Homo economicus’ Weblog

I ask that question because often we are so caught up in the argument that it maybe the actual goal that we are seeking gets lost in the battle of ideas. Is it about being able to scrutinize ideas, to analyse them, put them under the microscope? This can be done by introspection but that is no substitute for the hot fire that is an opponent who disagrees with you in the strongest terms. In civil society we usually do not think this calls for bloodshed or the killing of someone that has a different opinion from us – however even that tolerance can under certain conditions give way to the desecration of a character that dares to speak out of step with public opinion. Or death.

So here I am not concerned with the argument. Here I am hypothesizing that the secular argument wins. That religion is considered no more than an ideology, and that it can be debated like any other human idea. The question is what is the goal:

a) That religion becomes a concept necessary for history – no one follows it now. The religious are persecuted and subjected to being fixed of their delusion.

b) Religion exists but as a minority, where those that believe it are considered irrational and treated as having less intellect and ability than more rational people.

c) The state does not base public policy on religious belief, but on the welfare of its citizens to whom it is accountable for its actions. The state has no opinion on the validity of religious belief but considers it a choice of the individual who may not exercise in the name of their belief power over another.

Now this is crucial if you are going to understand the heat of the debate that rages and yet you are an outsider looking at the two camps wondering why they are getting so excited about all this. Most secularists will go for c) – indeed c) is a choice that a religious minded person could choose – the state protects them in allowing their belief but does not give them license to impose that belief on others. Or anyone doing that to them.

Yet some believers see secularism as being at best b) and at worst a). With b) the religious believer feels that they are treated as delusional, second class citizens. At worst a) to them suggests a persecution where life as they know it cannot exist, and morality is no longer a word that can describe human behaviour.

Yes I am making the points rather extreme – and yet when did secularism become so polar that religious people felt threatened by the notion of a secular state? It was what guaranteed the freedom of those christian sects that disagreed with each other to a point that it was necessary because religious violence followed into the New Land of the United States. The idea of the separation of church and state was to stop one group of religious people ever being in the position to use the state apparatus to persecute other groups.

In short I am suggesting that we need to rescue the term secularism from the fundamentalist christians. Because they paint it as a dark and shadowy world to live in. When Jerry Falwell blamed secularists for 9/11 he was firmly of the belief that secularism was of the a) category (he later apologised for the remarks but they were out there).

For me it is about protecting human rights, and freedom of thought. Where nothing is held sacred by legislation – ideas are to be unveiled before the body politic, and no past generation holds a future generation to its ideals. It is for each generation to decide how it faces the political challenges of society.

Yet people want to take offense at being challenged in their belief. That their sensibilities count for more than another view on say science, politics, or economics. This is rooted in the idea that challenging a religious view leads to intolerance, which leads to disrespect, and then the persecution of people of the faith. For this notion not to be so the only protection I can think of is the secular state – the only alternative is not to allow people to think about cosmology differently or allow free thinking. The safeguard is human rights enshrined by law.

Do we actually need secular activists? Well the answer is yes. We live in a world where people think that adults allowing their offspring to die because of a parent’s religious belief is acceptable. Where female circumcision is defensible because it is a part of an ancient tradition (let alone the male form). Where a woman can have less political rights than a man because a holy book says it must be that way for in the eyes of god she is less worthy than man. Where religious law campaigns to have a status recognised by state courts.

Many more could be sighted – not least to have creationism taught in science classrooms and attempts to have public health programs stopped because risks of sexually transmitted diseases are reduced. This is done in the name of religion. We are told it is good for us because this is what god wants for us and therefore we should have it.

What do you do if that is not your god? Or if god is only a concept of the mind? Should public policy be based on expert opinion in the field rather than on an interpretation of some holy book?

That is the reason for secular activism. I am not trying to destroy your faith or have it banned. Nor am I trying to create a society where all manner of evils are perpetuated on members of society. I am seeking a level playing field where “god says” is no trump card, where faith groups are not privileged insiders to public policy. And where the way of life is not hampered by imposed religious dogma which cannot prove harm to others but only claim it is wicked in the sight of god.