Prof Roger Trigg and I had a debate about whether Britain is too secular now last Easter at the Ox Lit Festival (a CFI event). Trigg has since produced a report for the think tank THEOS that takes much the same line as he took in the debate and his earlier book. He says there has been a silent downgrading of religious rights in Britain. His conclusion is religious beliefs are special and do deserve special privileges and protections - which are currently being eroded with potentially dangerous consequences. Go here.
Several of Trigg's arguments are explicitly discussed in an early draft of the secularism chapter of my forthcoming Very Short Introduction to Humanism (OUP 2010) available here.
Showing posts with label secular society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label secular society. Show all posts
The "Gagging Christians" Xmas competition
Thursday, December 10, 2009
We are often told that "secularists" want to prevent religious point of view being expressed in the public sphere, or religious arguments being used in public debate. I recently commented on Jonathan Chaplin's claim that:
Many secular humanists argue as if faith-based ideas should play no role in democratic discourse
What secularists do want is a level-playing field, so that religious points of view are not given a privileged role by the state and/or public institutions.
So secularists are typically against, for example, the state insisting every state-funded school should have an act of collective worship "of a broadly Christian nature", automatic allocation of 26 seats in the House of Lords to those of a particular faith, state funding for religious schools (that discriminate against pupils and employees based on faith), but not, say humanist schools. Yet all these privileges currently exist.
They also object to, e.g. state protection of the right to wear religious symbols at work, when other symbols, such as those indicating political party allegiance, are banned, and e.g. making religious people or organizations exempt from equal opportunities legislation regarding homosexuals. Yet this special status is regularly argued for.
The vast majority of secularists simply want a religiously neutral state. They want the state to protect equally the right of individuals to express religious and non-religious points of view, etc.
The main dispute re "secularism" is, in reality, between secularists wanting a level playing field (with no privilege for religious or atheist points of view), and some religious folk (by no means all) wanting to maintain, and indeed add to, existing privileges for religious points of view.
Nevertheless, some Christians (as I say, not all: I am not making a general anti-religious point here) see themselves as being "persecuted" and "under attack" by the forces of secularism, because secularists make these points. Indeed, some claim (and others at least leave themselves open to be interpreted as claiming that) many secularists think Christians should be "gagged" and Christian points of view entirely removed from public debate.
This, it seems to me, is simply paranoia (and indeed the erecting of a "straw man"). Even some Christians think it's paranoia. If you think it is not paranoia, can you identify, say, even just five self-identified secularist pundits, etc. in the UK who hold and have clearly and unambiguously expressed the view that religious people should not be allowed to express their religious views in public debate?
Maybe they exist. But I can't think of any. Be interested to find some examples. Prove me wrong.
The prize is a signed copy of Really, Really Big Questions (by myself). Please bring this competition to the attention of your anti-secular friends and colleagues.
POST SCRIPT: Three examples of public figures claiming Christian views are threatened with, or are, being silenced in public debate:
Jonathan Chaplin (again): Many secular humanists argue as if faith-based ideas should play no role in democratic discourse."
Rev George Hargreaves: “A hostile non-Christian liberal elite now dominates all the main political parties and want to destroy what is left of our Christian culture and legacy. They pay lip service to wanting churches to take an active role in community life, and yet, as soon as any Christian says publicly what motivates and focuses their service to others, they are gagged for fear of offending someone." Source.
Roger Trigg: ...There is no hiding from the fact that some of the deepest disagreements , such as those about abortion and euthanasia, can be traced back to religious differences, and the question remains whether they can be mentioned in a debate". (p36 Religion and Public life)
Also, Don Scott's comment on the preceding post on this topic:
"Yes, at the moment it is not illegal to be Christian and politically outspoken but you will denounced as a "fascist" or a "theocrat" for doing so and forced out of public debate."
Some other assorted "Christians gagged" claims:
http://www.trinity-edu.com/page.html?id=47
http://rodneyshaw.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/gagged-by-silence/
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-444637.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5066075/Council-worker-suspended-for-suggesting-terminally-ill-woman-put-her-faith-in-God..html
Many secular humanists argue as if faith-based ideas should play no role in democratic discourse
What secularists do want is a level-playing field, so that religious points of view are not given a privileged role by the state and/or public institutions.
