A Secular State for a Pluralist People

Michael Nugent wrote: »

We could easily set one up.

All we need is to buy a few buildings beside each other somewhere in Dublin, start to issue our own stamps, and then get advice from the Vatican about getting actual States to pretend we are a real State and to swap ambassadors with us.

The world is full of quite objectionable dictators; I am sure it would be possible to enter into some kind of support / votes for land agreement.

MrP

It would be great if we had a secular state, and even better if it was genuinely pluralist as well, but that won't come to pass until the cop on deficit is greatly reduced. Still, it's a lot better now than when I was at school in the 1950s and that horrid little unelected dictator McQuaid and his lackeys called most of the shots and almost all of our politicians kow-towed to them and did their every bidding without question.:):)

On the other hand, it is really worrying when a junior minister from the main governing party is actively pushing the agenda of a right-wing, homophobic and dinosaurian body like the Iona Institute and we risk becoming a laughing stock by putting a ridiculous blaspheme law on our statute books.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

If we are not vigilant to keep the religious zealots at bay, we'll again find ourselves facing prison for laughing out loud the next time a moving statues epidemic breaks out.:eek:

Ellis Dee wrote: »

On the other hand, it is really worrying when a junior minister from the main governing party is actively pushing the agenda of a right-wing, homophobic and dinosaurian body like the Iona Institute

I resent that.

Peregrinus pretends not to know what secularism means, im not a big fan of pluralism either, as in Ireland it will mean catholic dominated pluralism

OK. Having more-or-less bullied Michael into starting this thread, I feel I should contribute something to it.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The phrase "Religious and nonreligious philosophies" is one of the current shorthands for something like "beliefs about the truth or falsity or merits of assertions that god(s) and/or other supernatural and/or spiritual being(s) created the universe and/or intervene divinely in the universe and/or determine and reveal to us what is right and wrong and/or that we should organize our lives around worshipping them."

I like this phrase. A concept like this is necessary and useful. I could wish it was a little shorter, but I can’t easily think of an elegant and apt one-word substitute. But, if only because I’m a lazy typist, I’m going to shorten it to “RNP”.

But I’m going to quibble with some of the detail. Michael’s definition focuses a bit too much on beliefs about divinity which means, I think, that it embraces non-religious philosophies only to the extent that they are negative about divinity. The second part of the definition goes on to talk about how we decide what is right and wrong, and how we organize our lives, and there are non-religious philosophies which have a great deal to say about this which consists of a good deal more than “there is no God”. I’d like to broaden the concept of RNP so that it includes philosophies about the human condition, the nature of reality, how we should live and how we should form our relationships whether those philosophies are religious (e.g. Christianity) or non-religious (e.g. secular humanism).

Not to do this, I think, is to demand a privileged position, or at least a potentially privileged position, for non-religious philosophies over religious philosophies. If the only requirement is that the state should be neutral between competing religious philosophies, then the state can favour one non-religious philosophy over others (and, it follows, favour that philosophy over all religious philosophies). While you can argue for that privileged position, the argument has to be made, and scrutinized; the privilege cannot simply be asserted or assumed.

There is, of course, an instant objection to this, and Michael has already voiced it:

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Nobody believes the State should be neutral about all philosophies. For example, most people in Ireland, whether religious or nonreligious, do not believe that the state should be neutral about democracy. Then you get into into philosophies such as majoritarian democracy versus rights-based democracy. And that is roughly the area in which the debate about secularism comes into play.

Sure. Nobody believes that the state should be neutral about all philosophies. We do not accord Naziism, for example, the same rights or the same esteem that we accord Stoicism. We believe the state should favour and support democracy. And so forth.

But it doesn’t follow from this that the line between [philosophies the state may favour] and [philosophies the state may not favour] is the line beteen religious and non-religious philosophies. In much of Europe the major political divide is between

(a) Christian democracy, a political philosophy explicitly grounded in religious thinking and emerging from a characteristically Catholic theological tradition; and

(b) Social democracy, a basically non-religious philosophy (though it does, of course, embrace Christian Socialists).

I don’t think we can argue that the state should or could potentially favour social democracy over Christian democracy, because of its non-religious character. On the contrary, most democrats will have no difficulty asserting strongly that the state must accord both equal esteem and equal rights, and let them compete democratically. An individual, of course, may choose to reject Christian democracy because he doesn’t share its foundational beliefs, but he cannot argue - or, at any rate, he won’t be taken seriously if he does argue - that the State must also reject it.

