Secularism = Anti-Church?

Delirium

Maybe this attitude to secularism has always been around, but I've only noticed it myself lately.

The Ireland Standup (a twitter account campaigning for the re-opening of the Vatican embassy has posted a couple of tweets along the same lines as below:

Gilmore also denied the Labour Party had an anti-church motivation, saying: "There isn't a secular agenda." But you're not true Labour !

Link to original tweet

And then the head of the UK delegation to the Vatican wrote the following in an article for the Telegraph:

My fear today is that a militant secularisation is taking hold of our societies. We see it in any number of things: when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings; when states won’t fund faith schools; and where religion is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere.



It seems astonishing to me that those who wrote the European Constitution made no mention of God or Christianity. When I denounced this tendency two days before the Holy Father’s State Visit in September 2010, saying that government should “do God”, I received countless messages of support. The overwhelming message was: “At last someone has said it”.

and

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.

Link to the article

So I was just wondering if people find that other people generally understand what secularism is? Or do other people view it as an movement which is an attack on religion?

It seems astonishing to me that those who wrote the European Constitution made no mention of God or Christianity.

eh? let's mention all the other religions in the whole world too :rolleyes:

i don't encounter this much irl but then i dont talk about religion or secularism much irl

seamus

I'm fairly sure that the equal rights movement had its staunch racists who claimed that the movement was viciously intolerant of white people, trampling on their rights to choose who they worked with and who they socialised with.

A faith-based institution in chaos will always blame external factors for its problems, it will never look internally for its failing. Irrationally held beliefs like religion or racism are incapable of self-criticism because that would require cold logic.

It's not really a shock to me that organisations as institutionally intolerant as the Abrahamic religions would see tolerance as an enemy and accuse it of the crimes and excesses which they themselves have thrived upon for centuries.

robindch

koth wrote: »

if people find that other people generally understand what secularism is?

To be honest, here in Ireland, outside of A+A, AI and Irish Skeptics in the Pub and PDN, I don't think I've met anybody who seems understands what it is. On the contrary, it's generally synonymous with atheism. I've tried in the past to explain that secularism is the position that the state should not favor one religion over any other and that the fairest way to do that is by favoring none. However, the rote response is usually "Well, no religion is atheism, isn't it? Nyah, nyah, Mr. Smartypants".

A bit like a proper understanding of evolution, it genuinely seems to be beyond the intellectual capacity of a significant portion of the Irish population.

There don't seem to be equivalent problems understanding it in France -- even amongst religious sects which tend towards radicalization elsewhere -- so it's not an innate failing. So I wonder what the best approach to resolving it might be?

Penn

'The Big Questions' on BBC on Sunday had a section on "Is religion being marginalised?", based on the ruling about prayers in the local council meeting being banned. The question before that was "Is religion sexist?"

They had a female priest on the show, who they said is one of the top female priests and would be in line to become a bishop if that was allowed. For the sexism question, she maintained that society has changed from women being below men and that because of societal changes, men and women were now equal. But when the marginalisation question came up, she started talking about how Britain was founded on Christian values and Britain has always been a Christian country etc.

People will agree with changes when it suits them, and oppose them when they aren't the ones who benefit. Secularism isn't anti-church, it's anti-'power and influence of the church'. One church should not have any influence over things which affect people who don't follow that church. No one church should have any more power or influence than another, and being part of a religion shouldn't give you any advantages or disadvantages over anyone else.

It is never about being against the Church, it's about everyone being equal. But of course, if you're part of something which is losing power, you'll not be happy about it and see it as a slight against your religion, rather than what's fairest for everyone.

goose2005

They only oppose secularism when they have a majority; Catholics have no objections to a secular U.S. because it protects them from the Protestant majority.

Most bizarre was Lady Warsi complaining about secularism in a state where bishops get free seats in Parliament, the monarch is head of the established church, faith schools are growing stronger and stronger, religious violence remains a serious threat. But flight attendants can't wear crosses (not a requirement of Christianity, and not used until centuries after Jesus, and arguably criticised by Jesus in his statements against ostentatious worship)

robindch

goose2005 wrote: »

Most bizarre was Lady Warsi complaining about secularism in a state where bishops get free seats in Parliament [...]