So secularists are typically against, for example, the state insisting every state-funded school should have an act of collective worship "of a broadly Christian nature", automatic allocation of 26 seats in the House of Lords to those of a particular faith, state funding for religious schools (that discriminate against pupils and employees based on faith), but not, say humanist schools. Yet all these privileges currently exist.
They also object to, e.g. state protection of the right to wear religious symbols at work, when other symbols, such as those indicating political party allegiance, are banned, and e.g. making religious people or organizations exempt from equal opportunities legislation regarding homosexuals. Yet this special status is regularly argued for.
The vast majority of secularists simply want a religiously neutral state. They want the state to protect equally the right of individuals to express religious and non-religious points of view, etc.
The main dispute re "secularism" is, in reality, between secularists wanting a level playing field (with no privilege for religious or atheist points of view), and some religious folk (by no means all) wanting to maintain, and indeed add to, existing privileges for religious points of view.
Nevertheless, some Christians (as I say, not all: I am not making a general anti-religious point here) see themselves as being "persecuted" and "under attack" by the forces of secularism, because secularists make these points. Indeed, some claim (and others at least leave themselves open to be interpreted as claiming that) many secularists think Christians should be "gagged" and Christian points of view entirely removed from public debate.
This, it seems to me, is simply paranoia (and indeed the erecting of a "straw man"). Even some Christians think it's paranoia. If you think it is not paranoia, can you identify, say, even just five self-identified secularist pundits, etc. in the UK who hold and have clearly and unambiguously expressed the view that religious people should not be allowed to express their religious views in public debate?
Maybe they exist. But I can't think of any. Be interested to find some examples. Prove me wrong.
The prize is a signed copy of Really, Really Big Questions (by myself). Please bring this competition to the attention of your anti-secular friends and colleagues.
POST SCRIPT: Three examples of public figures claiming Christian views are threatened with, or are, being silenced in public debate:
Jonathan Chaplin (again): Many secular humanists argue as if faith-based ideas should play no role in democratic discourse."
Rev George Hargreaves: “A hostile non-Christian liberal elite now dominates all the main political parties and want to destroy what is left of our Christian culture and legacy. They pay lip service to wanting churches to take an active role in community life, and yet, as soon as any Christian says publicly what motivates and focuses their service to others, they are gagged for fear of offending someone." Source.
Roger Trigg: ...There is no hiding from the fact that some of the deepest disagreements , such as those about abortion and euthanasia, can be traced back to religious differences, and the question remains whether they can be mentioned in a debate". (p36 Religion and Public life)
Also, Don Scott's comment on the preceding post on this topic:
"Yes, at the moment it is not illegal to be Christian and politically outspoken but you will denounced as a "fascist" or a "theocrat" for doing so and forced out of public debate."
Some other assorted "Christians gagged" claims:
http://www.trinity-edu.com/page.html?id=47
http://rodneyshaw.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/gagged-by-silence/
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-444637.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5066075/Council-worker-suspended-for-suggesting-terminally-ill-woman-put-her-faith-in-God..html
Jonathan Chaplin misses his secular target
Saturday, December 5, 2009
In today's Face to Faith in the Guardian, Jonathan Chaplin says:
Many secular humanists argue as if faith-based ideas should play no role in democratic discourse, religion should be privatized and the public square secularised. They make three main points. None of them stand up.
His piece is a very nice illustration of an ambiguity anti-secularists regularly play on, and which I've noted before.
I know of only two secular humanist thinkers that believe that the expression of religious points of view should not be permitted in the public sphere (say "God is great" in public, or give a religious justification for opposing abortion, and they think someone should immediately start shoving socks in your mouth). This is a tiny minority of secular humanists. It is certainly not the view of this country's main secular humanist organization: the BHA. Call this strong secularism.
On the other hand, pretty much every secular humanist believes that the state, and state-institutions, should be religiously neutral, favouring neither atheism nor theism. The state should protect equally the individual's right publicly to express religious and non-religious points of view. This is the view of the BHA. Call this weak secularism. Many religious people are weak secularists.
