Why is secularism seen as such a threat?

[technodad]

Why is secularism seen as such a threat, when the very idea is based around protection of the rights of the individual?

Just to be clear before we start, secularism is about making everyone equal, no matter what their belief - simple as that really. It means that no one group (or individual) has greater rights or power in society than everyone else and that everyone has freedom of expression.

So what is it about this concept that is so difficult for some people to accept and support?

"Another shibboleth of secularists is the requirement to have acts of worship in schools. It seems to me that opposition to this bespeaks a certain lack of confidence in their own values on the part of secularists and atheists. If these groups are so worried by the infection of religion by the occasional exposure to Christian or other worship, then they must be worries indeed about their ability to transmit their moral values to their children."
But. By the same token, why are Christians so worried about their children spending a whole 6 hours a day without faith input?

"Another shibboleth of secularists is the requirement to have acts of worship in schools. It seems to me that opposition to this bespeaks a certain lack of confidence in their own values on the part of secularists and atheists. If these groups are so worried by the infection of religion by the occasional exposure to Christian or other worship, then they must be worries indeed about their ability to transmit their moral values to their children."

My problem with collective worship and the intellectual sham that is RE is not that they will convert my child but that they encourage children to be intellectually and spiritually dishonest in relation to religion. Nothing would be wrong with a religiously inclined teacher or group of students facilitating worship sessions at lunchtimes, but requiring the whole school and teachers to pretend-worship corrupts both religion and the school community.

Nicholas, Hitler was NOT a catholic except by upbringing; like many so raised, he abandoned the RC church decisively quite early in adolescence. Let me provide you with some sources by message if you like. And I said nothing about the Holocaust

Presumably you are not arguing that Stalin was Xtian too?

techno, Dawkins and his kind are very fond of accusing Xtians of crimes committed many hundreds of years ago, and yet you say quite recent acts are somehow irrelevant/ if they are, can we hear no more of the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the witch-trials, please?

My point was simply that a secular state is not in itself enough to create benignity or tolerance. That was my sole point, and I am not suggesting that Stalin's crimes or Hitler's are the result of secularisation.

And I am btw not in favour of school prayers or RE. However, techno, I am still eager to hear you define 'private'. Exactly what space/s do you think religion should be allowed to occupy? Where are the boundaries? Christmas decorations in town centres? Public religious processions?

"And I am btw not in favour of school prayers or RE. However, techno, I am still eager to hear you define 'private'. Exactly what space/s do you think religion should be allowed to occupy? Where are the boundaries? Christmas decorations in town centres? Public religious processions?"

This is the problem. Person A says that religion has no place in public life and nobody should have to be a nominal Christian to access a public service- like a school. Person B then comes along and says does that mean you want to ban Christmas decorations.

Sieglinde - I agree with you that the current approach to RE is dumbed down to the point of meaninglessness. But this is hardly a victory for secularism. The RE syllabus is not set as part of the national curriculum like other academic subjects but negotiated between the local representatives of the major religions.

Seeker, I don't think it is any secret that Christians - like any other group within the population - can have different views.

Speaking for myself, I do not see what the problem is with acts of worship within school. The requirement is widely flouted, and in any case parents have the right to withdraw their children from it if they so wish. There is no need to be a nominal Christian to access publically funded schooling. But, in any case, there is a more positive case to be made for acts of worship in school. Worship is one of the things that are universal in human societies, it seems to me to be a good thing that children experience it. The values of the home are always stronger than external values, so it is unlikely that children will be 'converted' by it. And the phases of the Christian act of worship (I cannot speak for any othe faith), can be valuable to anybody even if they do not believe in God: contrition (where you call to mind the things you shouldn't have done, or the things you should have done and didn't do, and resolve to do better next time)' intercession (in which you think about other people and their needs and sufferings), and thanksgiving (cultivating an attitude of thankfulness and appreciation for what you have). All these are vital to any serious moral programme, and can be practised perfectly well by an atheist. Finally, whether you believe in God or not, many people find that a time of meditation and quietness is a good thing. An act of worship can provide all these things - and I really do not see what is wrong with it.

Himalaya, the RE curriculum for each school is set by the Governing body of the school. It has nothing to do with horse-trading between religious groups.

In my secular (atheist) household we have a special saying we use at Christmas time. It is "Happy Christmas".

Ha, ha, TD. But that doesn't answer Sieglinde's question: what space do you think religion should be allowed to occupy?

No Sieg, I wouldn't say Stalin was a theist, though interestingly, during WW2 the Soviet government allowed the churches to open.

Godwin's Law is about invocating Hitler or the Nazis in a thread.

Niminypiminy- I agree with all those good things you say come from collective worship. If you look on the British Humanist Society website, for exqmple, ther are loads of suggestions for ways of doing all those things without the need to bring god into it

I've heard the "you can withdraw your child" line often. But why should I? If anyone has to withdraw, why shouldn't it be ones who want specific Christian assemblies?