Even more bizarre is that Warsi is a female muslim in a polity in which the head of state is also the head of a competing religion.

Talk about biting off the hand that feeds you.

Galvasean

Religious people like to waffle on about equality, but take away their special privileges and watch the toys fly out of the pram!

Galvasean

Penn wrote: »

'The Big Questions' on BBC on Sunday had a section on "Is religion being marginalised?", based on the ruling about prayers in the local council meeting being banned. The question before that was "Is religion sexist?"

They had a female priest on the show, who they said is one of the top female priests and would be in line to become a bishop if that was allowed. For the sexism question, she maintained that society has changed from women being below men and that because of societal changes, men and women were now equal.

Surely the bit I've bolded undermines her entire position?

Penn

Galvasean wrote: »

Surely the bit I've bolded undermines her entire position?

It's not currently allowed, but they said that it does seem like it could happen in the next few years.

Found this too, though obviously not the best source:
http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2012/02/women-bishops-are-coming-to-church-of.html

Even then, women couldn't be priests, or teachers in the past, so she did have a point.

She's still wrong though.

robindch

The Daily Mash's take on Warsi:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/warsi-released-from-box-again-201202144894/

Daily Mash wrote:

DAVID Cameron has let Baroness Warsi out of her box again.

Warsi was released from the box, which is kept under the floorboards in the prime minister's private study, yesterday evening so she would have enough room to write an article for the Daily Telegraph without constantly banging her elbows. A Downing Street spokesman said: "We had heard muffled shouting all afternoon. It was getting really distracting so eventually we lifted the floorboards, opened the box and she popped her head up screaming 'I've got an idea! I've got an idea!'.

"She then explained how Britain should relaunch the Spanish Inquisition only it should change the name of it to the 'British Inquisition' because that would be a sign of 'confidence'. "Then all the Christians should go around getting all up in people's faces and demanding money for believing in Jesus in the same way that all those weird, angry scientists go around demanding money for believing in gravity.

"Then she said the government should never have banned Christmas. "We all stared at her for about 30 seconds until the prime minister nodded and said 'yeah, let her out'." Warsi is now on her way to Rome where she will have talks with the Pope until he pretends to have gastro-enteritis.

The Downing Street spokesman added: "We should have her back in the box by tomorrow lunchtime. But if she gets lost and you find her, just keep her warm, give her a Hobnob and then phone the fire brigade."

robindch

Oh dear. And now the Daily Thump:

http://newsthump.com/2012/02/14/baroness-warsi-condemns-rise-in-militant-clear-thought-and-logic/

Daily Thump wrote:

Baroness Warsi condemns rise in ‘militant’ clear thought and logic

Baroness Warsi has bitterly condemned ‘an alarming increase’ in thinking about two alternative explanations of why we’re here, and then choosing one based on logic, reason and evidence. “For too long now, people have been turning away from religion towards science. It’s almost as if they’ve starting thinking for themselves”, complained Warsi.

“A lot of these radical scientists are a real danger to society”, she went on. “Particularly those corners of society built around stories about super heroes, sparkly cloud people and smiting.”

Warsi’s condemnation of ‘Finding Out About Stuff Properly Rather Than Guessing’ comes just days after a Devonshire council was ordered to stop using prayer to tackle pot holes, missed bin collections and graffiti. “I suppose ‘science’ thinks these issues can be tackled by tarmac, bin lorries and a powerful solvent applied under pressure?”, quipped Warsi.

“You’re welcome to give it a try, but I wouldn’t be surprised if praying solves the issues at roughly the same time.” While Warsi admits that religion has brought mankind massive wars, terrorism, brutal totalitarian states, oppression, torture, divided communities and Aled Jones – however she also believes it gives people hope. “We want a return to traditional values based on fear, literal translation of allegories about goats and going to war with people who prefer slightly different stories to us”, demanded Warsi.

