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?

Niminy, that's excellent. And Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Scientology, Satanism, Sikhism, Shinto, Church of the Subgenius, Buddhism, Zoroastranism, Mormonism, plus examples from the ancient religions of Egypt, Rome, Greece, Nordic countries and native American as well?

Let's hope that in between all that they might have a bit of time for, you know, proper lessons as well.

TD, I think I did talk about this in the part of my post you haven't reproduced. I too don't want to see signs saying Judenrein. Or No Blacks Allowed. Bigotry is bigotry.

I just puzzle over how far a B and B is public or private; most are also the peoples' homes. Should bigots be allowed to be bigots in their own homes?

Should we let bigots be bigots and have their silly rights? This is like whether we should allow the likes of the EDF and the BNP to speak in public, or for that matter Holocaust deniers. Always a difficult choice - how liberal is too liberal? How can we know? I don't know. Another Don't Know. Healthy!!!

I think it is important to push a bit more on this question to establish a sensible line where a legal policy might sit.

Are you proposing that a pub owner who lives on the premises could ban black and gay people from the pub because it is also a private residence? Or that a small business owner with a small workforce working in a room in the house can refuse to employ ginger people? Where do you draw the line? Is it where a sexual act may occur? Is kissing (which could legitimately happen on a pub bar) a sexual act?

Maybe a better way to draw the line would be to say: if you are a racist or a bigot, then you need to think about the legal implications of running a business within your home. If you are unhappy with the law, then don't start the business.

Just a thought!

TD, I'm not proposing anything. You are putting words into my mouth.

I am ruminating on the difficult question of 'I hate what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it' versus current race hatred legislation, which in general I support.

I hesitate over any law which legislates about what people can do in private. it was exactly those laws which so oppressed gay people in the not very distant past.

In direct response, preventing bigots from owning or operating certain businesses would also be slightly oppressive. I know we all want to oppress bigots, but wouldn't it be more in tune with secularism to convince them by reason?

Nicholas, inxdeed and I felt so strongly about it I emailed the sender back to say I'd only sign an opposite petition. Obviously I support the right of Muslims to back such petitions as that is freedom of speech but we do need mumsnetters to be very vigilant and concerned about petitions aiming to stop freedom of speech and to lobby against any new laws which diminish the rights of others to speak and have views different from the norm.

"I hate what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" that is my view and also no legislation against what people do in private where they consent even if that is women doing 100% of the housework (more fool them).

I know you are not specifically proposing anything, I am merely trying to push the debate to explore what might be a sensible outcome.

Arguably the individuals in question do have a choice. They can decide which is more important, their business, or their private "values".

There would be noting illegal (i don't think) in having "in association with the EDL" written on the B&B website so that people would know that the B&B is not worthy of a visit I suppose.

Exactly, Xenia. We have to allow people to run their own private lives even if they do things we think idiotic

TD, I think that the finer points could be difficult, but just want to reiterate the general point. It still seems to me that people must be allowed to be douchebags in their own homes... providing of course they are not harming others' rights.

Therein lies the nub. Is it more important to protect gay couples form being excluded from Xtian (?) premises, or to protect douchebags Xtians' rights to say what they will tolerate in their homes?

Commonsense does suggest that the gay couples can go elsewhere, and also some other couples (!) too. Personally I'd prefer to know that my innkeeper is a bigot so I can avoid them, even though I'm white and het. But I suspect web access might be an issue - though I don't know any gay couples without it...

OK,

Now that we have established that modern secularism is basically just common sense and fairness for all. Then can we come back to the original question. Why do see it as a threat. What possible reason (other than protecting personal interests) can there be for not having such a system?

TD, when do you think 'modern' secularism began? Perhaps 1989 in Europe?

If so that's hardly any time ago.

I will therefore see the secularist movement as potentially though not actually a threat however sensible it seems, because once it was a terrible one (it's a bit like asking a Jew to take on trust he bona fides of a declared Nazi, though I am not please note saying secularists are like Nazis).

If the plan is to reassure those like me, I reiterate that a less insistently furious tone of voice would help, as would a policy of not insisting everyone of religion is a bigoted idiot who doesn't know or care about science.

I think we are working to an extremely limited definition of secularism if we think we have established that we all mostly agree with the very limited examples that you gave a couple of days ago.

However, I don't think that you can say that 'secularism is basically just common sense and fairness for all'. That is disingenuous. I know, TD, that you and the Secular Society are not the same thing, but here are their aims:

a) There is no established state religion.

b) There is one law for all and its application is not hindered or replaced by religious codes or processes.

c) Individuals are neither disadvantaged nor discriminated against because of their religion or belief, or lack thereof.

d) Freedom of expression is not restricted by religious considerations.

e) Neither the state, nor any emanation of the state, expresses religious beliefs or preferences.

f) Religion plays no role in state-funded education, whether through religious affiliation, organised worship, religious instruction, pupil selection or employment discrimination.

g) The state does not engage in, fund or promote religious activities or practices.

h) Public and publicly-funded service provision does not discriminate on grounds of religion or belief.

i) 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 thereof.

j) The state does not intervene in the setting of religious doctrine or the running of religious organisations.

