularism

The term secularism (laïcité) comes from the word lay (laïc), which belongs to ecclesiastical language. Derived from the Latin laicus, itself from the Greek laïkos, meaning "of the people" (laos), lay refers to any person who does not belong to the clergy, in the Catholic Church but also in Protestant Churches—even though these latter do not have a clergy in the traditional sense of the term.

As the Church held a near-monopoly on knowledge for centuries, the word lay quickly came to mean "ignorant," a meaning it retains in the English language, where lay or layman describes someone unfamiliar with a particular field of knowledge (e.g., scientific knowledge). In French, one would rather say profane—though not in the Masonic sense, of course.

The term laïcité only appeared in France at the end of the Second Empire, and its meaning diverged significantly from its ecclesiastical origin. It came to refer to the principle of separation between Church and State and the non-interference of one in the affairs of the other. It is, first and foremost, a legal concept, establishing limits on the interventions of both Church and State. Philosophically and politically, it reflects a broader will to free society from the influence of religious discourse and norms.

According to secularist thought, religion and the public sphere are two distinct realities that can coexist, but without interference. Secularism does not negate religion; it simply relegates it to the private sphere.

Origins of Secularism

Although secularism as we understand it today dates back to the last third of the 19th century—and may therefore seem quite modern—its roots are in fact ancient. One could even say the desire to distinguish the religious sphere from the political sphere goes back to the Gospels themselves; did Jesus not say, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s”? Did the original Christian message not already advocate the autonomy of the temporal and spiritual realms?

Yet over the centuries, the Catholic Church continuously sought to expand, if not dominate, the political sphere. While acknowledging that rulers held Power (Potestas), the Church claimed to hold Authority (Auctoritas), which it considered superior. This claim was reinforced by its near-monopoly over higher education. As a result, high-ranking administrative positions in the State were often occupied by clergy, and entire domains that today seem purely governmental—such as education and healthcare—were under its control.

The first crack in this Catholic edifice was the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. For the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches, as well as for the Anglican Church, the model reversed: these Churches became nationally organized and no longer depended on an external power (Rome). As a result, secular power tended to dominate. It was through this breach that the first English political philosophers of the 17th century, such as John Locke (1632–1704), made their way. By introducing the notion of the Social Contract, political philosophy freed the foundation of society from religious determinism. Through an original (and necessarily mythical) consent, human societies granted power to rulers tasked with maintaining order and justice. No one could claim divine right anymore, and the Church had to accept that society did not depend on it, even if it retained an important role in providing moral values.

The success of the Social Contract theory among Enlightenment philosophers in the 18th century is well known. These new theories became embodied—albeit in different ways—in the two most important political events of the century: the independence of the United States and the French Revolution.

But secularism in its current sense was born in Europe, particularly in France, in the 19th century. After the fall of Napoleon’s Empire, the revolutionary era seemed to close. The old monarchies and the Catholic Church believed they could easily reclaim lost ground. A wave of conservatism swept across Europe, and the religious question became radicalized. The Catholic Church waged an ideological war against political and religious liberalism, democracy, human rights, and scientific progress. However, the Industrial Revolution had already triggered massive societal shifts, creating the working class and soon giving rise to socialism.

In France especially, the struggle for the Republic and democracy became increasingly entwined with anticlericalism and freethought, uniting workers, socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, and moderate republican bourgeois in a common cause. Anticlericalism was still discreet during the 1830 Revolution, more assertive in 1848, and by the time of the Third Republic, the fight for secularism became a clearly assumed goal, culminating in the 1905 law separating Church and State.

Different Forms of Secularism

Contrary to what many French people believe, secularism can take various forms—forms that may surprise them. Secularism never exists in a vacuum; it is always tied to a country, a culture, and a history.

In predominantly Catholic, Latin countries, the fight for secularism has often taken on a very polemical and aggressive tone, sometimes conflating different issues. Secularism—originally just a political-legal system defining Church-State relations and affirming State neutrality in religious matters—often turned into a battle against religion itself and against belief as such. As if defending secularism necessarily meant being agnostic or even atheist.

In countries with a predominantly Protestant tradition, secularism has generally taken on a more serene form. It was understood less as a war against the Church and more as an expression of freedom of conscience: the State acknowledges the existence and practice of several religions (provided they don’t disrupt public order) but grants none of them any right to interfere in governance. In practice, this secularism can take different forms. Here are some examples.

In the United States, the Constitution guarantees total freedom of worship. The State recognizes no official religion, nor does it subsidize any Church, school, or hospital of a religious nature. This is clearly a form of secularism. But this doesn’t prevent Presidents from taking their oaths on the Bible, the motto “In God We Trust” from being printed on currency, or Churches from enjoying tax exemptions. Belief in God—regardless of denomination—is the glue of American society; atheism, on the other hand, is traditionally viewed with suspicion. In the American context, secularism is not seen as hostility towards religion—quite the contrary.

