You are here: Home » Comment »

In Defence of Militant Secularism

February 14, 2012 8:48 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Last year in a speech to mark the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, and in the aftermath of the riots that engulfed many parts of Britain, David Cameron declared Britain to be a Christian country. Today, as she leads an official delegation to meet the pope, Baroness Warsi will call for Christian values to be placed at the heart of public life and decry what she describes as the “militant secularisation” of Britain. She will say:

“For me one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities.”

We’ll leave aside the irony of calling secularism intolerant on an official visit to a man who recently described gay marriage as a threat to humanity’s future. I also don’t have time to revisit Sayeeda’s own somewhat less-than-tolerant views on homosexuality which are well documented elsewhere. But the simple fact is what she is describing is not secularism.

Secularism is the belief in the separation of the institutions of the church from the institutions of the state, and the right to freedom from religious rules. A belief in secularism is not even analogous to a belief in atheism. I am a secular atheist. I have friends who are secular Christians, secular Muslims, secular Jews and secular Hindus. They all hold their own personal religious views but they reject entirely the notion of religious privilege within the institutions of government.

After all, the environment which offers the maximum freedom both for the atheist and the believer is one in which the state remains neutral in matters of faith.

Beyond the semantics, a cursory glance at the facts would demonstrate that Baroness Warsi’s assertion of a growth in “militant secularism” is quite clearly false. Has she not been paying attention to the passage of her own government’s Welfare Reform Bill, mauled in the Lords by Church of England Bishops who sit there as of right as senior clerics of our established – Christian – church? Did she not hear her cabinet colleague Michael Gove’s robust defence of faith schools, which enjoyed an unfortunate renaissance under the last Labour government?

Is she not aware that it is still enshrined in law that all schools in Britain must hold an act of collective worship every day?

Perhaps she has never attended the prayers which take place at the beginning of each day in both Houses of Parliament and, as highlighted in a recent court case, in Town Halls up and down the country.

No, Sayeeda, Britain is far from being a secular nation. If only it were!
A British state with secular humanist values at its core would disestablish the Church of England, freeing the state from the Church, yes, but also freeing the Church from the state. Unelected bishops would no longer sit in our Parliament. Religious privilege would end in our schools and religious education would discuss all faiths and atheism in a fair and balanced way. People would be free to practise their religious beliefs and would also be free from having the beliefs of others imposed upon them.

I’m thankful that amongst the religious in Britain very few actually believe in or follow the plethora of regressive laws and arbitrary commandments that exist within almost all religious texts (read Leviticus – it’s a blast). But if Sayeeda Warsi wants to try and argue with me the merits of Christian values over secular humanist ones I’ll need nothing more than a Bible as my weapon.

  • http://twitter.com/Michael_Merrick Michael Merrick

    In the interests of accuracy, Mr Copley ought to edit the reported speech from the Pope which is actually just a copy and paste of newspaper headlines that subsequently reported on the speech. The Pope himself used no such words and shouldn’t be reported as having done so. His actual words, on which headlines were written, were: ‘ Among these, pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself. The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and States; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue. It is in the family that we become open to the world and to life and, as I pointed out during my visit to Croatia, “openness to life is a sign of openness to the future”.This was set  in the context of a wide ranging speech to diplomats in which religious freedom, the Middle East and the financial crisis were the main themes.  For any who would like to verify this, by all means read the speech here: http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=552959 

    • Anonymous

      The meaning man and women is the same, is it not,he was stating marriage should be between male and female, you cannot make it much plain.

      • Anonymous

        You could. He could have actually said that.

        That would have been plainer, no?

        What he actually said is that the nuclear family has its roots in the coming together of a man and a woman, which is true.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

          And still will, its just that they will be joined by the recognition of same sex couples.

  • JC

    Until the CofE is disestablished we will not have a secular nation. If we want secularism, we should be campaigning for disestablishment, not kicking round the edges. This would remove the influence of bishops in the House of Lords which may or may not be a good thing. It would certainly mean that it would become irrelevant to look for them for support.