In short, the state doesn’t have to stay neutral as between all philosophies. But the mark of a philosophy which the state can exclude or disfavour is not in practice, and I think cannot be in principle, that it is religious. There are religious philosophies which are certainly entitled, as respects the state, to parity of esteem with any other philosophy. And there are non-religious philosophies which are not. More work might be required to identify the dividing line, but it isn’t religion.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

To oversimplify to get the thread started, one of the phrases we use in Atheist Ireland is that we want a Secular State for a Pluralist People. Everybody has the right to believe whatever they want about religious or nonreligious philosophies (using this phrase as shorthand for the concept I described earlier) and the only way for the State to protect equally everybody's right to do this is for the State to stay neutral.

Yes. But that must be neutral as between religious and nonreligious philosophies. If the state doesn’t observe that neutrality, then we are not truly free to choose between religious and nonreligious philosophies; we are constrained by the different ways in which the state will treat us according to the choice we make.

I think we need to reflect here on exactly what we understand by “secular”.

I suggest that a useful understanding is this: “secularism” is the position that, in making decisions, we (if it is we who are to be secular) or the state (if it is the state that is to be secular) should disregard considerations drawn from beliefs about God, about supernatural realities, or about an afterlife, or the like. This has a lot of appeal because it doesn’t require the state to take the view that there are no such realities (i.e. to be atheist); precisely because it is required to have no regard to claims of that kind it does not need to take a position - indeed, cannot take a position - on the truth or falsity of those claims.

But how does this play out in practice? I suggest that a secular state, in considering, e.g., an application for funding from a charity, should disregard entirely the question of whether the charity has a religious foundation or motivation or not; that is simply not a proper consideration. If the grant is for, say, the running of a hospital, the only question should be, is the charity running a hospital? You don’t exclude religious charities from consideration, and you don’t frame your hospital-running regulations with an eye to excluding the religious-run hospitals.

This last requires some careful judgments, and also I think a degree of integrity and good will. Suppose you are the Department of Health. You might want to ensure that, e.g., the full range of family planning services is available to women. Let’s say that one way to achieve that is to require that every hospital should operate a full-service family planning clinic. Obviously certain religious bodies will be unhappy about that requirement and, if you include it, their hospitals will not get funding and will probably close. In principle, you should be indifferent to this; it should not be your objective to bring this about, or alternatively to avoid it. You should simply be asking yourself whether requiring every hospital to operate such a clinic is, in fact, going to be the best way to provide the relevant services. The fact that adopting this course will cause major disruption if it means that a number of hospitals will have to be closed, reorganized or replaced is obviously something that should bear on your decision. But the fact that these will be Catholic hospitals, I think, is not.

The same goes if you are the Department of Education, considering an application for school funding. In a secular state, you should pay no attention at all to the question of whether the school is religious or non-religious; secularity requires you to disregard this consideration.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

In theory, there are two ways of staying neutral between different religious and nonreligious philosophies. One is to provide equal State resources for every such philosophy, and the other is to provide no State resources to any such philosophy. Because the first option is in practice impossible, and also because it is not the purpose of a democratic State to promote such philosophies, the second option is both more practical and also preferable.

I think what you say here is both an oversimplification and a false dichotomy.

In the first place, it’s not true to say that “equality” can only mean equal resources to every philosophy or no resources to any. Equality is a much more nuanced notion than that. We insist on equality between black and white, say, but it doesn’t mean that we devote equal state resources to black people and to white people. There are far more white people than black people in our society. They get far more in any distribution or application of state resources. Does that mean that black people and white people are not treated equally?

An alternative, and I think much more arguable, view is that the distribution of resources by reference to relevant criteria and without regard to race is the essence of racial equality. Even that view is challenged, and challenges to it result in things like affirmative action and reverse discrimination. In the context of competing philosophies of life, you could make the argument that minority views deserve some extra accommodation, in the interests of diversity or to combat the intangible but real disadvantage that tends to flow from minority status. But already you’re a long way from the suggestion that, if resources are allocated, equality between groups can only be achieved by the equal allocation of resources.

Secondly, the view that denying resources to all religious and nonreligious philosophies “is both more practical and more also preferable” I think is not correct. In the field of education, for example, supporting only schools which are neither religious nor nonreligious looks to me to be impossible. I don’t think there is any category between religious and nonreligious. If all state-supported schools are secular, we clearly do not have equality as between parents who seek a secular education, and those who seek, e.g., a Catholic education. You can defend this on a variety of grounds, but you certainly can’t defend it on the grounds of equality between religious and nonreligious philosophies.

I understand all that, Zombrex. But the net effect of what you suggest is that people who want a secular education get it, and people who any other kind of education also get a secular education. And this seems to me to be objectionable on two grounds.

First, it privilege secularism over other RNPs. That offends the principle I have argued for of equality among RNPs.