This seems to me to be a mixture of classic 'individual rights' discourse and covert pro-atheism. I cannot sign up to a charter that says there should be no organised worship or religious instruction in schools. I have already argued that these things are valuable. It seems to me this programme is aimed, again covertly, at evacuating religion from all areas of public life, and I can't sign up to that either.

It is not that I am threatened by an essentially obvious piece of common sense, but that I do not agree with the underlying premises on which some of the secularist agenda is based.

I think once you turn your premises into a business though things change?

If you have issues with what consenting adults do in bed, probably best not start a business that involves letting out beds to adults. Similarly you have every right to smoke in your own car, but not if you become a minicab driver.

Niminy -

One way of telling how valuable things are is to see if people value them.

There is free access to religious worship and instruction in just about every town and village in the UK. The majority of people do not value this opportunity and vote with their feet to do something else on a Sunday morning.

Why is putting religious worship and instruction into schools valuable to people who would otherwise not choose to access it? I don't think it is. I think it is valuable to the religious institutions that would who otherwise only attract a minority of people to partake. Which is a different thing altogether.

I'm fine with no prayer in schools, and no RE either, rather than the garbage that now pretends to be prayer - as long as there can be faith private schools, of course. Yes, I see the money problem, but in my country of origin this was the case, and said faith schools took poorer kids for very substantially lower fees or none.

On secularism, can't see a covert atheist agenda in this broad outline, but in practice it might be very different - one can imagine that 'state institutions' might be the issue if that for example meant no faith-led care homes paid for in part by the OAP.

Niminy said: "This seems to me to be a mixture of classic 'individual rights' discourse and covert pro-atheism. I cannot sign up to a charter that says there should be no organised worship or religious instruction in schools. I have already argued that these things are valuable. It seems to me this programme is aimed, again covertly, at evacuating religion from all areas of public life, and I can't sign up to that either."

They may well be of value to you as an individual, but who the hell do you think you are to think that personal view should automatically have the concensus, just because you have a religion?

It is not a specific athiest agenda, but one of basic fairness and arguably human rights!

"I cannot sign up to a charter that says there should be no organised worship or religious instruction in schools."

Doesnt it only apply to state-funded schools?

""I cannot sign up to a charter that says there should be no organised worship or religious instruction in schools."

Why not?

Juule you are right, it does say state schools.

I've explained upthread why I think acts of worship in school are a good thing. I think it is right that children should learn about religion as part of a broad and balanced curriculum.

At the very least, if they have no knowledge of religion, here is a list of things that they will be unable to understand:

the music of JS Bach, the paintings of Michelangelo, the poetical works of Milton, the Bhavad-Gita, The Tales of the Thousand and One Nights, the palace of Granada, St Paul's Cathedral, the Venerable Bede's History of Britain, the plays of Shakespeare ... the list is long. Religion is part of our culture and its history. Even if you do not believe in God, understanding and appreciating the contribution that religion has made to human society is important.

That's why.

And while we're at it, it is clear that in point (e) the phrase 'any emanation of the state' could be used to stop any person who is a public servant from expressing a religious belief. Indeed, that is its clear intention.

Thing is, niminy, that they currently come to those marvellous works without enough knowledge to grasp them. Very sad. A few years ago I had a student who was baffled by Eliot's 'Journey of the Magi' because he had never heard of the magi, Judas, or the crucifixion, though he knew that Jesus had been executed. This was a kid from an ordinary state school. My bet is that this kind of thing is not at all unusual. (NB; they don't get classical lit either). So while I agree that it WOULD be beneficial if they did learn something, it isn't happening now.

Sieglinde, I know only too well. Last year I taught a course (on faith and doubt in the nineteenth century) in which of a class of twenty only two had heard of the trinity.

But why do they have to worship anything to learn this. Why is it not acceptable to just learn about faiths (note the plural) without having to brainwash practice a particular faith at school?

Niminy

Neither taking part is communal worship (or at least being told to politely pretend to) or receiving 'religious instruction' are needed in order to have a knowledge of religion and an ability to appreciate the cultural works you mention.

and as you say, the sham of teachers and pupils having to pretend they are a community of worship isn't working.

I never said they did. I agree with having acts of worship, and I agree with religious education. But I do not think they are the same thing. If push came to shove, I would say that the latter was the more important, and would rather preserve that, however.

its only a threat when one religion has to share the same territory as another and they mistreat or disrespect each other which is all too common its fine to want to live in your own chosen ways that are diff from those around you but there are ways of negotiating that difference ....some people throw rocks to keep people they dont want to mix with off their ground instead of just asking them nicely to stick to their own territory and explaining why...and they teach their children to abuse other children from other religions in the name of 'keeping them away' not really going to solve the worlds problems for the next generation is it?