  • Hugh

    “People would be free to practise their religious beliefs and would also
    be free from having the beliefs of others imposed upon them.”

    I’m not really sure in what sense, other than a few voting Bishops, you’ve shown that people currently have others’ religious beliefs imposed on them; parents tend to choose faith schools, not get forced into them. And if, as seems likely from your discourse, you favour getting rid of faith schools, surely that’s a far clearer example of desiring to impose a belief on others than any you’ve shared.

  • Eoin O’Mahony

    I would broadly agree that the word secular is currently being misused. However, your point that ”
    the environment which offers the maximum freedom both for the atheist and the believer is one in which the state remains neutral in matters of faith” is as tautological as it is aspirational. The state never has been or will be neutral in ‘matters of faith’. There is a defined connection between state formation in Europe and the development of churches. Seeking a neutrality in state processes is as blind a faith as unexamined religious faith. 

  • trotters57

    More ignorant ramblings from Warsi, she is a great asset to secularists everywhere.

  • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

    I had promised to take a break from LL but thought I’d pop in again.

    “People would be free to practise their religious beliefs and would also
    be free from having the beliefs of others imposed upon them.”

    Personally the number of times I have had someone’s belief in God imposed upon me pale into insignificance compared to the number of times I’ve had an atheist impose their views on me.

    But we have to be exremely careful here.  Many commentator’s understanding of the Bible is sketchy at best – and in the same way as some Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe in and which to ignore, the same is true of atheists/secularists who use books such as Leviticus (ignoring not only the events of the Council of Nicea but also the difference between the Old Testament and New) to form their arguments against the faith.  In the New Testament, Christians believe, Jesus was sent from God to change how people lived their lives – as a result, pre Christ books of the OT such as Leviticus should play a contextual role in the Christian faith, as it is only the New Testament that really matters to Christians in terms of how to live ones lives.  This is something that not even some Christians understand – and can lead to a lot of harm being done by people in God’s name.

    A distinction also has to be made between faith, and those that run organised religion.  Sadly, organised religion is and always has been run by people who are effectively politicians (again, I refer you to the Council of Nicea never mind the Council of Trent, Popes, Archbishops and individuals who, over the years, have done very un Christian things in God’s name.)

    But we must also never forget the tremendous contribution faiths make in a whole number of areas to do with poverty and injustice around the world.  As Christians should take a balanced view of their own beliefs and history, so should atheists/secularists take a balanced and fair view as to the support faith offers to many of those the Labour movement cares most about, the poor, needy and sick.

    If the debate is to be about the relationship between church and state -  fine.  But let’s not completely ignore that the church does play a hugely important role for millions of people in our country, and billions across the world. 

    • Tom Copley

      You do of course provide your own interpretation of the Christian faith above.  And herin lies the problem – people even of the same faith have vastly different interpretations of the same religious texts.  You say it is only the New Testament that matters to Christians.  Yet most churches I’ve been into display the Old Testament’s Ten Commandments prominently, and most Christians would cite the Ten Commandments as key laws of their faith.

      Throughout history and in the present day there are countless examples of grave injustices being committed and great harm being done in the name of religion.  But can you name a single grave injustice that has been commited in the name of modern secular humanism? (note – I said secular humanism, not atheism)

      • Hugh

         So, to be clear, we’re comparing all grave injustices committed by all forms of  “religion”, of whatever flavour over a few thousand years  against “modern secular humanism”?

        Does that strike you as reasonable?

        • Tom Copley

          Yes, it seems perfectly reasonable.  But we can wait another few thousand years before we compare if you’d prefer – I’m certain secular humanism will stand the test of time.

          • Hugh

             No doubt. But only because it will be defined to exclude anything shameful.

            In the meantime, though, let’s compare “modern secular humanism” to “modern non-secular Christianity”, which is what you argue the UK currently has. What grave injustices do you have in mind?

