What is secularism and why is it important?

[TheAtheistBiker]

Hi:

...Sadly, the contemporary fuzziness of secularism and how it works can be seen in the many concessions to religion. The fact is that even though our government is nominally secular it has been weakened by these concessions to religious demands and avoiding a clear and consistent approach to the state religion relationship...

Read more

Kind regards

TheAtheistBiker

[Seth]

Hi:

...Sadly, the contemporary fuzziness of secularism and how it works can be seen in the many concessions to religion. The fact is that even though our government is nominally secular it has been weakened by these concessions to religious demands and avoiding a clear and consistent approach to the state religion relationship...

Read more

Kind regards

TheAtheistBiker

From your website:

"Secularism is a neutral position favouring no one faith over another."

True. But it's also a neutral position that does not denigrate any faith.

"It offers all faiths the opportunity to prove the validity of their claims."

False.

Secularism has nothing whatever to do with the validity or invalidity of religious claims. Secularism in government is about government neither advancing nor inhibiting the free exercise of religion by individuals.

"If a secular position was adopted by the church, and many do, then the clear message this would send out would be that “we don’t need government endorsement to survive. We don’t need to have our doctrines taught in faith schools to ensure the recruitment of new generations of believers. We speak the truth and our message is powerful enough to continue and thrive on its own merits without the need of any outside assistance”".

False. Churches that support secularism in government do not require government endorsement, but they do require government protection against intrusions on their religious rights by atheists and members of competing religions. Secularism in government requires government not to advance any particular religion, but it also requires government to act in affirmative ways to protect the free exercise of religion by individuals and groups against both government and private intrusions upon those rights.

The "wall of separation" between church and state is not a wall placing society on one side and religion on the other, it's a wall AROUND GOVERNMENT, like a prison wall, that protects the free exercise of religion by the People against the machinations and oppressions OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the US Constitution are intended as constraints on government, not on individuals or faith groups.

The separation for church and state provides the opportunity of a way forward for religion. It has the potential to reverse the current trend and encourage people back to a faith they can respect and believe in, should they so desire.

How arrogant. It's not up to secularists or atheists to determine what the trends should be regarding religious faith. Most people are satisfied with their religious beliefs and respect them. If they don't, it's a matter between them and their religious authorities, and it's not for secularists or atheists to try to dictate, using the force of law, how religions regain "respect" in the eyes of their adherents. Government's only place and purpose insofar as religion is concerned is to avoid advancing any particular religion over another, to avoid inhibiting the free exercise of any and all religions by anyone, and to protect the free exercise of religion by all.

Moreover, democratic socialist principles hold that the will of the majority has substantial weight in how public policy is conformed to the needs of society. Therefore, if the majority of a particular society are religious, then it is their right as a sovereign people to conform their government to the dictates of their religious ideals. To say otherwise is to deny the very root of democratic socialism, is it not?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you subscribe to majority rule under democratic socialist principles or you don't. If you do, then you may be stuck with religion having a substantial influence on public policy and government because that is what the majority wants. If you don't, then you're not a democratic socialist and your opinion may be ignored by the rest of the democratic socialist public, who may go right ahead and do what the majority wants anyway.

So, you're hoist on your own petard, I'm afraid. So long as the majority of people are religious, and contrary to your assertion, that happens to be the case worldwide, religion will continue to influence governance, as it always has, and probably always will.

"The greatest myth about secularism is that it is anti-religious, but political secularism allows you to practice your religion how, where and when you want."

Only when it does, which is infrequently. Most often "secularism" is really anti-theism in disguise, and atheists and so-called secularists (anti-theists...like you evidently claim to be on your website) try to conceal their real intent, which is the extirpation of religion in the public sphere, while mouthing platitudes and disingenuous mendacity to cozen and obfuscate.

The problem is that secularism is most often used as a blunt instrument against religion and it is used to precisely prevent the free exercise of religion, inhibit public expressions of religious faith and discriminate against people of faith by atheists and "secularists" who seem to think (wrongly) that secularism is "common ground" in the public square and that religious expression must be suppressed in public spaces in order not to infringe upon some vacuous and illusory "right to be free from religion."

Of course there is no such right, but that's the argument that secularists and atheists use while attempting to suppress public expressions of faith. And I'm not talking necessarily about government-sponsored religious displays, merely those expressions of faith in the public square that must be protected by the government. Secularists too often see government tolerance of religious expression on public property, such as Christmas displays, as an "establishment" of religion when it is actually nothing more than a protection of the free exercise of religion by the members of the community on THEIR property.

