Newsletter
Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Jobs
Policy | Charity & Fundraising | Research | Education | Executive | Media | Social Care | Communications
User login
In defence of secularism
By Terry Sanderson Published 19 July 2010
The United States, Turkey and India all have secular constitutions. However, none of them contains the definitive "secularism". There is no such thing.
But these constitutions have a common aim: to protect religion. By not permitting the establishment of any particular faith, secularism seeks to ensure that the state cannot be used as an instrument to persecute minority religious communities, and that no religion can be imposed by law on an unwilling populace.
Secularism works both ways - while it does not permit religion to interfere in affairs of state, it also forbids the state from seeking to control religion. This is surely the best way to ensure that those with faith can pursue their beliefs unencumbered.
Equally, it permits all people to be secure in the knowledge that no outside authority will interfere with their search for meaning. Naturally, clashes will occur when religious conscience seeks to place itself above the law - for example, in granting "conscience" opt-outs for pharmacists. These conflicts are difficult, but they are not beyond resolution.
As can be seen in the US, secularism, far from challenging belief, can in fact nurture and encourage faith in all its forms and approaches. Yet it does not always work. In all the countries mentioned above, secularism is under pressure from resurgent and politicised religion. In Turkey, Islamists seek to reverse the reforms of Atatürk; in the US, Christian evangelicals work tirelessly to undermine the church-state divide; in India, Hindu nationalists kill and maim in their campaign to overturn the country's constitutional protections for Muslim and Christian minorities. Elsewhere, Christianity is again politically resurgent - flying on the coat-tails of an expansionist Islam.
Secularism is far from negative. When it opposes "faith schools", it makes the case for inclusive education; when it opposes bishops in the House of Lords, it is supporting a purer democracy; when it opposes religious opt-outs from anti-discrimination legislation, it is protecting the rights of minorities to live free from the diktats of religious bigotry; when it opposes blasphemy, it defends free speech; when it speaks out against sharia law, it promotes one law for all.
Coupled with a strong democratic structure, secular societies protect us all from the authoritarianism that is characteristic of religion when it has temporal power. Faith groups regard evangelisation as their divine duty and, given the opportunity, they will pursue it using force and coercion.
As the many religions that thrive in Britain today grow more assertive and demanding, secularism may ultimately become the only way to thwart their power-seeking ambition. We need to recognise that sooner rather than later.
Terry Sanderson is president of the National Secular Society.
Tags: Secularism Religion
From the magazine
-
Hedley Twidle -
Laurie Penny -
Andrew Gimson -
New Statesman -
Laurie Penny -
Ned Beauman -
Ian Stewart -
Andrew Adonis -
Kevin Maguire
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists
59 comments
No contradiction here. Just needs more clearly stating I think: Secularism can and will protect religion, not just for individuals, but as institutions. But it claims the trump card for itself: Religion cannot be above or outside the law. There is no acceptable appeal to some supposed "Higher Authority" .
Steven Smith
Depends what you mean by private. There are a lot of Steven Smith
Depends what you mean by private. There are a lot of misguided people who say, for example sharia or jewish law is no problem, its just in the private sphere. In reality that means family, caste, divorce, child custody etc. The foundations of our lives. That's where religion does the most damage. The reality is with secularism all the power structures and psychological devices which support the belief in the various god/goods are undermined, because they all depend on absolutism. This is an excellent thing for ending physical and psychological violence in families, helping women, children and those in inferior castes.
The - will - of religious people is whitewash for what?
Daniele, I AM A CATHOLIC. I have studied my faith to a far greater degree than the average Catholic and I have had regular contact with priests, nuns, sisters, monks, friars, deacons and even the odd bishop. No one WANTS anyone to suffer. And if you knew anything about the authentic Catholic faith you'd realise that suffering is an evil that was not part of God's original plan. I'm sorry that you had such a bad experience when you were younger but to assume that this is the norm is simply wrong.
I'm also sorry that you insist on presenting the Catholic faith as irrational. This shows a clear lack of understanding that is rife amongst atheists. Your Catholic education was clearly lacking in substance - as was my own. I had to educate myself later.
If you think all the worlds ills are caused by religion you obviously haven't heard of the horrors of communism or the dehumanisation that resulted from the secularist French revolution. And i'll repeat it, i've yet to hear an atheist who gives a damn about the thousands of children who are murdered in Britain every year through abortions. Religion is clearly not the problem.