          • Anonymous

            From what I can gather from what isn’t or rather hasn’t been a secular humanist state, it has not actually existed. So it is a bit like a kingdom of non-heaven in that states may strive to become this kingdom but have failed to succeed thus far, since as soon as they commit some kind of atrocity or injustice they will have forfeit the claim to being a true secular humanist state. I’m pretty sure the same could be said of Christianity as no state has actually succeeded in behaving in the manner expected within the teachings of Christ. Sure many countries ourselves included may have had a state church and claimed all its citizens are adherents their institutes and actions would have failed to keep to those standard set by Jesus. I’m sure with your reading of the bible you will be aware of how Israel similarly failed to live up to it’s calling to be God’s kingdom.

      • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

        Tom,

        You’re last comment highlights part of the problem.  I have had the graciousness to accept, and more importantly, explain the things that have happened as a result of a perversion of religion, I suspect all of which I find abhorrent both as a Christian and as a man.  But you have not had the graciousness to accept the point of the extraordinary good that many people have done from within the Church – instead taking us down an debating angle that there was no reason to go down.  Until mutual respect can be displayed from both sides, no meaningful solution will ever come from any debate. 

        You have also distorted what I said to fit the purposes of your argument, which is a political tactic used inappropriately within the context of theological debate.  I did not say that  ‘it is only the New Testament that matters to Christians’ as that is patently absurd.  My use of the word ‘really’ is quite important within the sentence you quoted, and I suspect you took it out deliberately.

         Christianity is about following the teachings of Christ.  The Ten Commandments are actually preached by Jesus himself, not only throughout his life but, most importantly, directly referred to in the Gospel of Matthew.  They are also preached directly by Paul, the key disciple.

        As I said in my original post, some commentators have a sketchy knowledge of the Bible.  And that’s OK, I understand why – and I understand also it’s countless flaws as a Holy Book.  But all I ask is that we don’t forget the tremendous good those of faith so often do.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

          And they can carry on doing so, just not under the guise of the secular state
          Personally, I’ll pass. And if any god-botherer thinks I want to end my days in one of their hospices, forget it – I have my money for the ticket to Zurich just in case

        • Tom Copley

          With or without the word “really” that statement read as if you were saying the OT didn’t matter to Christians.  Perhaps it was poor phrasing but that’s how it looked.

          Of course many religious people do good works, but I don’t believe that they do them because of religion.  There
          are good people and bad people amongst the religious and the
          non-religious.

          You say that Christianity is about following the teaching of Christ.  Even if Jesus Christ existed (and the evidence is shaky at best) Christians are actually following a few selected accounts of his life from people who had never even met him.  I’m sure you are well aware that many other gospels were excluded from the Bible.

          I fear, however, we are now straying very much from a political into a theological debate!

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            Yes we are, but only because you made it that way in referencing the Bible!  When you reference it, you have to expect people who know about it to reply.

            Many of the things I have done for charities/my community have been
            inspired by my faith.  I know that to be true of many others. You guessed that it didn’t play a role in what inspires people, but you guessed incorrectly.

            You mistake how I wrote my sentence on the OT for how you read it.  The
            ‘really’ clearly indicated that the NT takes precedent for Christians,
            which it clearly does.  You also dismissed my claim on this because of
            the Ten Commandments appearing in the OT.  You evidently did not know
            that Jesus preached them openly, hence its relevance to the NT.

            And you say ‘I’m sure you are well aware that many other gospels were excluded from the Bible.’  Well I have already said so – hence my point about the Council of Nicea.  Whilst some still claim the Council did not determine the exact books that were used, it is widely understood that it was a defining point in the development of the Canon into a unified set of texts, from which points certain books disappeared from mainstream theological study.

            I would say that, if you want to campaign for a secular state, I respect your right to do so.  But you should avoid making assumptions about Christians because from what I’ve seen I don’t think you understand us, or have substantial knowledge about the Bible or Christian history.  I’m sure you know a lot about other areas, and your views are sincerely held, but theology is a hugely complex field that even those who study it their whole lives find difficult (myself included).

          • derek

            Jonathan, why does religion have to be complex? surely a life spent studying theology shouldn’t   end in open “grey areas?” I gather most parables have a wider meaning and over the years those meanings have been broadened and changed, creating complexities and division or I’m I just being overly simple in thinking that religious teaching should be easier to understand.

