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?

I was thinking of starting up a blog along the same lines, but I am not sure I have time, and I am not anyone would read it, and some nutcase might try to hunt me and kill me.

Mind you, if we could get "Christian like" donations like in these clips, then it might be worth doing: !

I ended up joining the NSS, and I am thinking of going on this march: www.secularism.org.uk/secular-europe-campaign.html

(now with converted links - sorry)

I was thinking of starting up a blog along the same lines, but I am not sure I have time, and I am not anyone would read it, and some nutcase might try to hunt me and kill me.

Mind you, if we could get "Christian like" donations like in these clips, then it might be worth doing: !

I ended up joining the NSS, and I am thinking of going on this march: www.secularism.org.uk/secular-europe-campaign.html

Secularism is seen as a threat because anything which attacks privilege is perceived as threatening by the privileged class eg feminism is seen as a threat by sexist men. Religion is harmful to society, end of. When people are allowed to interfere in other people's lives and restrict their freedoms on the grounds that their imaginary friend says so, that's a bad thing. I don't mind people believing in the idiotic bullshit that is gods, but they should keep it to themselves and leave others alone.

Sciencelover: actually, that's not true - it's only some sections of society that benefit from this crap at the expense of the others. 'Family values' as taught by the superstitious mean the oppression of women, because all these superstitions actively teach that women are inferior to men.

Why is secularism seen as such a threat - fear of loss of power and control

Well, I think the secularists here have pretty much answered the question for the OP. It's seen as a threat because it sees religion as a threat, so naturally people of religion feel threatened. QED.

becuase religion is power over people and governments esp in other countries.

religion is also bollocks

Well, I think the secularists here have pretty much answered the question for the OP. It's seen as a threat because it sees religion as a threat, so naturally people of religion feel threatened. QED.

I wouldn't say that secularism sees religion as a threat, to say that means that you have completely misunderstood what secularism actually is.

Secularism isn't threatened by religion as a concept, since secularism supports equal rights for all people no matter who they are (independent of religion, skin colour, class, etc).

Secularism is against people being treated more favourably because of religion (e.g. a teacher not getting a job in a school because they are not C of E, or a child being turned away from a school because they are not muslim, or a bunch of religious leaders being part of the house of lords).

I'm not sure that all posts here are as fuzz-free as you suggest, technodad. Is secularism really as calm as this about religion as a practice? Or is it only tolerant if religion remains an affair of ideas?

For the sake of discussion, do you for example accept a religious person's right to raise their children in accordance with their beliefs? Or do you see that religion in and of itself (so regardless of child sex abuse etc) as a threat to that child? That might be one of the hotspots, I think, as the Dawkins debate above implies.

Well, the National Secular Society has supported and campaigned in favour of a religious street preacher who was arrested for shouting at a gay couple in the street. The. NSS rightly thinks that he shouldn't have been arrested for exercising his right to free speech.

Sorry, I clicked send too quickly.

.... So this demonstrates that secularism is about everyone being treated fairly and being able to have what ever beliefs they want.

What it doesn't support is allowing that religion to influence the state (such as the schooling system)

There are times when it is important to intervene in childrearing when idiots are harming their children because of their own superstitions.

Such as female genital mutilation or denying essential medical care.

Well, I think many of all religions would agree about the question of harm, solidgold, since clearly only a tiny minority of people of religion believe those things are right or justified. And I am also a big fan of the idea that 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it', technodad.

However, I'm still not sure my question has been answered, since some secularists seem to believe that e.g. doctrines about the afterlife are tantamount to child abuse (see Dawkins as cited above). I assume such keen Joyce-readers would argue that the doctrine of hellfire/sheol is psychologically harmful, as genital mutilation is to the body?

I personally think an oddity here is that hellfire etc don't tend to play much of a part in any religions nowadays, but bulk very large in the minds of secularists... Even old C S Lewis saw hell as something we make for ourselves, not something external into which we are thrown. And many persons of religion now argue for the possibility for redemption for all; I find much more hate and vengefulness in the Daily Wail/Fail than in most 'religious' publications.

Sieglind,

But Dawkins is entitled to his opinion in exactly the same way as the street preacher shouting offence at the gay couple. And in a secular society we can all respect his right to have that view (whether we agree with it on not)

Dawkins having a strong opinion on something does not prohibit him from being a good secularist, it just means that he is a human being (who also happens to be arguable one of the greatest evolutionary biologists in the world, nay or all time).