And in answer to the what space should religion occupy question- any space it's adherents want to to, so long as that does not exclude non religious people from anything not specifically connected to that religion. So religious people have q perfect right to exclude me from their places of worship. But they should not have the right to exclude my child from full participation in a state education.

Personally I regard xmas decorations as part of the worship of Mammon, and I was not btw saying that a secular state would ban them. Again, some leaping to conclusions here.

Teacozy, I was referring to Stalin's policies - agree that both he and Hitler were willing to make an occasional gesture to religion when it suited them, though both also vehemently disliked all established churches. Hitler went so far as to say he thought Islam would have been much more useful to the German people - he also made the Mufti of Jerusalem an officer in the SS - while Himmler tried to press the claims of strong macho German paganism against the meek Christians. This has not much to do wiht the thread, though it's interesting...

seeker, apart from schools, on which I think we are in agreement, what in particular do you see as problematic in public space? I also agree on bishops in the House of Lords, and would like the C of E disestablished - anything else? TD, your views? If you want people to campaign for something, don't we/they need a clearer and more detailed idea of what the result would look like?

One and all, surely the RE curriculum is partly set by the GCSE exam people? My ds had to learn science he knew was false by heart to get a high mark, hence my fury. I btw don't mean creationism, but physics.

Well, as I have said all along, if secularism is a multi-faith team, then it will have a multi-faith agenda, because we are a multi-faith nation.

In terms of what "private" means, and how much free space to worship should people have, well I can give you my personal thoughts, but they will not necessarily be inline with any specific official secularist policy and should not be treated as such.

The question is somewhat open-ended, because we could keep throwing examples into the mix and we could never cover every situation. I will deal with a few obvious scenarios:

• Should someone be allowed to wear a neckless with a cross to work? - Yes
• If a company has a policy which states that no neckless jewellery should be worn on the grounds of health and safety (e.g. a nurse who needs to lift patients where they may get scratched, or where a patient may grab it and hurt them, or someone using machinery), then should someone be allowed to wear a cross neckless? - clearly not. The rule is clear and justifiable and it is one rule for all.
• If a company have a policy that says that short sleeves must be worn (e.g. in a hospital where there is risk of infecting patients), then should someone be allowed to wear long sleeves because it is part of their religious attire? - Clearly not. The rule is clear and justifiable and it is one rule for all.
• Should a Teacher in a school be allowed to teach their personal faith to children - No, that is not their job.
• Should a Christian Hotel Owner ban homosexuals from staying in their hotel? No, if they are a business, then they must not discriminate based upon sexuality or religion.
• Should a town be allowed to put up christmas decorations in a town centre? - Of course, it is a national holiday and it is worth celebrating and following tradition. They could also wish to have decorations for other religious holidays too (especially if they were in a racially mixed area).
• Should there be prayers as part of council meetings? - No, council meetings are not only for religious people. If people need to pray, do it on your own time, maybe get to the meeting a bit earlier and have an unofficial pre-meeting.
• Should a courthouse have a nativity scene on display? - Well, not really. It is an official state building and should not preference any specific faith.
• Should a church have a nativity scene on display, viewable on the street? - Of course.
• Can a street preacher legally tell a gay couple that they are going to hell? - Yes. I may not agree with them, and think they are a twat, but freedom of speech is just that.

Does this help?

Are there any of these points that you disagree with?

State schools should be non religious.

The technodad answers are probably those which most people would agree.

I got asked to sign this today www.muslimactionforum.com/petition.html and replied saying that I would be happy to sign a petition which are exactly the opposite - for more not less freedom of speech.

I think I would agree with your view in all your examples, TD. I still think, though, there is something deeper to discuss. As Christians, we are called upon to live out our faith in all area of our lives. There is no public and private, because the values of our faith transcend that division. That doesn't mean that 'the Christians' are a team I must always support. I wouldn't vote for someone simply because he or she was a Christian. What it means that the values and actions that spring from the gospel should flow into all areas of life (so I might vote for someone based on how much I thought their politics matched the values of the gospel).

So while in your specific examples I would have no problem agreeing with you, on larger and deeper questions to do with the role that religion might have in public life ( say in ethical and political debates) I suspect we might have disagreements.

niminypiminy, as you are so keen on collective worship in schools and so eloquently explain why the generalities are important even if you do not believe the specifics, I trust you would be equally keen for your children to engage in regular Pagan worship in school.

Yes

I too agree with all techno's specifications - though I hesitate a little - a very little - over the hotel and gay couples. I personally find the couples who have implemented this ban repugnant, but in general and in the abstract it might be worth making room for businesses which honestly advertise their bigotry? Though I'd hate it if signs went up saying, as it were, Judenrein... and it's hard to think how advertising could be honest AND avoid offence of this kind. I'm also mystified by the supposedly Xtian couple's reasoning (the supposedly is because I didn't see them as especially loving in this case).