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            Hi Derek, well I guess herein lies the difference between a belief in God and the complexities of theology.

            As a Christian, I actually find the simple matter of faith to be easy.  i.e Live your life in a good way, do unto others….love your
            neighbour…. etc etc.  All the things that all humankind are capable of, but for me personally, something which is underpinned by a belief in God.

            Theology is something more complex.  You have to take into account the Books of the Bible, the books that were not included, then the politics of the development of Christianity (via institutions such as the Church, individual Kings/Queens/Popes/Archibishops and various denominations etc), then to make it even more complicated you have  problems caused through translations from aramaic, hebrew, latin, french and into english – then not to mention having to take into account the etymology
            of each of those languages, which means understanding the true intentions of the authors is very difficul to track through the various translations applied over the years. 

            So for me, trying to follow those basic teachings is the easy part.  But you can only have a meaningful detailed theological discussion if you understand all those points in the previous paragraph – something which has become so comlicated few understand in its entirety and therefore open to wild misunderstandings by both believers and non-believers alike.

          • derek

            Thanks Jonathan, wow! I see.

            Isn’t it the case that only the written words of Christ alone  can claim any true meaning. Kings, Queens and Popes may just be making it up?      

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            Thanks Derek.  Yes I agree entirely! I think much of what has been done in God’s name can not be justified in any way through the teachings of Christ.  As with terrorists’ perversion of Islam, it is all too often a convenient excuse for those who are simply spoiling for a fight.  But their actions should never distract us from understanding that faith can be, and often is, a force for good.

          • http://twitter.com/northernheckler nilsinela boray

             Could you explain how an atheist could impose a lack of belief on you ? It’s imposing something that isn’t there. There are a million and one things that I don’t believe in – flying pigs, fairies, god, Mother Goose etc etc. How can I impose that on anyone ?

          • Hugh

             You could ban them from wearing a cross or a burkha; stop them from worshipping entirely; or dictate that their children’s education mustn’t include beliefs you don’t share – to give a few examples.

            The opportunities are rather the same as those that exist for the religious to impose their beliefs on others surely.

          • Hugh

             All the same, I don’t think it requires very detailed theological knowledge to know that Christians don’t consider themselves bound by the ceremonial law in Leviticus.

          • Tom Copley

            As a former practising Christian who studied the Bible quite extensively whilst growing up I disagree with your assessment of the extent of my knowledge.  But I can’t see either of us profiting from further debate on this.

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            I agree. My point was simply that your studying of the Bible extensively hasn’t equated to a real understanding of it.  Nevertheless…I agree let’s call it a day.

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        Let’s start with the tens of millions deliberately murdered by state systems in Russia, China, Kampuchea, North Korea, North Vietnam, Ethiopia, etc that were proudly secular as a matter of doctrine.  As a matter of tragedy, numbers are inexact, but the history suggests a minimum of 85 million in the last 100 years, and it could be up to 150 million.

        Of course, from the Crusades onwards to Nazi Germany, murders were committed by nominally Christian countries or forces.  Atrocities are not limited to Christianity, there are examples from the Muslim tradition from Banu Qurayza to the Bali bombings and the 7/7 attacks.

        It is because there is fault on both sides that your argument falls down.

        • Tom Copley

          Russia, China, Kampuchea, North Korea, North Vietnam and Ethiopia are not (or were not in the particular historic case your cite) examples of secular humanist states.

          • Tom Copley

            *cases

          • Hugh

             What a surprise.

          • Hugh

            Actually to add to that, isn’t the problem that those examples show that people  have vastly different interpretations secular humanist states? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

            Secular humanism is a positive belief – not just the absense of theism!

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Mike,

            oddly, I agree with you.  I see secular humanism as being a superset of Christianity or indeed many other religions.  There’s a belief in basic morality, which as you enter into the realm of religion, is then dressed in faith.

