What is secularism and why is it important?

[Seth]

Why should the state support religion?

Because a democratic state should represent the people. If the people feel the state should support religion, then it should. If you think it shouldn't, then you don't believe in democracy.

Crap. No matter how many citizens support the idea that governments should support religions, it is unacceptable unless you don't mind it drifting toward theocracy, and theocracy is not particularly compatible with democracy, to say the least.

And if the majority wish to live under a theocracy, and democratically vote to subject themselves to it, what then?

Or are you saying that people do not have a right to determine for themselves how their society will be constructed so as to best provide for their happiness and prosperity?

It's a cleft stick your nuts are in at the moment. Either you believe in the democratic principles that allow majority rule when it comes to all things, including religion, or you don't, and you subscribe to some form of totalitarian rule in which some people are held to be better suited to make decisions for others.

Pick one.

[Hermit]

It's a cleft stick your nuts are in at the moment. Either you believe in the democratic principles that allow majority rule when it comes to all things, including religion, or you don't, and you subscribe to some form of totalitarian rule in which some people are held to be better suited to make decisions for others.

Bit rich, coming from someone who wants to see all communists dead. It's the sort of attitude that killed Allende. He was the head of the democratically elected communist government of Chile.

[Hermit]

replace "National Socialists" with "fundamentalists"

That would be to misquote Goebbels in order to ascribe to fundamentalists an argument against democracy that most religious believers would completely oppose. Bit desperate, that.

I take it, you are not familiar with Evonne Paddison, the CEO of Access Ministries in Australia, an organisation currently a beneficiary of several millions of dollars worth of government largesse.

[Pappa]

The problem with talking about a democratically elected theocracy is that you're talking about a democracy that's voluntarily given up its democracy in favour of something else. So it becomes meaningless to suggest that theocratic laws and policies were voted in by a majority because at some point along the way the majority gave up everyone's democratic rights.

[Hermit]

The problem with talking about a democratically elected theocracy is that you're talking about a democracy that's voluntarily given up its democracy in favour of something else. So it becomes meaningless to suggest that theocratic laws and policies were voted in by a majority because at some point along the way the majority gave up everyone's democratic rights.

Same thing applies to democratically introduced fascism, communism or any other ism that results in the death knell of democracy in any nation. In the end you must decide if you will tolerate it, and if not, what you are going to do about it. Nice conundrum, that, if you think of yourself as a died-in-the-wool democrat.

[Pappa]

The problem with talking about a democratically elected theocracy is that you're talking about a democracy that's voluntarily given up its democracy in favour of something else. So it becomes meaningless to suggest that theocratic laws and policies were voted in by a majority because at some point along the way the majority gave up everyone's democratic rights.

Same thing applies to democratically introduced fascism, communism or any other ism that results in the death knell of democracy in any nation. In the end you must decide if you will tolerate it, and if not, what you are going to do about it. Nice conundrum, that, if you think of yourself as a died-in-the-wool democrat.

I agree completely on that... and I think it is important to fight to maintain democracy for all the benefits it has over the alternatives.

The real conundrum comes for me when I link democratic freedom with the notion that religion is just another idea. If that is the case, then if a democracy wishes to provide lots of faith schools as a service to its electorate, then how does that differ from it choosing to teach specific types of philosophy in its schools or support certain types of public art? It's a thorny issue because in practice many religious beliefs impinge on the freedoms of others (though not inherently). And... as Seth has said many different times, people's religious beliefs are entirely bound up with their political beliefs. For me this underlines the point that a religious belief is just another belief. How do you 'protect' democracy from that? Secularism is a vital part of good democracy. It benefits believers and non-believers alike, but the line where secular democracy starts and stops is pretty blurred.

I also think that all forms of religious protectionism should be fought against, and this is an important aspect of secularism. Whether it be protection from criticism for holding a silly idea that has no basis in fact, or protection from existing laws like the ban on peyote* in the US or the requirement that animals be stunned before they are slaughtered. The peyote exemption occurred because the Native American Church found what was essentially a loophole in federal law. They would have used any means necessary to do so, it just happens that they could use a religious exemption because it was there. Interestingly, nobody else in the US can claim they need peyote as part of their religious practices. You have to be a practising member of the NAC. Religious exemptions are a get out clause that allow stupid and sometimes repugnant practices to circumvent the law that applies to everyone else.




