Secularism: the best defence of religious freedom
Posted on Tuesday 14 February, 2012
Filed Under Civil Liberties, Conservative Party, Religion
I AM not quite sure where the Almighty stands on the mechanics of proportional representation or qualified majority voting in Brussels. Nor – having read both the Bible and the Quran from cover to cover – am I clear as to divine opinion on the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Given that the job of any the European Union constitution is to regulate these matters, the case for such a document including explicit reference to God – as demanded by Baroness Warsi in the Daily Telegraph today – is tenuous.
Yet Britain’s first Muslim woman cabinet minister advocates just that as a means of resisting the ‘rising tide’ of ‘militant secularisation’. Many of the claims her contribution contains are questionable, as is its principal conclusion.
We live in a country in which a minority denomination within Christianity is privileged as an established religion, with the head of state acting as its supreme governor, and places reserved in the legislature for its representatives. So long as these arrangements stay in place, the contention that secularism dominates political life is laughable.
Moreover, acts of religious assertion have risen dramatically over the last decade. The numbers choosing to wear clothing that signifies particular religious affiliation has risen dramatically, for instance. Not that I have a problem with this. I mention it merely to counter the broad brush assertion that secularism is the only game in town.
Even if we admit that it is on the increase, the use of the adjective ‘militant’ is pure hyperbole. Secularism is not, for instance, enforced at the point of a gun. Nor is the labour movement balloting workers on indefinite all-out strike action is support of the right to blaspheme.
Although Baroness Warsi does not mention it as such, much has been made of the well-publicised recent court case bought by the National Secular Society against Bideford Town Council, which debars it from holding prayers before meetings.
Contrast the resort to legal action with the violent mass pickets that forced the closure of a play deemed offensive to the Sikh faith in Birmingham a few years back. Some might deservedly call that ‘militant religiousity’. Care to comment, Baroness?
Most risible of all is the idea that the instincts of secularists are intolerant and essentially similar to those of totalitarianism. To come up with arrant nonsense like that on the day she pays a state visit to the Vatican is particularly outrageous.
Or perhaps Baroness Warsi is just unaware of such regimes as Franco’s Spain, Tiso’s Slovakia or Pavelic’s Croatia, which had no difficulty in combining elements of fascism and Catholicism, while sometimes murdering and repressing adherents of other faiths?
Secularism is the correct sense of the word is tolerant by its nature. The separation of church (or mosque, or synagogue) and state is the precondition for the maximum exercise of religious freedom and the minimisation of tension in a multicultural society.
That governments should neither encourage or discourage religious belief is a point that should appeal to the thinking believer and the atheist alike.
<<Go back
Comments
148 Responses to “Secularism: the best defence of religious freedom”
Leave a Reply
Firstly, much of Newtons theory was subsequently disproven! But lets leave that aside shall we!
Why didn’t the social chauvinists of their day (the early Sensibles lets call them) use Darwins theory and not Newtons. Well, probably because the field of research of Darwinism was biological development, i.e. directly relevant to how humans developed and Newton dealt with general physical laws, how planets formed, moved etc, i.e. at best indirectly related to humans. So the theory could more easlity be directly applied to human society and because Darwins theory was borne out of the political economy, particularly Malthus, it wasn’t a greap leap to the Social Darwinist conclusions.
Ok, some reactionaries have used Newtons theory to argue that order is the law of the universe, those type of arguments but this brings us to another difference. Darwin is dealing with a whole host of variables that have not yet been fully proven, we don’t even know how life began, all we have are meta theories, whereas physical laws are more testable and have less variables.
That socialist sensibles are unaware of say the controversy around scientist Steven Pinkers blank state or statements from scientists like Daniel Koshland, who says “the homeless are impaired…. Indeed, no group will benefit more from the application of human genetics.”. Maybe socialist sensibles try to seperate scientists from science?
Socialists should defend science but from a critical point of view. Any argument to the contrary is simply ridiculous or maybe just sensible!
It is amusing how people like DFTM or Ellis redefined the debate in *their* own terms, rather than honestly dealing with the issue of secularism.