            My own daughter appears to be heading along the secular humanist route.  I’m actually quite pleased, as fundamentally the morality my wife and I have tried to impart has taken hold in her.  90% of our beliefs is not a bad result, and there is a bonus in that she can coherently argue her case for not believing in God.  She’s thought about it, and come to her decision.

          • Dave Postles

             Secular humanism has no concept of ‘original sin’; it coheres around a notion of empathy, IMHO.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

            You are correct on that, Mike.

            But secularism can also be applied in a number of different ways.

            In the US there is a constitutional separation of church and state, which is mostly honoured, and main thrust of the policy is that the state is prohibited from interfering in religion.  

            In France, equally secularist, the state took over all church property – and still owns it, to the enormous financial relief of Catholics there who now find that the state rather than they have to pay for the upkeep of historic buildings.  

            And in Germany of course, the state has no one state religion, but  the state  pays a salary to Catholic priests, Reformed ministers, and so on.  http://open.salon.com/blog/lost_in_berlin/2010/06/08/dont_like_separation_of_church_and_state_come_to_germany

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            What were they then?  None had a state religion, all had specific legal clauses in their basic law or constitution specifically removing any form of religion from any part of their process, all tolerated religion as a private matter (“toleration” ranging from official blind eyes to not active persecution of all but a few religions).

            Or do you want to make your argument on a very narrow point, avoiding these sorts of counter-arguments but yet tarring the western tradition with the broadest brush you can find?

          • Tom Copley

            These were or are totalitarian states, they cannot be described as secular humanist.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            So you’ll go with the self-defined completely narrow argument then, while chucking your points about all over the place.  Nice to debate on a completely tilted playing field in which one side makes up the rules.

          • Tom Copley

            No, I use the actual definition of “secular humanism”.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Go on then.  What is your definition?

            “Secularism is the belief in the separation of the institutions of the church from the institutions of the state, and the right to freedom from religious rules.”  is what you offered in your article.

            Please tell me how that differs from the official positions of the USSR, the PRC, Democratic Kampuchea, the DRV, or the PDRE?

          • Tom Copley

            Those states had many “official positions”, including nominally freedom of speech.  But as you well know the de facto situation was rather different.  The Chinese constitution, as well as supposedly guaranteeing freedom of religon, states that “citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration.”

            The fact is people in China enjoy neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            How about answering the question?

          • derek

            Communism! 

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

          Crusaders were not “nominally” Christian.  They were very deeply Christian and it is impossible to understand the crusades without grasping that basic fact.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Paul,

            I don’t dispute that.  ”Nominally” refers to a broad spread of countries and events that span a panoply of motivation.  Crusaders did not fight on behalf of their country, but were certainly supported by them.  Nazi Germany officially was secular, but in reality many things from the inscription on the soldiers’ belt buckle to the legal oath a judge swore had some mention of Christianity.

            Maybe my point was not well made.  I try to indicate a spread of motivations, not to imply that all were of the same depth, and that depth was nominal. It is an umbrella term.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

            Jaime, 

            Since I teach medieval history, and have taught entire courses on the crusades a number of time, I was just reacting to your statement on that basis.

            The crusaders were not fighting for their countries as such (indeed, apart perhaps from England – unified by 1025 if not earlier) countries as such did not really exist in medieval Europe.  There were lost of different and overlapping sovereignties.  But the crusaders did think they *were* fighting for what we would now call “Christendom”.

            In this particular debate I am pro-religion, but I think it is important not to whitewash things religious people have done *thinking they were doing good* in the past.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Paul, I’m not trying to whitewash anything, but as I respond to Tom Copley, I’m also not going to let him define a debate in which everything from a Christian point of view is dreadful or an abuse, and yet he uses very narrow technical points to say that anything secular is whiter than white.  That is intellectually dishonest.

      • Anonymous

        You are careful to limit your support to “modern secular humanism” while putting organised religion on trial  “throughout history”.

        I doubt whether the present Pope is in favour of the practises of the Inquisition in the 16th and 17th centuries or advocates an armed invasion of the Holy Land.

