Letters to Express & Echo re secularism. August 2008

This correspondence was inspired by Mrs Bull's letter claiming that "Britain is not a secular democracy". Her arguments are similar to those put forward by Bishop Michael Nazir Ali in a Radio 4 interview. These views are challenged by the Humanist Philosphers' Group in the booklet The Case for Secularism: a neutral state in an open society (available from the British Humanist Association; read review 1 and review 2).

The Bishop argues that because Christianity has historically been the dominant culture, our society is essentially, and must remain, a Christian society. That does not follow. He argues that Christianity can and should provide the best basis for an inclusive society. That is the claim we want to contest. We shall argue that an inclusive society is, in the sense to be defined, a secular society. … With universal education, people think for themselves about whether to accept any system of religious belief, rather than inheriting it unquestioningly from their parents and their culture. A large portion, perhaps even a majority, of the population have no religious belief, and certainly a large majority have no commitment to religious practise or observance. How can such a society elicit the free and willing cooperation of its members, without excluding or marginalising any section of society? The obvious answer is that it should be neutral as between different faiths and beliefs. And that is what we mean by a 'secular' society.

Peter Astwood replied to Mrs Bull arguing that a secular state is best for an open society.

Britain is not a secular democracy

23:00 - 28-July-2008

WITHIN the space of a few days, I have heard three people on Radio 4 state that Britain is a "secular democracy".

This is not the case.

Britain is a constitutional monarchy and officially and legally a Christian country.

We have an established religion, Protestant Christianity and an established church, the Church of England, by Act of Parliament.

Every inch of English soil is part of a Church of England parish, with a Church of England church at its centre, and an ordained minister of the Church of England living in the parish whose task, legally placed on him or her is to "care for the souls of the parish", and who has the legal right of access to every home in the parish for pastoral duties. How secular is that?

Our head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, was crowned Queen in a coronation service, which is totally Christian in context and takes place within the context of the Anglican service of Holy Communion.

By law, the monarch must be a Protestant. Look up the text of the coronation service and you will see that our laws are based on God's laws; the bible is one of the "instruments" of our constitution; and the monarch (and therefore her Government, since we are governed by "the sovereign in Parliament") is required to promise on oath to maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel and to preserve the settlement of the Church of England. How secular is that?

Being a Christian nation, we believe very strongly in freedom; we therefore practise religious toleration, which allows people of other faiths to practice their religions here, provided that their practices do not harm our people. This is the only sense in which we may call ourselves "multi-faith" or "multi-cultural".

But when these words are used, the fact that we are a Christian nation should always be stated, otherwise people will be either misled or confused.

It has recently been observed that "multi-cultural/multi-faith" actions lead to the ghetto-ising of minority religions – the very reverse of what was piously hoped for by the secularists.

Mrs A D Bull, Linden Grove, Linthorpe, Middlesbrough

Secular state best for open society

23:00 - 30-July-2008

I WAS interested to read Mrs Bull's views on secularism, Points of view, July 28. I agree that we do not live in a secular democracy but as a humanist I think we ought to.

A secular state would be neither atheistic nor theistic but religiously neutral. It would protect the rights of all citizens to hold beliefs, religious or non-religious, and protect their right to practice a religion.

In a secular state, no religion or belief would have any special preference. For example, the 26 bishops in our Upper House would no longer be there as a right. State-funded education would be secular, with religions and beliefs taught in an open and inquiring way.

Secular laws would have precedence over religious laws. Freedom of expression would be protected.

A secular state would not be anti-religious but would lead to an open society.

Peter Astwood, Exeter (by email)

Cult of self at root of society problems

23:00 - 04-August-2008

PETER Astwood, writing as a humanist, calls for a state that is religiously neutral, Secular state best for open society, Points of view, July 30, but this is a contradiction in terms as presumably he wants a state that reflects his own religion of humanism.