In Switzerland, made up of Protestant and Catholic cantons, the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of worship and prohibits anyone from being forced or prevented from practicing a religion. No religion is officially recognized at the federal level, although the Constitution opens with the words, “In the name of Almighty God.” Church-State relations are managed at the cantonal level: some cantons have chosen separation. However, in the canton of Vaud, with its Protestant majority, both the Reformed and Catholic Churches are “public law institutions.” Their pastors and priests are paid by the State, and Reformed pastors still swear an oath to the Council of State (the cantonal government) upon ordination.

In Sweden, a Lutheran Protestant country, the separation of Church and State was only enacted in 1999. Yet the Constitution still requires the king to be Lutheran.

These examples show that secularism can take many forms in Protestant countries. Some signs of historical Churches remain in public life without challenging the principle of governmental religious neutrality. In these countries, secularism arose naturally from the decline of traditional Churches and the emergence of new religious communities—not from ideological battles against a particular Church. References to God or the presence of a Bible in public life are generally not shocking to citizens.

Secularism and Freemasonry

Freemasonry did not invent the concept of secularism in its modern sense. However, it is clear that it was one of the factors that favored its emergence. Freemasonry has always served as a vector for new philosophical ideas since the 17th century and as a laboratory for thought. That said, the fight for secularism is not part of the core mission of Freemasonry if we view it globally. It is, however, the case for certain Masonic obediences in Catholic countries, of which the Grand Orient de France is probably the best-known example. Under the Third Republic, this obedience played a central role in the adoption of the 1905 law separating Church and State.

This battle for secularism (and particularly against Roman Catholicism’s influence) led most so-called “liberal” Masonic obediences to cease requiring belief in God, to stop displaying the Bible during rituals, and to no longer work “To the Glory of the Grand Architect of the Universe.” A form of aggressive secularism thus entered the lodges, representing a significant break from previous tradition. Was this truly necessary?

The modern Freemasonry born from the Grand Lodge of London in 1717 (or more likely 1721) was hardly under religious domination, nor did it threaten its members’ freedom of conscience. Quite the contrary, the project of the Grand Lodge of London represented a form of secularism before the word existed. In Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723, we read:

“A Mason is obliged by his tenure to obey the moral law, and if he rightly understands the art, he will never be a stupid atheist nor an irreligious libertine. But though in ancient times Masons were obliged in every country to be of the religion of that country or nation, whatever it was, it is now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that religion in which all men agree, leaving their particular opinions to themselves...”

Can we still measure today how novel and shocking those words were at the time? It proposed a new kind of social interaction entirely independent of religious affiliation—a concept then inconceivable. The idea of a God, whether theist or deist, and the fact of belief itself, were not attacked, thus safeguarding individual freedom of conscience.

Masonic obediences can broadly be divided into two categories, much like how secularism is conceived differently depending on whether a country’s dominant tradition is Catholic or Protestant.

In Anglo-Saxon Protestant countries, it is not at all shocking for Masonic rituals to be filled with biblical references, for there to be a Chaplain instead of an Orator, for the Bible to be displayed in the temple, and for numerous prayers to be recited. Individual freedom of conscience is respected, and no Church or religious institution is favored. Complications only arise where secularism is confused with anticlericalism, agnosticism, or atheism.

Towards a Balanced and Serene Secularism

For some Freemasons, secularism is a Masonic value that they wish to impose first within lodges and then on society. But secularism is not an abstract philosophical value; it is simply a political-legal principle grounded in values like freedom of conscience. Secularism itself carries no positive content and cannot have one, as it is merely a principle of religious neutrality.

Secularism only begins to take on its own “content” when it is confused with the promotion of agnosticism or atheism. Would it then aim to impose state atheism in place of a former state religion? A remarkable advancement for freedom of conscience, indeed!

More than anyone, Freemasons should be able to distinguish the different levels on which their thinking applies. Knee-jerk reactions and oversimplifications are not part of the values transmitted to a newly initiated Apprentice. Recognizing the undue influence certain Churches may have wielded in the past and working to ensure society avoids repeating those mistakes are certainly within the Mason’s role. But fighting the very fact of belief in God seems to stem from a dogmatism unworthy of Freemasonry.

Freemasonry should be, above all, the place where the great issues of human existence—including its religious dimensions—are addressed objectively and with benevolence. A place of Wisdom rather than struggle, it should inspire us to view the world’s realities with clarity and serenity.