Secularism is neutrality towards all religion – including atheism

[rug]

Human rights treaties commit nations to freedom of religion or belief (including freedom of nonbelief and nonreligious beliefs). Any constraints on freedom of religion or belief should be the minimum compatible with the survival of a liberal, tolerant, democratic open society. In addition the European convention on human rights includes a commitment to the principle of nondiscrimination.

From this it appears to follow necessarily that the state, the law and the public institutions we all share must be neutral towards different religions and beliefs. On questions of profound disagreement and deep sensitivity where there is no agreed way to establish the truth or falsehood of the claims made variously by Christians, Muslims, humanists and everyone else, it is quite wrong for the state to throw its weight behind any one particular religion or belief. This neutrality is what is meant by secularism. It is a political principle applicable to states: a secular state may be supported by religious believers and be the home of widespread religious belief. Indeed, secularism is the best guarantee of freedom of religion or belief – but the enemy of religious privilege. It must be distinguished from a secular society, a term that suggests a society that has distanced itself from religion.

Now there is a common riposte to this: that neutrality is impossible, that a secular state in fact imposes liberal, secular values on everyone. In the Italian crucifix case, partisan law professors went so far as to claim: "An empty wall in an Italian classroom is no more neutral – indeed, it is far less so – than is a wall with a crucifix upon it." But this is playing with words. Laws, government and institutions that do not impose or assume any religion or belief on the part of any individual citizen leave the individual free to hold any religion or belief, or none. Is it dictatorial to remove chains from contented prisoners? They need not leave their cells if they prefer to stay. By contrast, those who reject secularism seek to fit everyone with their own style of shackles. This is not an enhancement of the freedom of the dominant religious group but a curtailment of that of all the minorities. By contrast, secularism is the best possible guarantor of freedom of religion or belief for everyone.

Objectors often allege that humanists and other secularists wish to drive the religious from the public square. Not so. How could we, when atheism or humanism are in law no less "religions or beliefs" than Islam or Christianity? If Christians were banned from the public square, so would be humanists and atheists. (Moreover, the phrase "the public square" needs further analysis: there are different types of public space for which different conventions are appropriate.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jul/07/secularism-neutrality-religion-atheism

[laconicsax]

1. LOL!

[Goblinmonger]

2. That's some funny stuff right there. Thanks for the laugh. n/t

[skepticscott]

3. "The Public Square"

typically means "I want the freedom to proclaim my beliefs anywhere and any time I please, but anyone who questions or criticizes my beliefs publicly is a bigot and a hater."

[rug]

4. I doubt that's what he meant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/davidpollock

[skepticscott]

5. That IS the "public square"

that religionistas are always whining about being driven out of. They want it both ways...they want be free to proclaim and promote their misbegotten beliefs publicly, but those who wish to criticize them in the same forum should be gagged. The "public square" means free speech and open examination of all ideas, with nothing sacred and nothing immune from criticism. If they can't stand up to that, then they should keep their beliefs to themselves.

[rug]

6. He's not a "religionista".

[skepticscott]

7. Who the heck said he was?

He said "OBJECTORS often allege that humanists and other secularists wish to drive the religious from the public square." Sheesh, read your own damn post before you waste bandwidth.

[rug]

8. I take it you agree with him, then.

[Humanist_Activist]

9. This is from a European perspective, where separation of church and state...

is largely non-existent, so I'm trying to keep that in mind.

However, I think he dismisses the argument that NOT mentioning or supporting religion is giving preferential treatment to secular and/or humanist values too soon, he's right of course and the people who hold this view are wrong, but their arguments pop up time and time again, and need to be addressed over and over again.

The fact is that, from many religionists' point of view, a secular government as he defined it is a government that is either humanistic or atheistic. Technically a secular government doesn't have to be neutral to atheism for the simple fact that atheism doesn't require you to profess a lack of belief in a god, so if the government doesn't mention gods in any way, that is technically "atheistic".

Of course, to the religionists, this is a lack of neutrality, and hence they consider it a "promotion" of atheism, just by not mentioning God or Jesus, etc. This is what leads to the false persecution complex of many on the religious right in the United States. If the government isn't officially praising God and telling everyone else to do so too, then it is automatically hostile to all religion and wants to deconvert everyone, or some other type of nonsense.

Having debated people from the religious right on this very view, we need to really bring into the limelight how this argument doesn't hold water, and also bear in mind frankly, we are worlds apart from them logically, its like trying to teach logical geometry to M. C. Escher.

[Jim__]

10. The article glosses over some extremely difficult issues.

For instance:

... On questions of profound disagreement and deep sensitivity where there is no agreed way to establish the truth or falsehood of the claims made variously by Christians, Muslims, humanists and everyone else, it is quite wrong for the state to throw its weight behind any one particular religion or belief. This neutrality is what is meant by secularism. ...

The ideal is that the state must be neutral. But, can people actually accept a state that is neutral (o)n questions of profound disagreement and deep sensitivity?

[edhopper]

11. Should the state be neutral

when the religionists demand the teaching of creationism or that this is a "Christian Nation"?
Or banning Gay Marriage or ending abortion or stem cell research?
How neutral should the state be?
(Expanding further on the author's thoughts.)

[Deep13]

13. +1

[Deep13]

12. "...where there is no agreed way to establish the truth or falsehood of the claims..."

Truth or falsehood exists even if religious people refuse to accept them. The simple fact is that the supernatural claims and many of its other claims can easily be rebutted or even disproved. And the suggestion that any public policy argument predicated on the nonexistence of god should be ignored is suicidal. All scientific discovery including advances in health science are in some degree arguments against an all-powerful god with power over life and death. Anything we do to improve our lives runs against the assumption that god cares for and looks after each of us (consider the lilies of the field...).