Now carefully read Chaplin quote above. Which form of secularism is he attacking - strong or weak? It's not terribly clear, is it? The expressions employed here: "religion privatized" and "public square secularized", could be interpreted in such as way as to fit either form of secularism (whenever you see these expressions, be wary!).
In fact Chaplin's arguments only work against strong secularism, yet he says that what he is attacking is the view of "many" secular humanists.
Chaplin's view is typical of a certain sort of a religious person. They constantly tell each other what secularists think. But they constantly get it wrong. Few secularists are strong secularists. Chaplin is attacking a straw man.
Chaplin is misrepresenting many weak secularists, caricaturing their position as that of strong secularism, which, in truth, hardly anyone holds (though Chaplin probably does not do this knowingly - like Roger Trigg and Andrew Brown, he has simply bought into, and is now perpetuating, a religious myth about what it is that most or many "secularists" believe).
POST SCRIPT: What most secularists actually want is a level playing field, where the state gives religious beliefs equal status alongside other moral, political and other beliefs, not a privileged status, as is the case now. Why should adding a religious dimension to someone's political beliefs mean that their schools get state funded, their Church gets seats in the House of Lords, their religious symbols get special protection, their discrimination against homosexuals, women, etc should be made exempt from equal opportunities etc. legislation? Because they have no good answer to these questions, anti-(weak)secularists rely on caricaturing and misrepresenting their opponents instead.
POST POST SCRIPT: Interestingly, I just discovered Chaplin understands the distinction made here very well, as he actually explains it in this piece. The kind of secularism Chaplin is opposed to, it turns out, is (i) where the State allies itself to e.g. atheism, or (ii) where the state, "while upholding private religious liberty...strives to keep the influence of religious faith out of public debate and public institutions". He says the National Secular Society takes the latter view. But I can't see where they commit themselves to this. The NSS charter and principles don't seem to commit them to it. Of course the NSS will try to limit religious influence by arguing against religious positions in public debate. But that is not to say it thinks the state should start stuffing socks in people's mouths if they give religious arguments in public debate. On the contrary: the NSS defends individual freedom of speech. So again, Chaplin seems off target (though to be fair the NSS's position is to some extent ambiguous - e.g. on one page Muriel Frazer does suggest religious individuals should be permitted to argue religiously, but religious organizations speaking for them is not on. Quite what this means in practice I am not sure).
Chaplin makes it clear he is a weak secularist, in fact. Perhaps, rather than attacking "many" secular humanists, he should say he endorses the secularism espoused by the British Humanist Association (he should read their leaflet on secularism).
Many secular humanists argue as if faith-based ideas should play no role in democratic discourse, religion should be privatized and the public square secularised. They make three main points. None of them stand up.
His piece is a very nice illustration of an ambiguity anti-secularists regularly play on, and which I've noted before.
I know of only two secular humanist thinkers that believe that the expression of religious points of view should not be permitted in the public sphere (say "God is great" in public, or give a religious justification for opposing abortion, and they think someone should immediately start shoving socks in your mouth). This is a tiny minority of secular humanists. It is certainly not the view of this country's main secular humanist organization: the BHA. Call this strong secularism.
On the other hand, pretty much every secular humanist believes that the state, and state-institutions, should be religiously neutral, favouring neither atheism nor theism. The state should protect equally the individual's right publicly to express religious and non-religious points of view. This is the view of the BHA. Call this weak secularism. Many religious people are weak secularists.
Now carefully read Chaplin quote above. Which form of secularism is he attacking - strong or weak? It's not terribly clear, is it? The expressions employed here: "religion privatized" and "public square secularized", could be interpreted in such as way as to fit either form of secularism (whenever you see these expressions, be wary!).
In fact Chaplin's arguments only work against strong secularism, yet he says that what he is attacking is the view of "many" secular humanists.
Chaplin's view is typical of a certain sort of a religious person. They constantly tell each other what secularists think. But they constantly get it wrong. Few secularists are strong secularists. Chaplin is attacking a straw man.