They obviously feel uncomfortable dealing with the issues surrounding secularism and its wider implications.
divi from the moon is an intellectual heavyweight whose opinions …nay … sermons of infinite knowledge, should be inscribed on tablets that will forever last. truly, he is a figure of man that we so rarely encounter.
Mod,
I couldn’t have been clearer in my first comment. It is your problem if a) you disagree with it or b) you fail to understand it.
Actually I only opened my first comment with the line “Socialists have to argue for science against superstition but must be critical supporters of the former.” so the sensibles could be in no doubt where my sympathies are and couldn’t scream pro clerical fascist at me or other such sensible insults. I never thought for a moment that the sensibles would jump on this! Just goes to show, with sensibles you can’t take anything for granted.
Oh, and another thing, where exactly has Modernity contributed to this debate? I must have missed that. As the song says, he talks a lot but he ain’t saying anything!
Jelly,
sarcism fuck is of lowest off the now wit form.
To the mouse no beast is stronger than the cat.
Does Man Think With The Help of the Brain?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/one5.htm
I dunno — I will ask my pitbull while he is having a shite.
divvi from mOON. such a retin.
really. cretin divvi from moon is own werst enemy. keep on postinG yer drivel. it is hilarious stuff.
Oh look, Lenin critiquing Pearson’s Grammar of Science!
I wonder if a united left is possible. Galloway, Jelly and Deviation etc etc etc. Naw, thank fuck for that.
Meanbot, are you part of Big Businesses campaign to de-legitimize science, especially the energy corporations? I mean, your keeen on the Arabs, and we all know that the only thing they have to sell is oil, therefore, if scientists can show global warming is taking place, then the next step is to develop alternative energy sources, thus depriving the Arabs of their ealth and power in the world. Who you working for? Amramco? Shell? Texaco?
Firstly, much of Newtons theory was subsequently disproven! But lets leave that aside shall we!
The fact that you are a semi-literate ignoramous should never be left aside, even for a moment. Newtonian physics has not be ‘disproven’ you arse. Einstein does not negate Newton and nor does Quantum Mechanics negate the others. They are concerned with different things: Newtonian physics works at the ‘human’ everyday scale, while Quantum Theory is concerned with the very small and General Relativity with the very big.
The rest of your scrawl is utter gibberish — my cat could do better.
Pussy,
Ok, there were a number of errors in Newton’s theories that subsequent physicists corrected. Hopefully that wording will pass your exacting standards and satisfy your cat! Though as a sensible you will accept nothing anyone says who is outside the sensible pro war tent. Hence, we get the rather bizarre over-reaction to my statement “Socialists have to argue for science against superstition but must be critical supporters of the former.” Which was so nicely illustrated by Lenin’s critique of Pearson’s Grammar of Science!. It is quite laughable to witness the hysterical reaction to such an innocuous statement!
Sewer,
Am I really supposed to respond to your utter drivel?
DTFM,
Newton was simply chosen as an alternative scientist with a famous theory which cannot be meaningfully applied to social dynamics (although people being as stupid as they are no doubt someone somewhere will have had a go).
That Darwinists debate about the detailed application of Darwin’s original hypothesis only ‘disproves’ that hypothesis if you have no understanding whatsoever of the logic of scientific discovery.
To put Newton and Einstein and the Quantum physicists in a context that might cause you less difficulty does Marx ‘disprove’ the core insights of Smith and Ricardo?
AFAICT he never argued that and instead regarded himself as adding to and completing the edifice of political economy for which they laid the foundations.
Kautsky, Hilferding, Luxemburg, Lenin, Bukharin, Kondratiev etc (I’d be hard put to name any more recent Marxist economists of equivalent importance – which is arguably our key problem as we are still battling 21st century capitalism with weapons forged in the early 20th) then made further additions and revisions.
This is precisely how Einstein regarded Newton – and Bohr, Heisenberg etc regarded Einstein.