Solidgoldbrass

Why only female genital mutilation?

Yes, I agree that Dawkins has a perfect right to his opinion. However, the OP was asking why people see secularists as a threat, and my response was in part about that question. Perhaps it might be more useful for debate for secularists to refrain from abrasive language, and the same might very well be said of persons of religion, who should not scream at people in the street, but should practice the tolerance and courtesy they expect from others?

On genital mutilation... not answering for solidgoldbrass, but only for myself. I agree male circumcision is unnecessary and painful, especially when done by a bris, but the mutilation is not on the scale of e.g. Phaeronic circumcision, which is indeed still practised sub rosa in this country.

I am the OP

I agree re: mutilation

Technodad: I picked the most extreme example. I am also opposed to male circumcision - and ear-piercing for babies and toddlers (which may not be a religious requirement but is often described as a cultural one).

I don't think practices which involve bodily harm, or the restriction of other people's rights, should be ignored on the grounds of respecting religion or culture, because if a culture or religion practices these things it's a barbaric crop of shit, and the primitive morons who go along with it should be prevented from doing so.

Solidgoldbrass

You should join the NSS too then!

I don't think practices which involve bodily harm, or the restriction of other people's rights, should be ignored on the grounds of respecting religion or culture

I agree, and would further say that anyone shouting insults at a gay couple is infringing the rights of the couple. Free speech does not properly extend to personal attack.

One of the problems I have with the faithful (very broadly) is that they often try to inhibit my freedom of expression by claiming any attack on their faith is a personal attack on them. It isn't - it's an attack on their ideas - but, out of respect for their feelings, I feel forced to tone it down. That's unfair.

Yes, I said much the same above about the awful so-called Christian yelling at people. I dislike people expressing their opinions
In this manner because it always feels like and in that particular case is a personal attack. Clearly it is possible for parents who have brought up their children in a religion to take
Dawkins' analogy with child abuse in a
similar fashion, though I don't think he has actually shouted at anyone in the street. However, I think his claim is unnecessarily exaggerated and pointlessly aggressive and hurtful, as well as factually wrong and
misguided. He has every right to his views, but no real right to exaggerated claims unless he is willing to be denounced in similar terms himself, and my impression is that he has been far from happy, and so too the OP

But who make the decision as to what is offensive.

My telling a religious person that they have an imaginary friend, is, to me, a childish quip . But to a Christian it might be an enormous insult at the heart of their faith.

To a street preacher, telling a gay couple that they will go to hell and that they are sinners in the eyes of god, may seem like a factual statement to him, but highly offensive to the loving couple.

Who polices "offence" in these both these cases and where do you draw the line. Do I go to jail for my quip?

Freedom of speech needs to be just that, but it shouldn't be freedom to offend. If someone offends, then they should expect a return verbal challenge, but not the threat of a jail sentence!

Let the preacher say his bit, we also have the freedom to ignore!

If you want to do a cartoon of the profit Mohammed, the fill your boots, without the fear of being arrested!....

Lol @ "profit Mohammed" - and YY to your point, Techno.

By comparison: if someone wants to tell me my feminism is a foolish or damaging thing, my choices are to dispute their ideology or ignore the attack. I may feel personally attacked, as may they. It's our responsibility, though, to consider why an ethical/philosophical statement feels personal and to separate our egos from the principles. Religious people have the same responsibility, imo.

It's a bit tough because religions don't stand up to logical examination. In the end you're always going to be disputing "faith", which is an emotional choice. This can be discussed, though, from a variety of angles. I love such discussions, but it's no good shouting JESUS DIED BECAUSE HE LOVES US! It's clear I disagree with that. It's annoying when believers insist this is a fact, and won't go beyond it to look at what this faith does for them.

Where your believer in the street's concerned, I can't help thinking they feel threatened by secularism because their beliefs don't stand up to logical examination. With religious organisations - those who direct the believers - it seems more likely to be about power and control.

I'd like to think secularism was a sort of all-loving, equal rights movement, Techno, but I'm afraid I don't! It's not a 'movement', really, is it? It's just an absence of something. I haven't got a car, but all that tells you about me is that my life differs in various ways from a driver's. You can't draw any conclusions about me from the absence of a car.