        Atheists, of course, have done terrible things to those who hold religious beliefs, not least in the Soviet Union.

        • Tom Copley

          “I doubt whether the present Pope is in favour of the practises of the
          Inquisition in the 16th and 17th centuries or advocates an armed
          invasion of the Holy Land.”

          To quote Stephen Fry when it was put to him that at the time the Church didn’t know that such things were wrong: “what is the point of the Catholic Church if it says ‘oh well we
          couldn’t know better because nobody else did’? Then what are you for?!”

          As for the Soviet Union, it adopted the same totalitarian methords of the Tsarist regime before it (under which the Tsar was a quasi-god).  It may have been an atheist state but it was not a secular humanist one.

          • Hugh

            Could you define a “secular humanist state” for us?

    • derek

      Pretty difficult subject. State religion, just for talking sake if the majority accept  ”I shall not kill” but are then conscripted  into a war zone, will they be expected to re-write that commitment, to something like “I shall kill in the interest of state security” 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lewis-Buchan/100002454552775 Lewis Buchan

    As a christian, I don’t care if the Church of England is disestablished and bishops removed from the Lords. I do care, however, when anti-religious activists seek to restrict my freedoms to live my live in accordance with my faith. That’s what is happening and I, for one, won’t accept it.

    • Anonymous

      What I, as a non-believer, find odd is the lack of tolerance of religious belief shown by many fellow non-believers.  In that sense His Holiness the Pope may be more tolerant than Mr Copley who, for example, seems to have it in for faith schools.

      • Tom Copley

        I’d wager rather a lot  that I am more tolerant than the Bishop of Rome

    • Tom Copley

      How has your freedom to live your life according to your faith been restricted?  Give me one example.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

      They don’t, unless you think that means discriminating against others in the provision of services or employment

  • Hugh

     I questioned it to point out that you haven’t really made a case that we don’t essentially  live in a secular state already.

    As for faith schools, you favour banning people from putting their own children in faith schools because you believe that’s the wrong way to bring them up.

    • Tom Copley

      Haven’t I?  I listed many examples of why we don’t.  How can a state with an established church who’s head of state is its supreme governor be truly secular?

      I also clearly said in my comment above that parents have the right to bring their child up in a particular faith at home.  But don’t you think children should also have the right to choose a different path if they wish?  Or do you believe that children should be kept in ignorance of other faiths or atheism?

      • Hugh

        “I also clearly said in my comment above that parents have the right to bring their child up in a particular faith at home.”

        Yes, and it worried me that you felt the need to state it. Nor do I favour ignorance. I think it’s good for kids to have a good understanding of the major religions – as my local Catholic school provides.

  • Anonymous

    The facts according to who?

    • Tom Copley

      Many non-faith schools already teach balanced religious education curriculums.  Are you in favour of this or not?

      • Anonymous

        This could be a requirement (in fact it might even already be the case, national curriculum) of all schools, faith or otherwise. Having experienced some RE teachers and their lessons, I’d also suggest that a balanced religious education doesn’t always happen in non-faith schools. Imagine for a moment you were teaching RE how do you think you would approach the task?

        One mistake about faith schools, is to do with a belief that they are simply about protecting young people from outside ideas. Where a school goes down this root, I am not happy about such set ups and there should be no public money for them. However often the faith element is the purpose for the school to exist. In this sense I am very comfortable with faith schools, in that their mission is to educate and help young people to make the most of their talents. Non-faith schools must also have a similar mission. I would also suggest that as a result of this sort of faith school, selection should be removed and the faith of the pupil is irrelevent, provided they wanted to go their.

  • John Ruddy

    Since Sayeeda Warsi is so convinced of the need for these Christian values, I take it that she will be converting to Christianity pronto?
     
    No?
     
     

    • Anonymous

      Baroness Warsi is a Muslim.  Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, but not the son of God.  Muslims and Christians do - or should – share values.

  • Hugh
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    I am quite happy about people holding to religious beliefs – but I equally firmly think that those views should have no influence on the workings of the state.