“I’m just glad England’s God gave us the power to develop sophisticated weapons systems.”

Fortyniner

There certainly seems to be a rise in this almost hysterical type of attack. Perhaps it's just the UK Tory party moving to the right in line with their US counterparts, while over here it's the squeals from the traditional power-brokers as the ground shifts beneath them.

The reaction does not match the reasoned approach of either the UK secularists (re pre-council meeting prayers) or the ministers here (re closure of the embassy at the Vatican).

GLaDOS

Yeah, it's the secularists who are militant, with their suicide bombings and death threats to cartoonists.

fisgon

It's simply about dominance. Religions believe that they are divinely inspired, and so for all their talk of tolerance, they don't really believe it. If you believe you are on the side of god, then of course you expect special treatment, exaggerated respect, protection against criticism and questioning.

Secularism is basically a levelling of the playing field, it's about equality. And Catholicism here, and Christianity in Britain and the US, have no interest in equality. They want dominance, control, special treatment. Any dilution of this special treatment they choose to interpret as 'attacks on religion'. Obama is going through something right now with the catholic church, because they refuse to cover their employees for reproductive health care on their health insurance. In other words, they don't want to obey the law, and claim discrimination when they are told to do so.

The comparison to racism is apt. When those who are used to having power lose this power, they don't take it well.

magicbastarder

from yesterday's guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/14/is-religion-really-under-threat?INTCMP=SRCH

Galvasean

"I can't help feeling that Christianity has always thrived on persecution, and it is trying just a bit too hard to portray itself as under the cosh yet again when really it's mostly just ignored."

This IMO. There is a lot of "Help we're being oppressed!" going on these days.

Delirium

Found a copy of one of Warsi's election leaflets, have a read of the the bottom left paragraph that continues on the right-hand column.

kylith

I love how they always say that schools are promoting such-and-such, like the teacher are standing in front of a crowd of 13 year olds saying "Now, I know that girls are icky, so try sucking cock instead. Go on! Being gay is the only way to go!"

Penn

kylith wrote: »

I love how they always say that schools are promoting such-and-such, like the teacher are standing in front of a crowd of 13 year olds saying "Now, I know that girls are icky, so try sucking cock instead. Go on! Being gay is the only way to go!"

If I wasn't trying to get more people to visit the Podcast forum, I'd have a new sig

oldrnwisr

koth wrote: »

So I was just wondering if people find that other people generally understand what secularism is? Or do other people view it as an movement which is an attack on religion?

I think that that's kinda tricky to answer but as I see it, there is a general atmosphere of mild ignorance towards secularism. Most people don't really know what secularism is but it doesn't bother them one way or the other so they're content to leave it at that. However, the people making the public comments about "aggressive secularism" and "militant secularism" and "the arrows of a secular and godless culture", I'm not so sure. I don't think that there is an ignorance of secularism among people like David Quinn and the like. I just think that they're aiming to spin secularism as an attack on their religion in order to fuel their persecution complex. Like this, for example:

Persecution Stories - American Catholic League

In the end, I think that the attitude of people who speak out against secularism is best summed up by the bible:

"“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." Matthew 12:30

Galvasean

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I just think that they're aiming to spin secularism as an attack on their religion in order to fuel their persecution complex. Like this, for example:

Persecution Stories - American Catholic League

Skimming through that virtually none of that has anything to do with secularism. It's nearly all religiously (mostly Islamic) motivated terrorism.

oldrnwisr

Galvasean wrote: »

Skimming through that virtually none of that has anything to do with secularism. It's nearly all religiously (mostly Islamic) motivated terrorism.

Yeah, sorry Galv. That was meant as an example of Christian persecution complex rather than secularism as an attack on religion.

These might be better examples of secularism spun as attacks on religion:

A British judge declares war on religious faith

Church of England must oppose aggressive secularism, bishop says

Teachers code may impose "commitment to secularism" - lawyer


More here.