So is humanism really a religion? Charles Francis Potter, a signatory of the first Humanist Manifesto, wrote a book in 1930 called Humanism: a New Religion, while the 1980 preface to the Humanist Manifestos 1 and 2 says: "Humanism is a philosophical, religious and moral point of view".

Moreover, humanism is certainly the oldest rebellion against the Creator. Where the gospel reveals that we can't save ourselves, humanism preaches the old lie of Babel: "Come, let us... make a name for ourselves" (Genesis 11:14). This cult of the self is at the root of all society's problems.

The whole of our law and morality is based firmly on the 10 commandments in the Bible, and once these become sidelined then morality – what is right and wrong – becomes simply a matter of opinion, with the devastating social and family breakdown that we see all around us.

Humanists always say that they want an open and neutral society, but what they really mean is that they want to eradicate all traces of our Judeo-Christian heritage and replace it with their own religion of humanism. This is clearly what Mr Astwood means when he says: "Secular laws would have precedence over religious laws."

The truth is, however, that it is the 10 Commandments, and not humanism, that form the best basis for law and morality in any society.

Paul Drewett, Powderham Crescent, Exeter (by post)

Mutual tolerance and respect needed

23:00 - 07-August-2008

IN a multi-cultural society, all religions and beliefs ought to be protected but none should have any special privilege. This is the basis of a religiously-neutral secular state.

Regardless of what Paul Drewett may say, Points of view August 4, humanists have no wish "to eradicate all traces of our Judeo-Christian heritage" but to offer an alternative for people who are not religious.

The British Humanist Association trains celebrants to conduct non-religious baby namings, weddings and funerals. There is a team of celebrants working in Devon.

To quote the humanist AJ Ayer: "The only possible basis for sound morality is mutual tolerance and respect, tolerance of one another's customs and opinions, respect for another's rights and feelings, awareness of another's needs."

To find out more about humanism, visit the website www.devonhumanists.org.uk.

Peter Astwood, Exeter (by email)

More causes for Humanist support

23:00 - 09-August-2008

I WAS interested to learn from Peter Astwood, Points of view, August 7, that humanists believe in "tolerance of one another's customs and opinions, respect for another's rights and feelings, awareness of another's needs".

Presumably, we can therefore look forward to the support of the British Humanist Association for Intelligent Design being taught alongside the theory of evolution in schools; to its support for the human rights of Lillian Ladele, the Christian registrar who declined to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies; to its firm stand for the rights of unborn children; and to its opposition to compulsory sex education as being proposed currently by the Government.

Stephen Owen, Broadmead, Woodbury

Comment on Stephen Owen's letter

11-Aug-2008 15:45

Humanists don't have a central authority which decides on what opinions to hold or an ancient book which holds the truth. Humanists are what used to be called freethinkers, and so they tend to be individualists. Therefore, I can't speak for Humanists, only what I believe myself. Certainly all views should be heard. Humanists believe in tolerance of peoples opinions, but we don't have to agree with them and support their propagation. Consequently, I would disagree with Stephen's political and moral stance.

By all means inform students that there is a theory - unsupported by any evidence and imported from evangelical Christians in the United States - called Intelligent Design. However, it should be taught as part of an understanding of Comparative Religions, and not have a place in a Science curriculum. The Christian registrar who declined to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies has a right to hold hostile views about gay people, yet I don't want her to be paid to discriminate out of my taxes. I don't think anyone views abortion as a good thing, I just believe that, ultimately, it's a women's right to choose what course of action to take. Indeed, the sex education of children is perhaps a good way to lower the number of abortions currently being performed.

39% of people say they believe in God, with 6% of the population attending church. Meanwhile, 36% of us say we are atheists and 25% are agnostic. I'm not against religion, I just believe that we should have government - both national and local - that does not give one unelected group of people more rights than any other. So, as a Humanist, I say let's acknowledge that we may have different views, that none of us have a monopoly of the truth, and debate our political opinions and solutions in an open and unbiased way.

Kevin, Torre