Rubbish Roger, utter crap. Marx makes endless references in all his economic texts on the errors of Ricardo and Smith. He even mentions how the Ricardian school fell on the incorrect definition of labour that created value. He rightly acknowledged their contributions and defended them where necessary but he was highly critical of both. He was also not shy in exposing the ideological bias in their scientific theories.
Infact this nicely illustrates my simple statement that “Socialists have to argue for science against superstition but must be critical supporters of the former.”
I echo Faster Pussycat Miaow Miaow Miaow’s comments.
It is fairly obvious to regular readers that DFTM is a mouthy know nothing.
DFTM seems to know next to nothing about politics, isn’t much of an antiracist, can’t read too well or follow the topic, he knows even less about secularism and the issues pertaining to it.
His is the outlook of a one time member of a sect, limited, yet supremely arrogant. Detached, but always willing to talk about the world that he doesn’t even know.
DFTM’s narrow and parochial mentality suggests he would be happier in his natural home, the Tory party.
Hey Ghost. Not all Tories are bad. Churchill for instance. While the left and right were all for appeasement he read the Nazi book. Thatcher was obviously OK AND AN AWARD WINNER.
The Meanbot is a rather callow youth who hasn’t got a clue, but does have a Manichean view of society. Everything is black and white, no subtlety in his thought. I also suspect that he is a ‘person of faith’, desprately trying to salvage what he can of that faith. He needs to read up a bit moer on the topics he spouts off about. it’s all very well callng my comments drivel, but I fancy it is because they are too deep and profound for him to grasp.
@D.Mean
You go on about ‘sensible’ this and ‘sensible pro war tent’ that. These expressions may mean something to you but the assertion that you have a very narrow parochial outlook on life seems to be accurate.
@Roger
Newton was simply chosen as an alternative scientist with a famous theory which cannot be meaningfully applied to social dynamics (although people being as stupid as they are no doubt someone somewhere will have had a go).
Is Newton’s law of universal gravitation a sexed equation? Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the force of gravity over other forces that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged that which falls down.
Will that do?
Could someone provide a gloss or translation on the Meanbot’s last remark. What is a ‘sexed equation’? I think I can divine a maning in the last clause of the last sentence. Which equation are we talking about? The volume of a sphere? The equation to make household soap?
If the Sewer Rat is asking about ‘sexed equations’ 1. it wasn’t Meanbot and 2. it is a joke.
Ooop! That’s what comes of wrestling with the cat while you’re trying to read the screen.
Modernity,
“I echo Faster Pussycat Miaow Miaow Miaow’s comments.”
That is because he shares your pro war politics, is part of the same pro imperialist camp as you, simple as that. The fact you echo his comments means nothing, pure and simple. In fact your comments are no better than Sewer’s. Sorry but that is a fact.
But at least we now know what to put in the sensible handbook on science:
“Sensibles should support science uncritically and take as an absolute truth anything said in its name, and we should have no part in any scientific debate because debate is not for science because sceince is a subject of the absolute truth and therefore debate is an oxymoron when it comes to science”
under scientists the sensibles would put:
“For sensibles scientists are always correct and never wrong. They don’t make errors but just omit stuff. So the task is not to point out errors but simply to build on what they have already gifted to the world”
Also, Sewer, am I really expected to respond to your utter drivel?
Meanbot: No, you ain’t. However, I did indicate above an example of howd Big Oil companies try to de-legitimize science. So, which company are you working for?
Big oil companies make science, they don’t just delegitimise it. This is another good example of why my simple, innocuous comment is correct,
“Socialists have to argue for science against superstition but must be critical supporters of the former.”
The fact that all the sensibles have reacted so strongly to this comment means obviously you lot believe we should just accept whatever science says (oil companies and all). So Sewer, which oil company do you work for?
D.Mean is delusional as well as ignorant and sexist. Pointing out to him that Newtonian physics is not ‘negated’ by Einstein, nor is Einstein ‘negated’ by quantum mechanics means I have ‘pro war politics’ and am part of a ‘pro imperialist camp’. Sorry, I’m a boring engineer (and contrary to D.Mean’s all too revealing assumptions, not everyone who does physics has a Y chromosome) and boring engineers require testing to validate hypotheses. Where is D.Ream’s evidence?