I'm not complaining that things are going to change. Happily, we live in a considerate, democratic society for the most part but the NSS is profoundly dishonest when it presents itself as a more tolerant and democratic alternative. If you had bothered to read what I said you would find that I favour a state that is not run by any religious leaders (something the Catholic Church also promotes) and that does not exclusively promote any religion. However, the brand of secularism promoted by the NSS wants to go further. It wants to develop a state which is so powerful that it dictates the truth to its citizens and then leaves them to believe some irrational falsity as a passtime. That is clearly not appealing to a religiously minded person.
I hope that some day you will come into contact with the reality of the Catholic faith and that you are able to make a decision based upon truth.
Aiken, maybe you could enlighten me about the NSS' position. I have asked them to clarify things. All I got was a tirade of abuse and insults.
Apologies
Steven Smith
Depends what you mean by private. There are a lot of misguided people who say, for example sharia or jewish law is no problem, its just in the private sphere. In reality that means family, caste, divorce, child custody etc. The foundations of our lives. That's where religion does the most damage. The reality is with secularism all the power structures and psychological devices which support the belief in the various god/goods are undermined, because they all depend on absolutism. This is an excellent thing for ending physical and psychological violence in families, helping women, children and those in inferior castes.
The - will - of religious people is whitewash for what?
Daniele, I forgot to mention that the dark ages are actually called the dark ages because no saints emerged from that time. Isn't that a coincidence?
Secularism is a non-issue.
What all societies need is TOLERANCE, not secularism enshrined.
India is heading towards Hinduism as the state religion. There is no problem with that, provided India remains tolerant.
"Just say it as it is: secularism will seek to reduce religion to a purely private affair against the will of religious people." Steven Smith.
Yes, of course. Much in the same way that proselytizing religions seek to increase their influence in society whether society wants them or not. What is wrong with religion becoming a private affair, and not automatically wrapped up in state ritualised hierarchies and divisive notions of 'traditional' inevitability? Get on with being religious if it floats your boat. But don't expect everyone else to take part in your judgmental moralizing, obsessive, embittered debates, dehumanised squabbling and wars.
Steven Smith:
I am glad you haven't seen the real side of the Catholic church yet, it is not pretty.The people who have brainwashed you have obviously done a very good job.
By the way, how do you account for the horrendous cases of paedophilia among catholic priests?? how has you god allowed such disgusting behaviour in his representatives on earth?
Your naivety is equal to your arrogance. What makes you an expert in Catholicism? why "studying" the faith makes any difference to the fact it is a bunch of mythological stories . I have studied Egyptology. Interesting but I am not going to believe that these stories are true! I suppose you believe in miracles and the curative powers of Lourdes while you are at it?
As to the definition of the "dark ages" I have never heard that one before.
Ah well it is really up to you if you want to spend your life believing in fairy stories. Just do not , and people like you, attempt to interfere with the running of the State and infiltrate Public Office.
Seculars have a nasty habit of trying to impose their unwanted opinions on others - just as religious people tried to do in years gone by. Personally I couldn't care who believes in what, or not, but no one has the right to dictate their beliefs or non-beliefs to others. And if people chose to send their kids to faith schools that is up to them and not some dictating secular lobbyists.
Colin, I'm sorry that you think I'm spouting nonsense. I did read the comments of others. Since they even seem to disagree, I thought I'd stick to the brand of secularism that the NSS promotes. Please do enlighten me as to what it is that I've said that is wrong because it is easy to tell everyone that they are spouting nonsense whilst saying nothing yourself.
JT, I don't really have much sympathy for you I'm afraid. On the one hand, what you are offering here is simply an atheist's caricature of the religiously minded person. I'm not saying that there aren't any people who fit your description, but very few i expect. I am religious, and I know lots of other people who are, but noone who fits your description. On the other hand, I'm British, so who your country voted for isn't of great interest to me. If all else fails, blame the Christians though.
As a side note, I do detest abortion. I think if a party stood for election with the policy that some people who were seen to be an inconvenience to society would be killed off, you'd probably see that as enough of a reason not to vote for them. It's funny that killing people in Iraq is wrong but killing a baby is not. Intolerance toward homosexuals is wrong, but intolerance toward the unborn child is not. I'm not advocating killing people in Iraq or hating homosexuals, I'm saying that all of these things are wrong. What I find most enlightening about most atheists I come into contact with is that they advocate an intolerance towards learning about particular faiths by calling it indoctrination and then they talk as if they know all about what these faiths teach. Of course, more often than not, what they believe a particular faith teaches is well wide of the mark because it comes from reading newspapers and watching tv.