    The problem is that religion has held a favoured position for many years, and there is no reason at all for this to be the case any longer

    • Anonymous

      But religions do generate institutions and often consitute an organised body of people. How these interact with the state workings might be significant and perhaps too important to simply pretend they do not exist. It may simply be how the state operates in partnership with these organisations (often charities) in helping others. As such could a perceived ‘favoured position’ not exist?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

    Atheists face no discrimination in Britain, and the relationship between the state and religion seems fine to me  (a gay man btw).

    Currently Nick Clegg is an avowed atheist, so also is Ed Miliband, the Labour leader. (I think the first leader of a major UK political party to take that position was Michael Foot.) Meanwhile, the Speaker also is apparently an atheist. [ Seehttp://labourlist.org/2012/02/on-prayer-in-parliament/ ] . There are at least 15 Jewish MPs (including the Speaker), and quite a few Muslims.So there is no real indication that anybody is being discriminated against by the current set up.To remove the relationship of church and state  would be tantamount to disestablishing the Church of England. If that happens then we might as well get rid of the monarchy, the honours system and so forth. Now I accept that some people would be quite willing to do this, and that it could be done, but it would have consequences that I think need to be though through.  

    It would mean, essentially, the need to convert the UK into a state with a written rather than a poetic and living constitution. I personally would not like that to happen, and I think the vast majority of people in the UK would not want such a constitutional revolution. I certainly do not think it should be a priority for the Labour Party. The obsession with constitutionalism in the US as perverted the political and judicial system there.

    As to the issue of secularism and religious belief.  It is quite true that one can be a religious believer and a secularist. That in fact is a fairly common position in the US.  But let’s have a bit of honesty here: secularism in the UK is almot entirely a matter of interest to atheists.  One sees the same people popping up to support the National Secular Society as the British Humanist Association.  And these people are militant in an unpleasant way.  I am quite willing to accept that religion is not of interest to most British people (largely through apathy rather than a positive position), but one cannot have a discussion of religion on general websites without obsessive and insulting atheists beginning to scream about people who believe in sky fairies or the Flying Spaghetti monster.  They are not funny and they are not terribly deep thinkers but, on a positive note, the more or less ensure that secularism will remain a marginal movement in the UK.

    [It's worth noting that the ex-councillor in Bideford who brought the case there was/is a Liberal Democrat.  It is precisely an obsession with this kind of issue that gives LDs the image of being dominated by beardir sandal-wearing anoraks! ]

  • Chilbaldi

    “Nobody can worship anything” versus “everyone can worship whatevr they like.

    I know which I prefer, and I know which is more in line with our fantastically open and accepting British culture.

    Militant atheists are an absolute menace.

    • Tom Copley

      I’m defending militant secularism not militant atheism.  Read the article.

  • Anonymous

    I quite like Hinduism myself with its plethora of beautiful gods and graceful goddesses. The Greek, Egyptian and Roman myths were pretty colourful too and therefore I think we ought to try to bring back polytheism in a big way in the 21st century. Whatever your temperament, concerns, virtues, vices, wealth or poverty – whatever – with polytheism you can almost always find a suitable god or goddess to tickle your fancy and help you out when you’re in a bind, figuratively speaking, after making a devotional offering of some kind. Why not bring the benefits accruing from “market forces” into religion? More celestial competition could be very beneficial in the long run, encouraging efficiency and could help to keep prices down, e.g., forgiveness for two sins for the price of one etc.

    Many MPs and Lords are already ipso facto worshippers of Baccus and Eros.

    • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

      “absolution from two sins for the price of one”

      Not only absolution – don’t forget equal opportunities and E.U competition law.

      The Devil will want a level playing-field.

  • Tom Copley

    Hitler was not an atheist.  He was a self professed Christian who wrote in Mein Kampf:

    “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance
    with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself
    against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

    There are numerous other quotes from Hitler professing faith.  The first treaty made by Nazi Germany was with the Vatican.  The only leading Nazi to be excommunciated was Goebbels – because he married a protestant.  But then the Church does have to have some standards…

    The others may have been atheists, yes.  But I’m not defending all atheists, nor am I calling for “atheist states”.  I am defending the values of secular humanism, which is different.  It may help if you actually read my article.

  • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

    aww. thanks.

  • Dave Postles

     I regard myself a secular humanist, but I deplore the militant atheism and biological determinism of such as Dawkins and the late Hitchens, because my secular humanism is simply an unbelief – tantamount to another form of belief in an ironic sense.  A secular state, I presume, is one with no established church, which supports no particular religion, but has religious toleration (i.e. for any religion) (unless one is considering Rousseau’s civic religion!).  I’ve no idea what constitutes a secular humanist state.  You practise your religion freely and I’ll adhere to my secular humanism, without our interfering with each other.  What I do not understand is why religious ritualism should constitute an official part of a a public meeting with the implication that the process of the meeting is under divine providence.  Please have your prayers in a pre-meeting of those disposed towards those beliefs.

  • http://www.futureeconomics.org Diarmid Weir

    The Cameron/Warsi approach to religion is pure infantilism, and dangerously incoherent. Warsi thinks it is good for people to believe and promote a view of the world (Christianity) that from her viewpoint (as a Muslim) she ‘knows’ to be untrue!

    And at the same time the government seeks to over-ride the human rights of a man (Abu Qatada) who is deemed extraordinarily dangerous precisely on the grounds that he is preaching a religious view that while apparently persuasive to some, is untrue!

    Secularism has nothing to do with limiting anyone’s rights to believe and practise anything whatsoever. Precisely the opposite. It is about ensuring that no particular belief or practice is privileged over any other in the public realm (the public realm here including the operation of a market economy). As such, if secularism is working as it should, it is inevitable that anyone who does have strong positive beliefs (including those of some atheists) will feel hard done by!

  • Anonymous

    There will always be tension between the call of an individual to adhere to his religious and civic duties. When these are allied(in principles not institutions)  it often allows for a happier coexistence. The issue is often more about where the line is and thus I guess the discussion about what a secular state should be might also deal with questions around the limits of the state itself. As that great secularist Christ said “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. Or since that is part of Christian teaching is secularism actually impossible, as it would clearly be a result of a religious idea???

  • Pingback: Militant Secularism… Not quite. | This Got Me Thinking…

Latest

  • Comment Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    By Chris Williamson

    If further evidence was needed that the Government is destroying our communities then it came by the bucket load with proposals to relocate hundreds of housing benefit claimants. Councils across London desperately searched for a solution to the housing benefit cap that made it impossible for some of the capital’s poorest residents to stay in their homes. First we heard of plans to move residents to Darlington, Stoke, Hull and parts of Yorkshire. But the revelation that Westminster Council planned [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The austerity consensus has collapsed

    The austerity consensus has collapsed

    By Owen Jones

    There is no alternative: the only way out of Britain’s current economic plight is massive cuts to public spending. Taxes on the wealthiest must be slashed: they are blocks on aspiration and economically counterproductive. Austerity is the only game in town. Or so we have been told ever since the Coalition was formed in the rose gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. The overwhelming majority of the media has gladly reinforced the Government line, and those voices calling for an [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should Labour go further on football reform?

    Should Labour go further on football reform?

    By Ben Shave

    “As a party, Labour should take great pride in the fact that we initiated Supporters Direct, but now is the time to go further.” These sentiments, expressed in a recent article for Progress by Steve Rotheram MP, hark back to a time where the landscape was somewhat different for the Labour party, but similar in many ways to that faced by football supporters in 2012. The Football Taskforce was established soon after Labour came to power in 1997, with the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    By Ann Black

    Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We [...]

    Read more →
  • News It’s the budget what won it…

    It’s the budget what won it…

    Why did Labour win the 2010 local elections so convincingly? It’s the budget right? This graph of polling from TNS BMRB certainly suggests that. Labour’s slim lead extends rapidly following the budget (highlighted) – and current stands at 12 points (42/30). And as for why Labour did better in 2012 compared to the 2011 elections – just compare May and May 2012. A year is a long time in politics…

    Read more →