There is none as he making it up as he goes along and arguing in bad faith. Conclusion: he is lying scum and a scab.
And no-one has yet bothered to define ‘sensible’. Nevermind, you lot go on talking in your cozy little British-only club.
Pussy,
I am aware of your pro war politics from your other contributions on the magnificent interweb, so my refernce to it has nothing to do with your irrelevant posturing re Einstein negating Newton.
The point is you sensibles (a term devised because sensibles regard everyone else as idiots, therefore they must be sensible) have taken great umbridge at my simple and innocuous statement,
“Socialists have to argue for science against superstition but must be critical supporters of the former.”
as if it is some great refutaion of reason!
The funny thing is you have all given me perfect example to back up this simple and innocuous statement,
You yourself Pussy linked to Lenin’s critique of Pearsons Grammar of Science!
Roger brought up Smith and Ricardo who Marx both criticised and defended, giving me a direct example of my simple and innocuous statement
And Sewer provided the example of oil companies influence on Science, and highlighted that vested interest sometimes drives science.
So while you sensibles all scream in hysterics at my simple and innocuous staement you at the same time all provide perfect examples of its validity. That would be a nice definition of sensible to stick on your notepad!
Arsehole,
What the fuck are you talking about?
I am aware of your pro war politics from your other contributions on the magnificent interweb
What the fuck are you talking about?
You yourself Pussy linked to Lenin’s critique of Pearsons Grammar of Science!
I mean really what the fuck are you on about? I didn’t link to anything you lying scab.
It really is impossible. You make stuff up. You argue in bad faith. You invent categories of people. You are a lying scab.
I always assumed you and Jelly were one and the same? Even if you are not, you find commonality with the pro war left and leap to their defence, back their corner etc. This is ample evidence of your political leanings.
It doesn’t matter either way, the sensibles (including you) have all attacked my simple and innocuous statement and have provided perfect examples of its validity! Classic sensiblism.
The only explanation of this hysterical reaction to my simple and innocuous statement, where all the sensibles have joined forces to knock it down (only to provide evidence to support it!) is that you sensibles put your pro imperialist, pro war politics above rational argument. You are blinded by your own beliefs. Not the best defenders of secular reason if you ask me!
Look, you wanker, your ‘statement’ is imcomprehensible, that is what is causing the problem. What exactly does it mean ‘Socialists must argue for science against superstition, but be critical supporters of the former’? It doesn’t mean a fucking thing and you know it because you are an ingroramus who is only here to insult your olders and betters. What is superstition? What aspects of science must socialists argue in favour of? What is critical support for science? Are we talking methodology, epistemology or method? You can’t answer of debate because you don’t know, you merely want to show off. If you can’t tell the difference between Jelly’s stream of consciousness ravings and Faster Pussycats well reasoned posts then you are an even bigger fool than everyone already thought you were.
divvi frerm moon scab and a moRaN.atom bomb his hoouwse and he can then be ‘critical’ of theoretiical physiks. until then he needs to shut his thick stupid fuckking trap and fuck off.
D.Mean, you wouldn’t know reason if it bit you on the arse!
I always assumed you and Jelly were one and the same
I suppose relying on unfounded assumptions saves valuable CPU cycles for breathing. If you had a actual thought you would suffocate.
you find commonality with the pro war left and leap to their defence, back their corner etc
Evidence? You have none. You are a lying scab. You have shown yourself up as an unthinking idiot who argues in bad faith. I haven’t joined forces with anyone, merely pointed out your arsewash splattered all over the place.
“People for the most part (99 percent of the bourgeoisie, 98 percent of the liquidators, about 60‑70 percent of the Bolsheviks) don’t know how to think, they only learn words by heart.”