Galvasean

I see what you mean. Calling it 'aggressive' and 'militant' kind of makes a mockery of those who are actually suffering from real religious persecution elsewhere in the world.

IRWolfie-

It's possible to be a religious secularist.
"You may be surprised to know that while most secularists are atheists, some secularists are actually believers in a faith. While they believe, they don't think that belief is a reason for special treatment."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/secularism.shtml

Galvasean

IRWolfie- wrote: »

It's possible to be a religious secularist.
"You may be surprised to know that while most secularists are atheists, some secularists are actually believers in a faith. While they believe, they don't think that belief is a reason for special treatment."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/secularism.shtml

We actually have a couple of them who pop in here from time to time. There's also a few in the forum over 'yonder'.

Zombrex

This militant anti-secularism is very worrying.



ha, see what I did there. :P

robindch

Zombrex wrote: »

This militant anti-secularism is very worrying.

Shockingly aggressive too.

Anybody feeling persecuted yet?

Sarky

Militant apathy is the way forward.

Maybe.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Anybody feeling persecuted yet?

I might be feeling some mental anguish. Depends though. Can I sue anybody?

philologos

There are some great articles both written by atheists in the Guardian about secularism this week.

One arguing for a freedom of voices in the public square:

First, secular neutrality does not demand that people are silent about the religious basis of their convictions. What it requires is that articles of faith, or other substantive conceptions of the good life, do not carry any weight simply because they are matters of faith.

Second, continuing much in the same vein arguing that many non-believers have misunderstood the concept of secularism:

A secularist, he says, is someone who appeals to natural reason, and not to divine law. And this kind of reason is by definition something shared by both sides in the argument. But the militant secularist takes for granted that "the religious" have no access to reason. There can be no reasoning with his opponents. All he can do is to repeat himself more loudly until the idiots understand.

If people regarded secularism much in this way, I wouldn't have any qualms about it. When I do have qualms about it is when some non-believers use it as an excuse to advocate banishing faith from the marketplace of ideas. I can't begin to mention how profoundly wrong that is.

muppeteer

philologos wrote: »

There are some great articles both written by atheists in the Guardian about secularism this week.

One arguing for a freedom of voices in the public square:


Second, continuing much in the same vein arguing that many non-believers have misunderstood the concept of secularism:

That second article is just piss poor. It wanders from conflating atheism with secularism, to a weak comparison of adolescents naively seeking out Ayn Rand and Richard Dawkins, a cheap shot at guilt by association.
He also bluntly categorises secularists as, the naive, the gays and the jealous.:rolleyes:

And I weep for the continual use of militant, a word normally used to describe those who bomb and murder, it is either just an unfair/dishonest comparison or the trivialisation of a word used for actual oppression.
Either way, every time a journalist uses it it makes the English language cry.

As for Brown's conclusion he actually does contradict himself by saying that the 'millitant' secularists don't understand secularism because

"the militant secularist takes for granted that "the religious" have no access to reason."

It comes from the very definition of secularism(with which he agrees with Baggini) that "the religious" can bring no (religious) reason in a secular debate. Therefore what is there to take for granted?
We take for granted that in a secular debate religious reasoning is rendered null, which is fairly bloody self evident if you ask me.

philologos wrote: »

If people regarded secularism much in this way, I wouldn't have any qualms about it. When I do have qualms about it is when some non-believers use it as an excuse to advocate banishing faith from the marketplace of ideas. I can't begin to mention how profoundly wrong that is.

Faith need only be banished from the secular marketplace of public policy and nowhere else. Where there is difficulty is where faith has historically been intertwined in public policy. So when we try to now build a farer, secular, public policy the existing religious elements see their position undermined.
One of the biggest setbacks in actually making a fair and secular society has been the conflation of non belief and atheism with the secularisation of public policy which fuel the resistance of church groups who react against what they see as the godless.
There are still many religious secularists, probably far more than non religious secularists given our small numbers, but they are being drowned out by those who want to maintain their privileged position and by those who wish to create a climate of fear and siege.