 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
Secularism Published on February 13, 2007 Author's note:
Dear Mukto-Mona,
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
 |
 |
 |
Secularism
Roy BrownPublished on February 13, 2007
Author's note:
Dear Mukto-Mona,
I have been reading with interest the debate on your website about the meaning of the word Secularism. The problem is that the word has come to have two distinct meanings: as the basis for state neutrality in matters of religion, and as the basis for a society free from religion (synonymous with Atheism).
In the United Kingdom, the National Secular Society tries to encompass both meanings but, in my view, with limited success, having become identified as the voice of Atheism in the public arena. The response of the Vatican to the "threat" of Secularism - and it was one of the first statements to emanate fro the new pope - has been to demonize all secularism as anti-religious. Yet it is well known that the first enemy of any religion is not Secularism but every other religion. Most secularists and humanists believe strongly in freedom of religion and belief as long as religion remains a private matter. The tragedy of modern society is that for many religious people there is only one true religion - theirs ( whichever religion it may happen to be) - and they want to see it imposed on the whole of society.
I attach a copy of a paper I gave at a recent conference on Secularism in Hyderabad. You will see that I argue for the wider acceptance of the first definition - state neutrality in matters of religion – and call upon all like-minded people to work in its defense. Please feel free to republish the article on your website if you wish.
With kind regards,
Roy Brown
Wed Jun 1, 2005
Secularism as State neutrality
Roy Brown, President, International Humanist and Ethical Union
Address to the International Convention on Secularism
Hyderabad, India, 14 – 15 January 2005
We have heard many differing views at this conference on “what is secularism”. Is it a movement, is it a form of government, is it primarily political or social? Does it imply human rights? Does it imply women’s equality? Is it anti-religious or merely non-religious?
The answer to all of those questions, of course is “Yes – sometimes, to some people”. So I shall start by explaining which Secularism I shall be discussing.
For me, Secular-ism is a movement towards a society, state or government free from religion: the Secular state.
I have a problem with definitions of the Secular State which speak of “respect for all faiths or religions”. As a Humanist, I have a duty of respect to every individual - to their privacy, dignity and autonomy, regardless of their religion - because we all share our common humanity. But how can I respect any religion that maintains, against overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago? We have no duty of respect to nonsense, however ancient its origins.
The working definition of the Secular State that I prefer, and which comes closest I believe to the ideals of the American, French and Indian models, is: Neutral in matters of religion and belief. In other words the secular state favours no religion and discriminates against no person in matters of religion or belief. A corollary, of course, is that the state itself can have no religion and no god.
Whilst “Neutral in matters of religion and belief” may fall short of the American “wall of separation”, it does nevertheless safeguard the most important human freedom. State neutrality if properly applied would, for example, prevent funding of any faith-based initiative or support for any religious activity that was not also extended equally to non-religious groups. We heard from Lars Gule at this conference how the Norwegian Humanists have benefited from that equality of treatment and have established, per capita, the most successful Humanist group in the world.
(I won’t get into the purist argument of whether either religion or Humanism should be subsidised by the state. All we can say is that in the case of Norway it has clearly been of immense benefit to Humanism.)
The Constitution of the United States is one of the crowning glories of the Enlightenment. The founding fathers knew about religious persecution. Many were themselves only one or two generations removed from its menace. They knew that the only way to avoid religious persecution in their new nation was through constitutional safeguards denying for ever the possibility of special privilege for any religion or sect.
The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience, freedom from religious taxes and freedom from the obligation of worship in any state school or institution. The founders of this multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious nation clearly foresaw the need for absolute state neutrality in matters of religion and belief.
Opposition to the Secular State
But opposition to secularism is on the rise not only in America but in Europe, India and in many countries in Africa, and not only from the fundamentalists. The majority religion in any state will always oppose secularism because it prevents the majority from imposing its worldview on the rest of society. The secular safeguards must therefore be not merely legal, but constitutional. A law lacking constitutional safeguards could easily be overturned by a simple majority in the legislature.
All religion is divisive. In every religion it is an article of faith that this, the one true religion, is the flower-strewn path to eternal glory, and that every other religion is false, misleading, probably inspired by Satan or the forces of evil, and leads straight to somewhere profoundly unpleasant. Well, apart from the observation that this is not the sort of thing that educated men or women ought to believe, it does illustrate exactly why we need secular safeguards. We heard yesterday about the menace of Hindutva and the threat it poses to the Indian constitution, a prime example of a religious majority directly attacking the secular nature of the state.