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XZRARTuw5S8C&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=%E2%80%9CPeople+for+the+most+part+%2899+percent+of+the+bourgeoisie,+98+percent+of+the+liquidators,+about+60%E2%80%9170+percent+of+the+Bolsheviks%29+don%E2%80%99t+know+how+to+think,+they+only+learn+words+by+heart.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=eodtyQbF8G&sig=v4rrXzRwyK6QEmwMsV_fFDJdJ9k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6u9ET9M95LyIB8vkkc8G&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CPeople%20for%20the%20most%20part%20%2899%20percent%20of%20the%20bourgeoisie%2C%2098%20percent%20of%20the%20liquidators%2C%20about%2060%E2%80%9170%20percent%20of%20the%20Bolsheviks%29%20don%E2%80%99t%20know%20how%20to%20think%2C%20they%20only%20learn%20words%20by%20heart.%E2%80%9D&f=false
I’ve just had an absolutely brilliant idea!!!! I know how to encourage ‘faith’ in our society and also reform the NHS. I’ve jsut watched a programme about Catholic Relics: relics possessed of supernatura powers among which are the power to make the blind see and the lame walk. There are plenty of such relics in the world, thre are three Spears of Destiny alone, and hundreds of splinters from the True Cross, so there is more than enough to go round. The Government could also tanker in Holy Water from Lourdes and that spring in Portugal where the Blessed Viring Mary appeared. The marvellous thing is you don’t need to believe, so it’s totally non-denominational. Despite science showing that these are medieval fakes, they still work!!!!! But, hey, we need to be critical of science. It would save billions. I don’t know why no-one’s thought of it before. It will meet all the Government’s social objectives. Other reliions could contribute their spells and jujus if they are uneasy about using Christian derived magic.
Note to the sensibles:
As I explained earlier
“Actually I only opened my first comment with the line “Socialists have to argue for science against superstition but must be critical supporters of the former.” so the sensibles could be in no doubt where my sympathies are and couldn’t scream pro clerical fascist at me or other such sensible insults. I never thought for a moment that the sensibles would jump on this! Just goes to show, with sensibles you can’t take anything for granted.”
Non sensibles can look at my first comment again to see this is clear. As for what this all means I have explained and your perfect examples illustrate exactly what I mean. To repeat your perfect examples of my simple and innocuous statement which have turned you hysterical are:
Jelly/Pussy linked to Lenin’s critique of Pearsons Grammar of Science!
Roger brought up Smith and Ricardo who Marx both criticised and defended, giving me a direct example of my simple and innocuous statement
And Sewer provided the example of oil companies influence on Science, and highlighted that vested interest sometimes drives science.
Note well sensibles, my simple and innocuous statement does not mean that socialists support religious fundamentalists and cast aside all scientific knowledge. I know in the world of sensible this is very hard to understand, but please at least try!
Incidentally Sewer within you hysterical rant you failed to mention which oil company you work for.
Now can we put this to bed and talk about Tory plans to withdraw bus passes from the elderly?
Once again D.Mean repeats his bare-faced lies. I did not provide a link to anything, not even Materialism and Empiriocriticism. D.Mean is also unable to provide evidence for the baseless slurs and calumnies he levelled against me (‘pro war’, ‘pro imperialist’). The only possible conclusion is that he is not only a bare-faced shameless liar, but a scab as well.
He tops it all off by saying that he is going to defend bus passes for the elderly by typing something on a blog. It wouldn’t do to leave his ‘rooms’, his housemaster might take away his Xbox.
“He tops it all off by saying that he is going to defend bus passes for the elderly by typing something on a blog.”
Mmmmmm, did I really say that? Or did I say let us leave this idiotic exchange and talk about something more important (like bus passes or maybe Workfare – see the latest Osler article). Now if you think all web talk is irrelevant (and you may be correct) then why don’t you fuck off the political blogs and watch some porn or something? By saying typing something on a blog is irrelevant and worthless how fucking stupid are you to then go ahead and do it!!!! Classic sensiblism!
The reason I call you pro war and pro imperialist is because you identify and support those socialists that were favourable to the Iraq war etc and argue against those who sensibles call idiot anti imperialists. You idenitify with the AWL stalinists. This is proof emough that you are pro war and pro imperialist.