Secondly, in purely utilitarian terms, it produces a worse outcome than the present system, since a much larger number of people will be unable to access the school of their choice. I accept that there are practical difficulties in the way of giving everyone the school they want, but I don’t think we improve the situation by given fewer and fewer people the school they want, and by denying those who haven’t got the school they want of the prospect that they might ever get it.

(There is a third problem, which is perhaps of a lesser order; what you suggest will tend to repress diversity. The provision of different school types is, if anything, more important to social, cultural, ethnic, etc minority communities than it is to the majority, because schools are important community institutions. It’s doubtful if, e.g., Ireland’s Jewish schools would survive if they could not access state funding. Would Ireland really be a happier country if its Jewish schools were closed? If one of the ways that we judge a healthy and pluralist society is by the health and security of its minority communities, then what you suggest might be a very regressive step.)

Peregrinus wrote: »

I understand all that, Zombrex. But the net effect of what you suggest is that people who want a secular education get it, and people who any other kind of education also get a secular education. And this seems to me to be objectionable on two grounds.

First, it privilege secularism over other RNPs. That offends the principle I have argued for of equality among RNPs.

The only functional way to be fair to all the different types of theists and non theists is to not favour any. Secularist schools are the only type of schools that don't favour any.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, in purely utilitarian terms, it produces a worse outcome than the present system, since a much larger number of people will be unable to access the school of their choice. I accept that there are practical difficulties in the way of giving everyone the school they want, but I don’t think we improve the situation by given fewer and fewer people the school they want, and by denying those who haven’t got the school they want of the prospect that they might ever get it.

Since most people apparently want schools based on a religion they dont even understand, I fail to see how thats worse. Its never worse to deny ignorant people a system that unfairly satisfies them.

Peregrinus wrote: »

(There is a third problem, which is perhaps of a lesser order; what you suggest will tend to repress diversity. The provision of different school types is, if anything, more important to social, cultural, ethnic, etc minority communities than it is to the majority, because schools are important community institutions. It’s doubtful if, e.g., Ireland’s Jewish schools would survive if they could not access state funding. Would Ireland really be a happier country if its Jewish schools were closed? If one of the ways that we judge a healthy and pluralist society is by the health and security of its minority communities, then what you suggest might be a very regressive step.)

And by segregating minority communities in separate schools you sow the seeds of ignorance by raising and educating kids in isolation from anyone with a differing world view (both in the minority and majority groups). If these minority communities only survive because they have their own schools, then we must question what exactly they are teaching their kids that results in them never straying from the community. At the very least, it must be meaningless, useless and socially and educationally retarding if it cannot survive being taught equally alongside other viewpoints.


(This next part is in general, its not directed at you Peregrinus)
I always find it laughable that people are against secular public services, especially school systems. They are clearly the only way to be fair to everyone, and those that argue against them are either in the majority or gain something from having their minority group segregated from everyone else.
Its especially laughable of someone wanting their kid taught a specific religion in school. If you believe that your child needs to be taught a specific religion, in order to ensure they follow it and avoid false religions or immoral philosophies etc., then teach them yourself. Surely if you believe that your child's eternal soul and chance at heaven would be in danger without a specific religious belief, wouldn't you want to make sure they have that belief as you understand it? If you say "well I dont understand or now the religion well enough to teach it" then how can you say that you believe in it, how can you say what you believe in and what makes you think there is anything they can learn in school that will have any effect on whether the kid's soul gets into heaven or not. Why isn't this the most important thing to religious parents? Why isn't this so important that they make sure to do it themselves, even if its just to make sure they get the benefit themselves and that they get into heaven too?

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Forgetting about heaven,

Why would you ever do this, if you actually believed in heaven and hell, as religions teach them?

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

would you make that argument for someone who wanted to ensure their kids were scientists? Shouldn't they do it themselves?

No, but then again I don't think my child will burn forever in hell if they don't become a scientist.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

In the Islamic worlds it is accepted that some people, teachers, know the Koran better than others. So they teach it.

Not very well, if those they teach can't pass it on to their own kids. Do you think that the teachers in Irish schools know the bible very well?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, its pluralist to have secular schools only. Secular doesn't mean atheist, it doesn't even mean non-religious (not in teh way you are implying anyway) You can have a school that spends all day, every day teaching about religion and it can still be secular, as long as its enrollment and hiring policies don't discriminate and it doesn't give any religion unfair bias during teaching hours.
The second you bring in a school that can discriminate, you loose pluralism, just like you lose it if you bring in a hospital that can discriminate based on race or ethnicity.

No, that’s not pluralist. Pretty much the definition of pluralism is that it accommodates different ways of doing things. If all schools ar required to be secular, then secularism is favoured and other RNPs are excluded. That’s the opposite of pluralism.