SECULARISM IS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT
Secularism is a fundamental human right. It belongs to everybody as an
individual and to society as a whole. It is as important as the right to travel
or hold property or whatever. In fact if you really own what you own and
its nothing to do with what religion or God says then secularism underpins
ownership.
There is no need for religion and politics to be one and the same. There is no
need for the Church to rule or govern the nation. We need the state. So we need
a secular state. A secular state is a basic human right. Without the right to
secularism being granted to the nation, other rights are endangered and many
will not exist. Forms of religion that oppose secularism need to be seen as
cultic - that is, opponents of genuine liberty and underminers of human dignity.
Should all candidates for public office understand the philosophy of secularism?
Yes - whether they are religious or not. They should get no votes if they don't
make any effort to learn what secularism is all about. They must undertake a
briefing to make sure they understand what is involved in being a secularist.
Should all candidates for public office take an oath to uphold the state as a
secular entity?
Yes when they claim to believe in a religion that opposes secularism or any
major secularist principle. If they leave the religion, this oath will be
unnecessary. It would be preferable and more honest to leave your religion
rather than take an oath that violates it. The authentic secularist will be so
committed to the state that she or he will do this.
Social workers, medical professionals etc and religion
Should they use their position to promote religion some penalty - dismissal in
severe cases - must be considered.
When does the state come first?
The state should protect freedom of religious belief except where the belief
opposes the common good. It should protect the right to freedom from religion,
the right to leave religion. Freedom from religion is more natural. In a case of
conflict, it should take priority. There is no need for religion. Those who need
it have a self-inflicted need. We need food, water, shelter and self-esteem -
those are real needs.
If one takes up a public appointment - eg civil servant, etc. - one must carry
out the duties that the law prescribes and those duties will change from time to
time as the law changes.
The state cannot look after every individual's problems - that would be
unrealistic and impossible. So it has to look after the common and public good.
That is why, for example, it was learned that if people with an alternative
sexuality do wrong by having sex, as long as it is done in private it's not the
state's business. The nearest the state can get to looking after every
individual is by looking after people in general. It does not mean the state
thinks the individual should not be looked after. A religion is a collection of
people - it is not the people. Looking after a religion and looking after the
members of the religion is not the same thing. Looking after a religion would
imply that you must protect the members from any knowledge or influence that may
diminish or destroy their commitment to the religion or you make the religion
tax-exempt so it has no tax to pay. Looking after religious people would mean
that you treat them as people and give them the same rights as non-religious
people.
Religious groups and churches and their employees
True secularism upholds the right of the religious groups and churches to employ
who they wish. Equality legislation must not be used to interfere with the right
of the Church or religion to choose whoever it wants as an employee, minister or
otherwise. We cannot for example punish a religion that refuses employment to an
atheist who wants to be say a Christian chaplain in a Church hospital. This is
not discrimination for it is based on fact: the atheist is only trying to be an
impostor.
However, the right of the Church to refuse employment to some does not imply it
has the right to discriminate on racist or homophobic or gendered grounds.
Secularism and burials
Secularism recognises that religions should not restrict who can be buried in
churchyards. Religion can exist without having the power to decide who is
welcome to be buried in its graveyards. It must not be given the privilege to
discriminate. Its refusal to let one be buried in its graveyards would be the
lowest form of bigotry possible. It's a serious matter.
The state comes before the Church
The state comes before the Church. The state runs the police and the health
service and makes the laws of the land. We hope that the state will remember the
poor and look after them. Church and state often disagree. If there is a
conflict with religion the state must put itself first and be put first. There
would be no Church without the state and the Church must remember that. However
the state must not interfere with religion unnecessarily.
Unless a person treats the natural world as the only world that person is
treasonous and is showing contempt for the state and therefore the people.
Religious affiliation to a religion of magic and miracle is treason.
Modern Catholics tend to believe that separation of Church and state respects
the autonomy of both. It gives both the freedom to express their views. It
supposedly frees the state from Church control and the Church from state
control. This doctrine was condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Longinqua oceani in
1895. He called it Americanism. He stopped short though of formally declaring
Americanism to be heresy.
Religious broadcasting - but only on state radio or television - should allow
people of non-religious beliefs to have a say. It should not be limited to any
religion but open to all religions and none.
It can happen that the needs of minorities will be ignored in a democracy that
implements the wishes of the majority. If people keep religious assumptions and
beliefs out of politics, it will be easier to look after minorities. There is
enough to disagree about as there is.
Remember that to advance secularism is to advance the recognition of your own
dignity as a free man or free woman.
To undermine the state is to give the two fingers to the people and to yourself.
People need to have a strong respect for the laws of the country. If they don't,
cynicism and resentment set in and crime rates shoot up because of that. It is
only right that people who are members of religion keep their religion out of
public affairs if there is a conflict with secularist principles.