It doesn’t really matter if you are not Jelly and that you didn’t link to the Lenin article. It does not alter the fact that the sensibles are in hysterics over my simple and innocuous statement, while at the same time supplying me with great examples that support my simple and innocuous statement. You have to admit that is priceless, that is classic sensiblism!
Materialism and Empiriocriticism.
Now there’s a blast from the past.
As I understand it Lenin took time off to work to ‘refute’ the arguments of whoever those empiricists were. Pity he did it so badly, but then why wouldn’t he? He was not competent in philosophy, just fighting a political battle.
A poor philosopher arguing against poor philosophers, an education for nobody. (Unless you think engaging with any old ideas at all constitutes an education.)
I believe Gerry Healy thought he was a real ‘philosopher’. As we all know he was self-deluded and it was just a cheap way of trying to win political battles by pretending (to yourself as well) that you have a more sophisticated understanding of the world.
(As an aside, I think Healy was a wannabee Professor, and embittered by the fact that others around him were genuine academics.)
Not an unusual way of thinking for the permanent leadership of political grouplets. Unfortunately those who model themselves on Lenin can’t claim any of his successes.
The political imbecile who wrote this:
“You idenitify with the AWL stalinists. This is proof emough that you are pro war and pro imperialist”…
The imbecile should learn to read, think, and then apologise to Pussycat and the AWL. The imbecile has got *everything* wrong – “stalinists”, “pro war”, etc, etc.
Of course, it’s just possible that s/he isn’t an imbecile at all. But simply a bare-faced liar.
D.Mean, you really are a mendacious little rodent aren’t you? You lie and when you are caught out in the lie, you repeat it and then say it doesn’t matter whether it is true or not. The only idiot is you. And again the sexism — why don’t you fuck off the political blogs and watch some porn or something? Is that how you normally address middle-aged women?
You are gibbering again. Spewing more of your lies. I do not ‘idenitify’ with the AWL or support them, although they appear to be neither pro war/pro imperialist nor Stalinist. As I said, you’re a mendacious little rodent.
It doesn’t really matter if you are not Jelly and that you didn’t link to the Lenin article
And you are accusing others of Stalinism?
(As an aside, I think Healy was a wannabee Professor, and embittered by the fact that others around him were genuine academics.)
Was that really so, or is that just academic snobbery? Just wondering is all.
Les. I met Healy mid seventies when he was in Glasgow agitating for strikes. I am sure he was with Corin Redgrave. He was a reasonable speaker and clearly a hard core Marxist. He certainly was no friend of the CP or SWP. There are a few middle class lefties on here that are clever with words but hardly philosophers.
Just wanted to pop in after a busy day to say I love this web space. Nightly I tell old ‘Sam’, I would not stand a chance of getting away with my japes if it were not for some of you here. We sleep so much better for it. Confident that whatever I do, I will never have to face the kind of bile and ridicule you toss at each other here.
Just wanted to say thanks ‘Comrades’. Oh and George want’s to say Hi too.
Hi David you old cardboard box. And best regards to your cucumber up the arse friend George. You all have the best interest of Britain in you.
i was a cuernt. always was a cuernt. always will be a cuernt
I liked it better when i went into that changing room in that there shop and came out as a caveman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh7nA1oYU9A
Just heard this one from old ‘Govey’ today. Does my head in. Chap he met said if you are good enough to mindlessly stack shelves all day you are good enough to be paid. What are we coming to? My binmen will expect a bloody pension next.
Andrew says hi and thanks. But can you please leave the old mad bugger alone. He’s only doing Doctors and Nurses because he never sussed his Chemistry Set!
(As an aside, I think Healy was a wannabee Professor, and embittered by the fact that others around him were genuine academics.)
A book of multiple volumes could be written on Gerry Healy’s many faults, but there are two things I do believe he did well. First he built a movement based on working class youth, previously done by both Labour and the CP in the 1930s. Second he scared the shit out of middle class revolutionaries, both inside and outside his own party. Shame he ended up getting everything else so wrong.