I understand even less the ban on same-sex adoption - I know some very happy children adopted by lesbian couples from China - all the children are girls and were languishing in misery...

Snorbs, my only concern about pagan worship is that it's often very poorly grounded in any history - and I've been to many a handfasting, Samhain, and Beltane. I always get restless feet when something made up last week is said to be age-old. But I also really like pagans' creativity - I just think they should be more upfront about it. So I'd prefer Orthodox Judaism or fundamentalist Islam or Sikhism.. but would prefer no worship to something so watered down by bogus ecumenism as to mean nothing, as some multifaith funerals are. So for now, none is better than bosh...

Niminy - the syllabus for RE is set by the LEA (unlike every other subject). The LEA is mandated to set up a standing advisory committee on RE 'sacre' mainly made up of various Christian denominations, and some reps from other religions, humaniser are sometimes allowed on as co-opted members, but not allowed to vote seriously I'm not making this up

(... This doesn't apply to academies and private schools, and it might all change with Gove's reforms etc...) but still it's kind of shocking, no? I bet a fair amount of polite ecclesiastical horse trading goes on.

Yes I think there is a lot of triangulation between GCSE boards and LEAs etc... But protecting a sense of respect for religion and its claims to special knowledge is central to the whole project, dressed up in cod philosophical "deep questions".

...humanists not humanisers

Niminy -

what do you think about the role of religion in public life - ethical and political debates?

I think each individual should have equal votes, voice, legitimacy, influence in public debates. If their personal view is informed by their religion that is the role that religion should play in public life. Why does it need an extra role?

Niminy said: So while in your specific examples I would have no problem agreeing with you, on larger and deeper questions to do with the role that religion might have in public life ( say in ethical and political debates) I suspect we might have disagreements.

But nothing stops religious people EARNING the right (as individuals), from using their faith to guide the direction of public life, by being voted into a position of responsibility.

What is not acceptable, is a religious group having automatic political (or otherwise) privilege within society. How can it be justified that religious leaders are a better moral compass to the nation that an atheist or agnostic one? That is discriminatory and deeply offensive!

Sleglinde said: I too agree with all techno's specifications - though I hesitate a little - a very little - over the hotel and gay couples. I personally find the couples who have implemented this ban repugnant, but in general and in the abstract it might be worth making room for businesses which honestly advertise their bigotry?

So where do we draw the line here? If I ran a business, could I choose to not employ black people because I was a member of the English Defence League (as long as I write "I am a member of the EDL and an utter racist bastard on the job advert")?

This example is not really any different from what you are proposing, but race based rather than religion based.

Xenia that petition is hilariously hypocritical. :o Global civility from a community amongst whose members are a significant number willing to carry placards which display the grossly uncivil "behead those who insult Mohammed (or Islam)".

On the other hand I've never seen a placard saying "behead those who insult Hitchens".

C&P from an article on The Thinking Atheist (not whole article) which I found interesting:-

"Islam is not just like other faiths. While it is considered an Abrahamic faith, in reality it is the Old Testament combined with Arab Paganism and run-of-the-mill, mind-control death cult. Muhammad's father was named Abdallah, or "Belonging to Allah".

Allah was the Arab pagan moon god, and other Arab deities included the goddesses Al-Lat, whose name means simply "The Goddess", Al-Uzza or "The Mighty One", and Manat, goddess of Fate or Time. Muhammad had not yet created Islam, obviously, when his father was named Abdallah, and the "Satanic Verses" of the Qur'an permitted calling upon the three goddesses. The crescent moon now used to signify Islam was Allah's symbol, a further holdover from Muhammad's upbringing as an Arab pagan, as is use of the Kaaba in Mecca, which was constructed by Arab pagans and later overtaken by the new Muslims.

Christianity tells people how to deal with spiritual issues, which the Jesus character of the Bible gave as one of his most important messages -- it's not going through the motions of Judaic ritual that count, but what is in a person's heart that matters. And Jesus also told Christians to, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Those concepts are utterly foreign in Islam.

Islam, by contrast, dictates everything from politics and how to govern a country down to telling Muslims on which foot they must enter a room, how to wash your face, and how to clean yourself after defecating. Muslims generally believe the Qur'an tells them every, single thing a human being needs to know in order to live. Islam controls and dictates everything a Muslim does from the moment they wake up until the moment they go to bed.

The word "Islam" means submission in Arabic, not peace. According to Islam, peace is the result of submission. When everyone on the planet has submitted to Islam, which is the goal of the faith, then there will be peace. Until then, the Qur'an demands Muslims spread Islam by the sword."