* I don't think peyote should be illegal, but that's a separate argument.

[TheAtheistBiker]

Some of my follow-up thoughts based on some of the comments here:

There are different types of democracy and my understanding is that we live in a Liberal Democracy, a form of Representative Democracy (in which we elect representatives). This means that it's subject to the rule of law. It also emphasises the protection of the rights and freedoms and places constraints on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities. This includes believers and non-believers alike. In other words the majority can't have their own way at the expense of the minority, especially if it's in breach of the law. An idea with illegal ramifications remains illegal whether a majority subscribe to it or not.

Referendums are predominantly part of Direct Democracies where citizens actually take part in decision making themselves rather than use elected representatives. Representative-Liberal Democracies like our own do occasionally incorporate certain of these elements, such as referendums. So it's not as simple as just saying 'well this is what the majority want'. The common element, as far as I can tell, that ties all of the different forms of democracy is that all eligible people have an equal say and an opportunity to freely and fully participation in the decisions that affect their lives.

Anyway, in the UK, which is of course where I'm referring to, the religious do not seem to be the majority, at least not in any meaningful sense. For example, a poll conducted by YouGov in March 2011 on behalf of the British Humanist Association, when asked the census question ‘What is your religion?’, 61% of people in England and Wales ticked a religious box while 39% ticked ‘No religion’. However, when the same sample was asked the follow-up question ‘Are you religious?’, only 29% of the same people said ‘Yes’ while 65% said ‘No’, meaning over half of those whom the census would count as having a religion said they were not religious.

Likewise, less than half (48%) of those who ticked ‘Christian’ said they believed that Jesus Christ was a real person who died and came back to life and was the son of God. Asked when they had last attended a place of worship for religious reasons, most people in England and Wales (63%) had not attended in the past year, 43% of people last attended over a year ago and 20% of people had never attended. Only 9% of people had attended a place of worship within the last week. Furthermore, these numbers appear to be rising.

Secularism isn't about taking away people's religion or beliefs it's about keeping the state and 'church' separate.

[Seth]

It's a cleft stick your nuts are in at the moment. Either you believe in the democratic principles that allow majority rule when it comes to all things, including religion, or you don't, and you subscribe to some form of totalitarian rule in which some people are held to be better suited to make decisions for others.

Bit rich, coming from someone who wants to see all communists dead. It's the sort of attitude that killed Allende. He was the head of the democratically elected communist government of Chile.

Exactly. I'm pointing out that you cannot be a socialist and still complain about a society in which the majority supports religion. Socialism is all about the tyranny of the majority and screw those who object. What's amusing is that people seem to believe that socialists have to be secularists, whereas it's perfectly possible for religion and socialism to coexist.

The reason that the United States has endured is because it was founded on a careful balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of society. Our government walks a tightrope between secularism in government action and protection for religious freedom. It cannot be one or the other or tyranny is the result, either the tyranny of theocracy or the tyranny of socialism.

Walking the middle road is how our government successfully governs without undue religious influence while still serving the needs of the People, which is government's only legitimate function.

Therefore, it's simplistic and fallacious to argue that either government or society must be completely secular and that religion must be suppressed in the public square. That simply cannot happen without government becoming tyrannical, as we saw in the USSR.

People will believe in religion irrespective of what government does, and government suppression of religion only foments discontent, disorder and eventual revolution.

It is not government's place to suppress religion, it is government's duty to accommodate and serve the needs of the people as best it can given the competing interests of individuals.

[Seth]

The problem with talking about a democratically elected theocracy is that you're talking about a democracy that's voluntarily given up its democracy in favour of something else. So it becomes meaningless to suggest that theocratic laws and policies were voted in by a majority because at some point along the way the majority gave up everyone's democratic rights.

