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?

1. No, it would mean not dwelling on your wish not to eat, because that would be the thing you had rationally identified as the temptation. So going to something you knew would trigger you - like a pro-ana webpage - would be morally questionable, though not sinful (Martin Luther King spoke of our moral duty to think intelligently about morality which should surely be a key humanist principle?)

And there ARE forms of sexual behaviour that can rationally be determined to be immoral - causing harm to unconsenting others, for instance. If the only thing that gives you pleasure is something you find morally wrong yourself, then suppression might really be necessary.

1. Yes, sometimes what you call 'individual human rights' can only be in conflict with other rights and entitlements, but you can't always resolve this by saying that the individual's rights must always come abovbe those of the community. Orthodox Jews are practising a religion which doesn't allow you to work with menstruating women. there ARE real conflicts here, and you can't wish them away by always siding with what you call individual rights. The examples you cite are much more clearly about harm and a violation of rights with harm than many I could cite. The Chasidim are not hurting anyone or beating anyone. They just can't work alongside fertile Gentile women... yes, I know you might feel like snorting, but the question is do you acknowledge that they have a righty to define cleanness in their own terms?

Sieglinde

I am still not sure what we are arguing about in relation to 1.

For an anorexic, the thing they wish (from within their anorexic mindset) to avoid dwelling on is the wish to eat. In their mindset eating is bad. To normal healthy people eating when hungry is good.

Similarly for the person who has been taught that expressing their sexuality is wrong, the thing they wish to avoid dwelling on is their wish for sexual fulfillment. In their mindset it would be bad to find a consenting, loving relationship, when in fact this is one of the best things in the world.

Yes of course their are forms of sexual behavior that can be rationally determined as immoral.

But what you keep doing is eliding the difference between moral dilemmas and those which involve breaking irrational taboos.

• and as for point 2 ....

It's not "what I call individual human rights" it's what the Universal Declaration on Human Rights calls them.

If people want to live in isolated communities dressing like something from the 18th Century and maintaining taboos about menstruation or shaking hands with women or hangups about homosexuality or proscriptions against using the telephone or what have you that is their right. I don't think anyone's trying to stop them. As long as it doesn't harm anyone but themselves then who is challenging it. But arguments that there is anything especially moral about it, or that it should give some people and organisations special exemptions from
respecting other's human rights just dont fly.

In answer to your question yes a person has the right to define menstruating women as unclean, or homosexuality as sinful or what have you. They can define that the moon is made of cream cheese. They just can't use those definitions to justify impinging on the rights of others, including in their own community.

It's like people in the BDSM community can choose to do things consensually that in other situations could be classed as assault. Fair enough. But if one person really does assault another outside of the agreed situation they can't say "that is just our communities way, you can't apply normal laws" The same with religion - people can agree to do all kinds of things that are incomprehensible to outsiders, but it doesnt give a get out clause from normal laws if harm is caused.

You said: "In answer to your question yes a person has the right to define menstruating women as unclean, or homosexuality as sinful or what have you. They can define that the moon is made of cream cheese. They just can't use those definitions to justify impinging on the rights of others, including in their own community."

But this IS what we are disagreeing about. You are so very immersed in your own mindset that there seems no way to help you see past it.

You can't see that the above is actually oppressive in its own way - that there are people whose beliefs are violated by your notion of rights, whatever its honourable-seeming origins. That's the threat and the menace of secularism. You can go on feeling that you know better, that you can make the world better, and that you are benign, while bulldozing other people's worlds unless they keep them entirely out of your path. You get to harm the Chaisidim communities as much as you like in the interests of 'rights', but your notion of rights is in flagrant conflict with their right to practise their religion in toto, not just the parts of it that suit you.

They can't always do that. Therein lies the conflict. You can't make it go away by more insistence that your worldview is the right one. This pretty much exposes the pretensions of secularists, I fear.

And I note the bog-standard secularist resort to pointlessly demeaning rhetoric; no religious persons think the moon is made of cream cheese.

Am keen also to reply on eating disorders... later. Just another misunderstanding, I fear. But I still believe in rational debate, so will carry on with that..

As I said it is not "my" notion of rights it's the UDHR.

In what way does it harm people in the hassidic community to have the same human rights as everyone else?

Which rights would you like to dismantle?

How would you define legitimate religious beliefs, for which rights should step aside? People used to use religion to justify racism and slavery for example.

I don;t think people in the Chasidim's circumstances should be forced to hire people without reference to religion. If you look back, you'll see this is what I said above.