The American founding fathers, were they around today, would no doubt be dismayed by just how strong the opposition has now become to Church-State separation. Even Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Renquist is now reported to believe that the safeguard was intended simply to prevent any individual sect or religion being specially privileged, but was not intended to prevent government from supporting religion in general: in other words, to permit discrimination against non-belief! Church-State separation is likely to come under increasing attack in the years ahead as two, or possibly three, members of the Supreme Court are replaced by the present God-inspired incumbent of the White House.
In Europe, the Vatican has made a concerted effort behind the scenes to subvert democracy in the European Union. Under the new European Constitution, the Union will have no right to interfere in any member state whatever relationship it may wish to enter into with any religion. Many European states now have concordats – binding contractual agreements – with the Vatican, giving the Catholic church extraordinary rights in education, healthcare and civil law, as well as permanent immunity from taxation. And despite their cries of foul that there is no mention of God or our Christian heritage in the preamble to the Constitution, the Church has succeeded in gaining an open door into the heart of the European Commission. They now have the right to discuss proposed legislation directly with the Commissioners before the democratically elected representatives of the European parliament are even aware that any such legislation is on the cards.
Demonising Secularism
How do you undermine an ideal? You demonise it. You ridicule it. You misrepresent it. The most damaging argument against the secular has been to equate “secular” with “anti-religious”, and to demonise the Secular State as the Anti-religious state. Secular means neutral, not anti-religious. No doubt some secularists are anti-religious, but secularism is not about trying to eliminate religion – an impossible task – but to obtain equal rights for the religious and non-religious alike.
The McCarthy era is now regarded as one of the blackest periods in modern American history. For four years in the late 1950s, Senator Joe McCarthy terrorised America through the power of his Un-American Activities Committee. His ostensible targets were the communists supposedly permeating American life, and the entertainment industry in particular. In reality his targets were all and any liberals who attempted to defend freedom of conscience or freedom of speech. His methods were those of the typical demagogue: any one who opposed him was by definition guilty of “un-American” activities. Hundreds of lives and livelihoods were ruined, and today, 50 years later, the smell still lingers on and liberal bashing has become even more overt. To be deemed a liberal is to be doomed to failure in public life. To be deemed a Secular Humanist is to be damned to eternal perdition. According to best-selling bigots like Tim Lahaye and Gerry Falwell, Secular Humanists are now running America - and running it into the ground.
This demonising of secularism is part of an orchestrated campaign by the Religious Right in America to undermine the Constitution and turn the United States into a theocracy. Ever since an unwary President Eisenhower and a compliant Congress changed the motto of the United States from E Pluribus Unum (One from Many) to One Nation Under God, the pressure on the Constitution has been mounting. E Pluribus Unum accurately represented the America of immigration and immigrant communities. From wherever they came, they all became Americans. The melting pot was a wonderful metaphor for that America. But today we have a new America. The risk with any melting pot is that the scum will rise to the top. Today’s America is a tyranny; a tyranny of ignorance, fuelled by religious certainty, and disdainful of the rule of law. But, at least until now, the Constitution has been able to withstand the onslaught.
Defending India’s Secular Constitution
Secularism is the only means by which the rights of minorities can be safeguarded, and it must be constitutionally guaranteed. To undermine secularism is to pander to bigotry and to undermine the rights of all except the followers of the majority religion. Secularism will always be susceptible to threat from the majority religion and it is our duty as Rationalists, Humanists and Secularists to fight tooth and nail in its defence. But we are not alone.
Many religious people are among the most stalwart defenders of secularism because they understand the danger to us all of allowing religious privilege to enter government and public life. Would it be possible, here in India, I wonder, to follow the example of our American colleagues and create an alliance in defence of the secular constitution? The possibility of a theocratic Hindu state, widely touted by some members of the previous government, will have alerted many from the minority religions to the danger. They are our natural allies in this struggle. Someone said that Muslims, for example, would never follow an Atheist or Humanist initiative, but it doesn’t have to be Atheist or even Humanist. It can be simply an alliance drawn from all sections of the community, including Muslims and moderate Hindus, alarmed by the prospect of a theocratic India.
Only secularism provides a level playing field for believers and non-believers alike …. and only secularism can guarantee our human right to freedom of religion and belief. Defend it we must.
Thank you