Indeed. But the endurance of theocracy has to do with how well the religious authorities serve the needs and interests of the people. If the theocracy serves the people well, and provides society with peace and happiness, it can endure for a long, long time.

[Pappa]

The problem with talking about a democratically elected theocracy is that you're talking about a democracy that's voluntarily given up its democracy in favour of something else. So it becomes meaningless to suggest that theocratic laws and policies were voted in by a majority because at some point along the way the majority gave up everyone's democratic rights.

Indeed. But the endurance of theocracy has to do with how well the religious authorities serve the needs and interests of the people. If the theocracy serves the people well, and provides society with peace and happiness, it can endure for a long, long time.

I don't think that's an accurate representation of a theocracy Seth. Theocracies could just as easily coerce social control through fear, brutality, manipulation and many other things that would make individuals unhappy. I don't see any particularly valid reason why their longevity should be cut short if they make the people unhappy.

[Exi5tentialist]

I take it, you are not familiar with Evonne Paddison, the CEO of Access Ministries in Australia, an organisation currently a beneficiary of several millions of dollars worth of government largesse.

You're right I'm not. What's your point?

[Exi5tentialist]

Secularism isn't about taking away people's religion or beliefs it's about keeping the state and 'church' separate.

I agree having a secular state is about keeping the 'church' and state separate, but that's not practical. Let me give 2 examples.

1) A church submits plans to the local authority for a new church building. Under secularism, by your definition, the local authority would be obliged to ignore the submission, not respond to enquiries from the church or the press about the submission. If the church went ahead and built the new church building without planning permission, the planning authority would be unable to act, because the church and the state must remain separate. The church gets built and the state doesn't do a thing about it.

2) Members of a church are being harassed by atheists. When they go to church they are spat on, kicked and occasionally murdered. The motivation is clearly anti-religious hatred. They complain to the police, but the police say sorry, it's a secular state, we must remain separate so we can't respond. The police then hang up on them.

Now in 2) you might say that the police should respond solely on the basis that a human being is being attacked, and not have regard to their religion. However you just made the statement that church and state must remain separate, so you're undermining that principle by saying that the police should respond to complaints where religion is a component of the complaint. This is the reason why we have to be more careful and more accurate in our wording. So can you come up with any better wording that 'state and church must be kept separate'?

[TheAtheistBiker]

That's so fecking stupid: I call reductio ad absurdum. My definition of secularism is not limited to that one sentence, read my OP. You're misrepresenting and making strawmen, which is lame and I think you know it. Be interested to see if anyone here agrees?

[HomerJay]

you gotta admire the balls it took to post that bollocks

[Exi5tentialist]

That's so fecking stupid: I call reductio ad absurdum. My definition of secularism is not limited to that one sentence, read my OP. You're misrepresenting and making strawmen, which is lame and I think you know it. Be interested to see if anyone here agrees?

I can't find any different definition of secularism in your OP nor on your website. Quote it if you can, I have already read quite a lot of it. All I can see is criticism of others for creating "fuzziness" around what secularism is and a restatement of your position that you "demand total separation of church and state" which is what you just said, and what I responded to. I therefore can't deduce from the references to your other work that you've given me what your rational response is to the 2 examples I gave above.

My position is at least a lot clearer. I believe in secular governance of society - ie the mechanisms of parliament, executive and judiciary should have no religious component to their processes and functioning. So no more queen appointed by the grace of god and no more "God and my right" slogans in court, no more prayers in parliament, no more "ministers" in government. Secretaries are fine. These are just examples.

That's not to say I think parliament should not be allowed to debate religion or respond to pressures for the state to provide services to religion. Of course, I would oppose them, but if I'm outvoted, and if the democratic process is contrary to my position, then it would be undemocratic of me to seek to impose some edict that parliament should never provide services, support or funds to religion, wouldn't it?

Hence I am opposed to faith schools, and I argue against them, but in a democracy, if parliament decides that faith schools should receive funding, then what right have I got to seek the imposition of some other power that over-rules parliament's democratic mandate?