People using religion to justify racism - I assume you are thinking of C19th America, but this was NEVER uncontested. In fact, most abolitionists were committed Christians. This obviously casts immediate doubt on how sincere the pro-slavery camp was in its use of religion, and contestation form within a religion might be a good way to begin to think about where there could be exceptions.

However, I note yet again that this is not a likely threat in the 21st century; no Christians I know are eager to defend slavery or bring it back. This is simply another rhetorical inducement to moral panic. Nor do any Xtians I know use the bible to justify racism. Can we join current debates, please?

Actually I knew a Christian, two in fact that I later found out were into the whole Christian Identity belief system. They actually think Caucasians are the remaining tribes of Israel. Their other views are too offense to type out. They were also misogynists from what I can tell of their behaviour.

Sieglinde

There are two important things a secular society offers to people of all religions and none:

Principle 1: Freedom of belief. The state makes no judgement over what is a legitimate religious belief or a reasonable religious practice. That is up to an individual's conscience.

Principle 2: Non-discrimination. The state religion a protected characteristic - employers and others cannot discriminate against a person because of their religion.

I think these two things are valuable. Don't you?

I don't see how society can maintain these two principles and at the same time make exceptions for people of some religions.

For example, if you give an exemption to principle 2, that says that employers can discriminate if it is on the basis of their own religious belief, then you have pretty much given anyone a license to discriminate, since under principle 1 the state does not get to decide what is a legitimate belief.

Or if you say that only members of certain religious communities are able to discriminate, then the state has to take a view about which members of which religions are allowed to claim which beliefs - i.e. you've given up on principle 2.

Furthermore if you say that religious purity laws take precedence over these principles then an employer would be discriminating if they refused to hire someone whose religion made it impossible for them to serve certain customers, work with certain staff etc...

No one is forced to hire anyone. But if you do choose to become an employer then you have to within the rules of employment law.

The point about racism - is not that christians want to promote racism (although some clearly do promote homophobia), but that racists and homophobes could then claim that this is part of their religious belief and would be exempt from discrimination laws.

Yes, of course I think those principles are valuable and in fact worth defending in every way, but what I am also saying is that 1 and 2 can on occasion be at odds with one another.

Your reply suggests that 2 must take priority over 1, but that is exactly why people of religion fear secularism.

Resolving matters of dispute by saying nobody is forced to hire is rather like the Cameron government's recent assertion that those who suffer discrimination at work are free to resign.

While it is obvious and very regrettable that some peoples of the religions of the book are homophobes, this - like racism and slavery - is by no means uncontroversial within those religions. Jesus said nothing at all about gay sex, and there is some (weak) evidence to suggest that the early church was willing to turn a moderately blind eye to it. So I think in canon law it's quite hard to argue for a religious duty to reject gay couples, though the RC church would reject their concept of marriage because it can't be fertile - this is NOT homophobia, though, since so many others would be rejected on the same grounds. So I for one could round up many respected theologians to argue against homophobia or discrimination as a religious duty.. but I couldn't round up Chasidim to argue against their laws of pollution and hygiene.

Yes, there are religious racists, and of course secular racists too, but there is nothing in the Xtian Bible or the Talmud to justify it, so it can hardly be excused on the grounds that it is part of religious practice. Darwinism can also be twisted to serve a racist agenda, but presumably you are not against Darwinism?

Sieglinde -

No I don't think 2 should take priority over 1. Freedom of belief is different from freedom of action. People are free to believe whatever they like about menstruating women, black people, infidels, homosexuals etc... they are just not free to discriminate against them as an employer (or service provider etc..).

How would you legislate to allow members of some religions to discriminate against people on the basis of protected characteristics without the state then having to take a view about what is and what isn't a legitimate religious viewpoint (i.e. throwing 1 completely out of the window?), or are you suggesting that we throw 2 out of the window instead. Anyone can discriminate against anyone as long as their conscience tells them it is the right thing to do?

Religious controversies can't and shouldn't be resolved by secular authorities. Whether Jesus said anything at all about gay sex, what cannon law says, what the RC church says, what theologians say, is of interest to people who take those authorities as their moral guide. It is not relevant to anyone else. The state can't take a view on whether a particular belief is justified by the Xtian Bible or the Talmud, or the writings of L. Ron Hubbard for that matter. That's what freedom of religion means.

I am sure there are debates within the hassidic community about this and that interpretation of talmudic law (what else would a load of talmudic scholars spend their time doing?). It is not for the state to intervene in these by saying that people who subscribe to the most orthodox view are following the right version and with this comes additional rights.