Secularism and proper self-esteem are co-dependent
What am I doing plugging secularism in the context of self-esteem? Secularism
and self-esteem are inseparable. True secularism listens to individuals and is
based on democratic principles. It does not listen to religion for religion is a
system set up by people but it is not people. To oppose secularism is really to
deny that you are more important than any system of religion.
The best governments are secular. The best people put the best governments in
power. And these are the people with authentic self-esteem.
Be secular. If you can't leave your religion aside to do the job then look for
another job and above all keep out of politics.
Democracy - the only reasonably healthy form of government
Political power gives so much scope for corruption that it is to be looked at
and distributed very carefully.
The fat wage packets of politicians are a disgrace. Politics should be about
service and not cash.
We detest communism for it means that nobody owns anything. Fair distribution of
goods can be achieved without it. The fact that some people unfairly keep goods
for themselves that they could share with others does not mean that our own
system is wrong for they are misusing it. How could it be right to force
communism on anybody when it is simply pushing equality too far? Progress cannot
come about unless people have property of their own. Communism steals their
right to freedom.
We abhor capitalism for it throws too much power into the laps of the rich and
powerful.
We believe in democracy. That is better than having a few self-serving people in
power who can do as they please when the country is stuck with them. Power
corrupts. Democracy has its faults in that people are easily fooled and do not
inform themselves right but the believer in democracy knows that that only
happens when not enough has been done to assist them. Democracy should not be
found deplorable just because it can be abused or poorly implemented.
It has been objected that democracy leaves itself open to the danger that it
will be done away with if enough people decide to cease being democratic. This
way democracy can destroy itself. But what is wrong with that? It is still a
democratic decision and if the people decide to reverse it they can even if it
means rebelling against the state which they have turned against democracy.
Should democracies allow parallel legal systems to suit say Muslims who want
sharia law? The idea of setting up parallel legal systems in a democratic nation
that are not subject to democratic control is ridiculous and a repudiation of
democracy. The law must exist to protect people not religions.
Treating cohabiting couples the same as married couples obviously makes them all
equal. The liberal may force this treatment into the law against the will of the
people. Secularism requires that if a democracy votes for the Church to reign
over the state, the will of the people will have to be ignored. Secularism then
favours equality over liberty.
Religion tends to make rules about what to do and how to behave that we wouldn't
have without it. We would be freer without it. So believers are putting their
need to believe before their need for freedom. Too many believers in a nation
mean that the nation will be inclined to limit freedom too much. Those who do
not want to be free don't generally want others to be free either.
The state and other bodies should be kept totally separate from religion and
spiritual ideas. They should pay no attention to religious rules and teachings -
except when religion is thinking about ethical issues on the secular mundane and
natural level and keeping the supernatural out of it. This is about keeping
entities such as the health service and the government unbiased by religious
influence. Here is an example. The state taking advice from the Church in
relation to abortion is fine as long as the advice is based on science and
reason. But to take it from the Church when the Church says, "God told us in
such and such a book or told such and such a pope that it is wrong" that is
improper and sometimes gravely so. Some people say religion has no business
interfering with politics or trying to influence politics at all. That is only
true if the religion is doing it as a religion and not as an entity that has a
right to voice its views based on reason and science and evidence.
There should be no references to God or any religious references in state
constitution
In Ireland for example, there needs to be referendum to remove religious
references from the Constitution.
Suppose a constitution says we have the right to worship God. Suppose a
constitution says that God has the right to be worshipped. The first is
tolerable but seems to presuppose the existence of God. It would be better to
have, "We have a right to worship a deity as we understand it." The second is
seriously violating secular principles.
The right to vote and be informed
The electorate should be informed as well as possible before voting so that the
chances of votes being cast because of misinformation and prejudice are reduced.
Care should be taken that no organisation is scaring them into voting a certain
way. The information should include attacking religious fraud for religion likes
to manipulate the electorate for its own dishonourable and superstitious ends.
Everybody who is mature should have the vote and use it. It is an honour to be
able to so the person is degrading himself for herself by not doing it. It is
insulting those who do vote. It disrespects the future of the nation.
Public representatives must be trained in secular principles
Public representatives/politicians must take a course in secular principles and
should have a sufficient knowledge of finance and economics and sociology.
To be neutral in relation to religion is to be against religion that says we
should not be neutral. To be neutral sometimes requires that we be actively
hostile to such religion. We would be hostile in our attitude towards it in the
sense that we put the state before it. We put neutrality before it. This applies
to voters and to public representatives in particular.
FINALLY
Secularism is a fundamental human right. It is also the foundation of further fundamental human rights. The right belongs to everybody. One problem is that even if somebody rejects the right for the sake of religion we have to impose their right on them. This is because rights and responsibility go together and they are stuck with the responsibility.