Chaplin is misrepresenting many weak secularists, caricaturing their position as that of strong secularism, which, in truth, hardly anyone holds (though Chaplin probably does not do this knowingly - like Roger Trigg and Andrew Brown, he has simply bought into, and is now perpetuating, a religious myth about what it is that most or many "secularists" believe).
POST SCRIPT: What most secularists actually want is a level playing field, where the state gives religious beliefs equal status alongside other moral, political and other beliefs, not a privileged status, as is the case now. Why should adding a religious dimension to someone's political beliefs mean that their schools get state funded, their Church gets seats in the House of Lords, their religious symbols get special protection, their discrimination against homosexuals, women, etc should be made exempt from equal opportunities etc. legislation? Because they have no good answer to these questions, anti-(weak)secularists rely on caricaturing and misrepresenting their opponents instead.
POST POST SCRIPT: Interestingly, I just discovered Chaplin understands the distinction made here very well, as he actually explains it in this piece. The kind of secularism Chaplin is opposed to, it turns out, is (i) where the State allies itself to e.g. atheism, or (ii) where the state, "while upholding private religious liberty...strives to keep the influence of religious faith out of public debate and public institutions". He says the National Secular Society takes the latter view. But I can't see where they commit themselves to this. The NSS charter and principles don't seem to commit them to it. Of course the NSS will try to limit religious influence by arguing against religious positions in public debate. But that is not to say it thinks the state should start stuffing socks in people's mouths if they give religious arguments in public debate. On the contrary: the NSS defends individual freedom of speech. So again, Chaplin seems off target (though to be fair the NSS's position is to some extent ambiguous - e.g. on one page Muriel Frazer does suggest religious individuals should be permitted to argue religiously, but religious organizations speaking for them is not on. Quite what this means in practice I am not sure).
Chaplin makes it clear he is a weak secularist, in fact. Perhaps, rather than attacking "many" secular humanists, he should say he endorses the secularism espoused by the British Humanist Association (he should read their leaflet on secularism).
A terrible justification for keeping TFTD exclusively religious
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The BBC Thought for The Day debate rumbles on. I notice that, according to an Ekklesia report, the BBC Trust defended the exclusively religious contribution to the TFTD programme against charges that this failed the test of 'due' impartiality on this ground:
“The requirement of ‘due’ impartiality means that the approach required depends on audience expectations” the BBC Trust report ruled. Since the audience expected a certain range of contributors, then the status quo was acceptable in the Trust's opinion. [Source here].
But of course, if this is the justification, it is terrible. Impartiality does not depend on audience expectations in this way.
Notice that, if it did, then a racist programme that excluded black contributors would qualify as 'impartial' if the audience did not expect black people to appear.
E.g. an openly white supremacist radio show that banned black people from appearing on it would qualify as showing 'due' impartiality, so long as no one expected black people to be on it, which of course they wouldn't, if it was openly a white supremacist station.
Or maybe 'the audience expected a certain range of contributors' means, the audience believes non-religious contributors ought not to appear (whether or not they think they will appear)? But then much of the BBCs audience does not believe that. So the BBC Trust's justification (if accurately reported) is based on an obvious falsehood.
But in any case, showing 'due impartiality' clearly doesn't mean doing what your audience thinks you ought to do. Otherwise, in a profoundly racist country, a radio show that discriminated on the basis of race would still be showing 'due impartiality'.
The summary report (available here) also says:
The ESC found that, given due impartiality is about what was said rather than
rather than the contributor, the fact that the choice of contributors to
Thought for the Day is limited to those of religious faith does not in itself
amount to a breach of the guideline on impartiality.
Oh, so a show that excludes black people, but does ensure the views expressed are balanced, shows 'due impartiality', then?
The full report is available here, but I have not waded through all of it. I should say, in fairness to the BBC Trust, that, skimming it, I could not find anything to support the precise interpretation placed in it by first of my quotes (from Ekklesia), but then it is massive, and I am short on time...
Read Simon Barrow - a Christian - on TFTD here. Very good.
Illustration - example of an organization showing BBC Trust-style 'due impartiality'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
