Does the Secular Movement have an anti-religious agenda? Since the engine of the movement is primarily lead by atheists one can forgive the religious amongst us to be wary of a group that is as fundamentally different in outlook as to be entirely from a different planet. However, they are mistaken in convoluting the atheists and the secular.
The religious make the mistake of thinking that the Secular Movement is another religious view and is aimed as an attack at the very core of their world view. They think that Secular Humanism seek to replace all religion in public life and impose itself as the one and only true faith. It is understandable why they think that given the nature of religious belief itself.
The very nature of religious belief is all encompassing and absolute. If you choose to believe the doctrines of one faith, they would like to insist that it is a take-it-all-or-leave-it affair. One must adopt all the doctrines of faith if one is to claim to be of such persuasion. There is no room for compromise.
The reality of course is different. Modern life poses innumerable challenge to the faithful in terms maintaining doctrinal purity. As usual with human ingenuity, the religious (not the religion, mind you) develops a behavioral pattern so delicately flexible that it would be of envy to any Olympic gymnast. The late Christopher Hitchens, in an inspired bout of sardonic wit, used the term “religion a la carte” to describe this notion of religiosity.
So the majority of people lead their lives in a semi-pious state and can look themselves in the mirror without feeling guilty. The churches they belong to may have horrendous theological views but they are not really serious about it. Most people attend church once and week and glaze over the more intransigent opinions espoused by their faith.
So why attack them? Why, in the name of all that is good, can’t secularists and atheists leave matters well alone?
Well, this may come as a surprise to the likes of Baroness Warsi and her ilk, but atheists and secularists are not trying to destroy religion. It is not about the Secular Humanist movement having the same status as any other faith either. It is not about tolerating each other’s eccentric worldviews in a multi-cultural environment.
What the Secular Humanist movement wants is more fundamental in nature. Matters involving public affairs apply to everyone in society. Therefore only ideas that can survive empirical examination should be given due consideration. It is all very well to suggest that prayer, holy water, crystals or even animal sacrifice could protect a child from polio. However, the tried and true method is through vaccination that has been achieved through scientific experiments. We could use the religious prescriptions in terms of public health, education and building infrastructure (the Bible does tell us that the value of π (pi) is 3.0) but the end result (as seen in the last two millennia, if not the last ten) is disastrous. We are much better off sticking to the scientific method in solving problems in matters of public affairs.
However, that does not mean that religious opinion faces mandatory banishment from the public square. Everyone is welcome to bring their religious viewpoint into the public discourse. However, such opinions are no longer given special protection. They are fair game in terms of empirical evaluation and must compete with other ideas in terms of efficacy. If they fail, they must, as is the case in the Scientific Method, be discarded.
This is a great act of liberation for religions. All of them are to be treated equally and they must compete with each other and non-religious ideas. Whichever turns out to be correct in empirical terms, prevails.
In the Liberal school of thought there are many who are loathe to criticize the religious, feeling that such attacks are unwarranted. People should not be pilloried for their faith. I happen to agree that people should not be unfairly singled out for the opinions espoused by their faith. However, whenever the odious principles of faith itself are examined, these Liberal thinkers point out that most people are not interested in doctrines; they don’t take them seriously and just want to lead their lives in peace.
If that is true, then criticism of the doctrinal nature of faith itself should not be a problem for the faithful, right? After all, the average church/mosque goer hardly notices the contradictions that they hold in their lives. Pointing them out surely would do no harm but act as more informative form of public service.
Secular Humanist movement simply wants to remove the special status that religious superstition have in public life. Societies all over the world are held hostage by these faith doctrines that are not open to challenge and hamper public debate by limiting its scope. If religion can be challenged and asked the question, “Where’s the evidence for your position?” when they come up with doctrinal prescription that applies to everyone in society, it can only be an improvement. All it would lead to is more debate and discussion. The only rule would be that no one can hide behind the phrase: “It is my faith, my holy book tells me so and that’s the end of the discussion.”
No society has been harmed by more debate. When discourse is limited by appeals to authority (natural or supernatural), immense harm can result. The examples from societies that live under the yoke of theocracy are too numerous to mention here.
So the religious face the question: who do you trust to defend your right to practice your faith? A religious environment where the dominant faith would seek to frame public discourse in favor of its own doctrines; or a secular environment where all religions are given the same status i.e. no special privileges at all?
How would the religious react to this proposition? Will they be enthusiastic?
I will not hold my breath.