"I stand against the growing influence of religion on Government and the increasing desire of the current Government to involve religious bodies and religious individuals in the decisions of state, often in the name of multiculturalism. I believe this puts the majority of the population, who are not religious, at a disadvantage."

The first problem you have is your false assertion that the majority of the population are not religious. The rest of your argument fails on that fault. If religion's influence is growing in government, it would appear to be nothing more than a manifestation of the will of the people, who have chosen to elect persons of faith to office with the intent of giving religion more influence, not less, in government.

That's pure democracy in action, and those who object, like you, simply need to belt up and accept that yours is the minority opinion and that society feels differently about it and has spoken on the matter. That's what a good socialist would do.

[charlou]

Hi:

Hello and welcome.


I'll take a look at your blog later.

[Hermit]

Secularism, insofar as it is the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs, is important to anyone who opposes theocracy. Conversely, it is meant to constrain governments from impinging on the free exercise resulting from someone's faith. So far, so good.

Things get complicated when issues of faith have repercussions on the real world. To pick just one, some parents refuse to allow medical treatment of a child of theirs that would save its sight, life or mobility because to allow such treatment would compromise their unconditional faith in their god. In such a case I side with secularists over those "of faith". The constraint of government from impinging on the free exercise resulting from someone's faith does not extend to allowing faith to result in damage, be it to an individual any group.

[charlou]

Things get complicated when issues of faith have repercussions on the real world. To pick just one, some parents refuse to allow medical treatment of a child of theirs that would save its sight, life or mobility because to allow such treatment would compromise their unconditional faith in their god. In such a case I side with secularists over those "of faith". The constraint of government from impinging on the free exercise exercise resulting from someone's faith does not extend to allowing faith to result in damage, be it to an individual or groups.

In this case, it's not the children who are making a decision for themselves based on their own beliefs, but the parents/religious community imposing their beliefs on the child. Beliefs that, in practice, amount to neglect/abuse. Personal faith isn't the issue, here ... the practice of neglect/abuse is.

[JimC]

The irony is that the US has made the clearest declaration of secularism in its constitution of any country, and yet fundamentalist christianity has a massive effect on the practice of politics there...

And don't get me started on the contradictions embodied in "In God we trust..."

[Hermit]

Things get complicated when issues of faith have repercussions on the real world. To pick just one, some parents refuse to allow medical treatment of a child of theirs that would save its sight, life or mobility because to allow such treatment would compromise their unconditional faith in their god. In such a case I side with secularists over those "of faith". The constraint of government from impinging on the free exercise exercise resulting from someone's faith does not extend to allowing faith to result in damage, be it to an individual or groups.

In this case, it's not the children who are making a decision for themselves based on their own beliefs, but the parents/religious community imposing their beliefs on the child. Beliefs that, in practice, amount to neglect/abuse. Personal faith isn't the issue, here ... the practice of neglect/abuse is.

Which is precisely why I draw the line between the rights of secular governments and the rights of religions where I have indicated. I should have made the reason for it - the practice of neglect/abuse - explicit, but now that you have done so, I'll just nod and add the "What she said" smiley.

[Seth]

Secularism, insofar as it is the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs, is important to anyone who opposes theocracy. Conversely, it is meant to constrain governments from impinging on the free exercise resulting from someone's faith. So far, so good.

Things get complicated when issues of faith have repercussions on the real world. To pick just one, some parents refuse to allow medical treatment of a child of theirs that would save its sight, life or mobility because to allow such treatment would compromise their unconditional faith in their god. In such a case I side with secularists over those "of faith". The constraint of government from impinging on the free exercise resulting from someone's faith does not extend to allowing faith to result in damage, be it to an individual any group.

Religion plays such an important part in many (indeed most) people's lives, which would seem to make secularism a tough sell at best. But we find that this is not really true in either Europe or the US.

The difficulty lies in distinguishing secular governance and secularizing society, which are two entirely different things.

Most people in the US agree that government should be secular insofar as it is not overtly religious or overtly favors one religion over another, and insofar as it treats all private expressions of religion equally under the law. Where the general disagreement occurs when it comes to matters of public policy that may be informed by religious beliefs even while the policies are not in and of themselves overtly religious.

Abortion is the quintessential example of a secular matter of public policy, the debate over which is strongly informed on the part of a great many people by their religious beliefs. As a matter of moral policy decision making, the question of when life begins and when human rights attach are distinct, but closely related questions. When life begins is a purely scientific question that is determinable with some exactitude. When human rights do or should attach to a fetus is not a matter of science, it's a matter of societal moral and ethical decision making.