I really don't see how you see this working. Say your write into law that hassidic jews are exempt from employment discrimination laws. How do you know who is a hassidic jew? How do you stop someone who just doesn't like working with women (or who faces a big settlement bill and is searching for a legal loophole) saying 'I have adopted the jewish purity law about menstruation as part of my personal religious practice'. People who have a pick-and-mix approach to religion have just as much right to religious freedom as those who subscribe to an orthodox cannon.

" Darwinism can also be twisted to serve a racist agenda, but presumably you are not against Darwinism?" eh? I am not against Christianity. I just don't practice it myself. Personal belief in Darwinism cannot be used in court to justify racial discrimination.

But you ARE putting 2 above 1 You SAY that people can believe what they like, but then you say goo that you will stop them form taking any action that arises form those beliefs. Beliefs are not entirely a private, secretive business; they imply a need for certain actions. (In other words, not all religions are obligingly like the C of E.)

I wasn't suggesting that religious controversies should be resolved by secular authorities - far from it. I was suggesting that the existence of such controversies suggests that it might be an error to say 'Xtians' or 'Jews' or 'Islam' support slavery or racism. Given that secularists are now eager to argue that human reason is to be everyone's moral guide, they need to take account of such divergences in their own thinking and lawmaking.

The answer to your final question is pretty simple. The norm is set by faith schools, and also ceaselessly violated; a letter from a priest/rabbi/imam. That said, I seriously doubt that many misogynists would be willing or able to adopt the dress and language skills of a Chasidim even for a 24-hour period just to rid themselves of female staff. You are letting a tiny number of unlikely extremes drive your policy.

NO, I'm not against Darwinism, far from it, but I'm also not seeing much agonising here over its murky record of misappropriation for racist - even genocidal - and indeed sexist purposes. By comparison, Xtianity can reasonably claim abolition rather than slavery as its default setting in C19th Britain.

(And by the way, where are the handwringers over the BBC's coverup of l'affaire Savile, in its wondrous liberal rectitude - the ones who said the coverup of clerical child abuse was reason enough to leave the RC church??) Moral standards should apply to all; we are in agreement about that principle

It's canon law, not cannon (how many divisions has the Pope??) And that is another word for RC law.

Sieglinde -

You are all over the place. Let's just stick to the point.

If there is freedom of religion (which we both agree on) then everyone had the right to their own spiritual beliefs, and practices to the extent they don't hurt anyone else. right?

This means don't need a letter from a special state recognised priest/rabbi/imam to certify that your religious beliefs are "right". If you start a new religion with one member, if you come from a culture that hasn't got any official religious representatives locally, if you are pagan, new-age, or want to rediscover the Norse gods you have the same freedom.

The principle that you cannot always follow through on everything you believe is also fairly standard. You might be a nudist, but there is a time and a place. You might believe that a child is a witch and therefore want to abuse them in the name of exorcism. You might be able to get a minister to write a letter to say this is a legitimate part of your religion (not you obviously).

I am not saying religion is all baaaaad and Darwinism or rationality or what have you is all good. I am saying religion is anything you want it to be (and that's the way it should be) And "anything you want it to
be" can't be used as a get out clause from legal responsibilities.

I would say you are using a tiny minority to drive policy. Hassidism is under threat (is it?) therefore we should redefine religion as only being something you can claim to have if you have a letter from a state registered (?) religious authority.

I think I've said this as many ways as I can. I can't find a golden way of explaining the difficulty that the otherness of religion is not easy to safeguard within secular law. And yet that otherness IS its value.

Hima, TD, you are clearly very good and very intelligent people, and it's not you I fear. And you have nothing to fear from me, nor I from you. But fanatics will seize ANY ideology and use it as an excuse to kill; you can't make a certainty that's safe from them.

I wish you very well. :). It's been interesting.

But I also leave you with this:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9586465/Murder-at-the-vicarage-burglar-who-hated-Christians-stabbed-reverend-to-death.html

You can't make an ideology rational enough to safeguard it from mad people.

Oh well ta-ra Sieglinde.

You are good and intelligent too I am sure, and yet in the end you would rather throw out some link to a bit of horrible crime which has nothing to do with the question we are discussing, but which in some way reinforces the siege mentality that religion is under threat from secularism.

Its like if we were talking about why racial discrimination is wrong, even if it is done for reasons of building a strong community (which in effect is basically what we are talking about since the vast majority of religious affiliation is inherited rather than chosen) and you went 'its been very interesting chatting, but here is a link to a piece of news about a black man raping a white woman'. WTF?

Au revoir, Hima. I thought we were trying to understand why people of faith feel under siege. Maybe not, though. And I've done my wobbly human best to explain.