Many questions of law and social policy are directly related to the overall moral beliefs of the society, and the question of which set of moral beliefs should control is a matter of how the society's system of lawmaking is constructed. In a democracy, including a representative democracy like the US, the general policy is one of majority rule. Of course in the US, and other places, this general policy is nuanced by other, deeper considerations such as the society's belief in fundamental, unalienable human rights that are not subject to the will of the majority.

So, within that context, and subject to the limitations I mention, the rough rule is one of majority determination of matters of ethical and moral social policy to which all members of a society may be held accountable.

Since all laws are, in effect, the legislating of "morality" to one extent or another, and since morality is substantially and significantly influenced by both individual religious beliefs and majority religious preference, it's inevitable, and just, that a society conforms its moral and ethical codes to generally suit the majority opinion, subject to a due respect for other belief systems, both religious and secular/atheistic.

For things to be otherwise, for example for government to be completely secular and devoid of the influence of religious morality, is to deny the majority their right to conform society as they see fit and as they believe will best provide for their happiness. One might justifiably label a forcibly-secular government as the tyranny of secularism which denies and suppresses the legitimate moral concerns of the religious majority in favor of the moral decisions of the atheist minority.

I agree with you that the situation is complex as regards what I call "exported harm," wherein the religion-based decision making of one person inflicts harm, either directly or through negligence, on another, especially a child. Fortunately the law, in recent years, has begun to distinguish between legitimate expressions of faith and "exported harm" by way of negligent care of children that results in harm to the child. From prosecutions for criminal negligence for failing to get timely and adequate medical care to Warren Jeffs, who is now serving a life sentence for raping 14 year old girls using his religious faith as an excuse, we now see a rational response to religious beliefs as they involuntarily affect others who are incompetent to make rational, well-informed decisions for themselves.

At the same time, the courts also give due deference to the rights of parents to raise their children in their own faith, so long as no physical harm comes to the child in the process.

So, by applying the "exported harm" test to see if the manifestation of a religious belief causes actual proximate physical harm to another, we can rationally distinguish between the legitimate function of government in preventing such harm, and the illegitimate advance of secularism for the sake of secularism alone.

[Seth]

The irony is that the US has made the clearest declaration of secularism in its constitution of any country, and yet fundamentalist christianity has a massive effect on the practice of politics there...

...as is right and proper, given the fact that Christianity is the predominate religion in the US. For things to be otherwise is to disparage the right of the majority to form a society that best provides for their happiness.

Actually, your assertion that "fundamentalist christianity has a massive effect on the practice of politics" is an assertion without substantiation. While religion certainly informs politics, and Christianity is the predominant religion in the US, I think you, like most atheists, like to grossly overstate the "fundamentalist christian" argument as a stalking horse for your anti-religion screeds.

Most people in the US are Christians, but also believe in a secular government, and the actual influence of "fundamentalist christians" is actually quite limited.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Santa_Claus]

It's about keeping Woo Peddlers away from the levers of power......but it's not a direct attack on religion. The benefit for all religions is that no one religion gets the upper hard (and we all know where that goes).

Why important? those Societies that don't progress to Secularism get to carry on living in caves...........with the technology to match.

[Seth]

It's about keeping Woo Peddlers away from the levers of power.

Thing is, "woo peddlers" have every right to manipulate the levers of power if that's what the People want. Just because you don't like woo doesn't mean that others don't, and since the majority rules over the atheist minority, you're just fucked, aren't you?

.....but it's not a direct attack on religion. The benefit for all religions is that no one religion gets the upper hard (and we all know where that goes).

Trying to keep "woo peddlers away from the levers of power" is precisely and exactly a direct attack on religion because it presumes, falsely, that your version of woo is superior to theirs, which is historically not the case.

Why important? those Societies that don't progress to Secularism get to carry on living in caves...........with the technology to match.

Which fallacious conclusion fails to explain why, for example, the United States, with all its woo peddlers at the levers of power, is the most technologically advanced society on the planet.

Things aren't nearly as simplistic as you like to suggest.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Or anybody suggests for that matter.

[HomerJay]

Free exercise of religion is bullshit, the sooner it's abandoned, the better.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Free exercise of religion is bullshit, the sooner it's abandoned, the better.

Oh, come on. Freedom to mutilate children's genitals is a fundamental right. It's codified in the Constipation. FFS, man, have you never read the thing?