Mike Morgan Giles argues that Tory Baroness Sayeeda Warsi is wrong - we need “militant secularists”, whatever they are.
The separation of church and state has recently been in the spotlight, following a court decision regarding prayers being held during government meetings.
The issue of religion, however, stretches far wider than this, and that is where the problems lie, for instance: the existence of 26 unelected religious clerics sitting in the House of Lords and influencing the laws of the country; the Church of England remaining an officially state sponsored institution; and the public purse funding the religious indoctrination of school children.
To be clear – wanting a separation of church and state isn’t about being against the right of those with faith to practice their religion freely in their own time.
It’s about ending the entrenched privilege within publicly funded institutions to those practising religion – in particular, but not limited to, Christianity.
For example, religious schools are allowed to take public money to promote their own religious agenda – but in 2007 when there was an attempt to create a school for those of no faith, this was rejected out of hand.
The unelected 26 clerics in the Lords can have a major impact on the way the country is run. For instance, when there was a vote in 2006 on allowing terminally ill people the right to die, they organised and voted against the reforms.
This came in spite of the fact that in almost every poll on the topic, over 70 per cent of the public came out in favour of changing the law.
Another example of the influence of religion on the political process is the existence of polling stations within religious buildings. A study found that people near a religious building reported “significantly more conservative social and political attitudes than similar people near a government building”. It went on to say that this could “affect the outcome” of a tight election.
Campaigners will claim that religion plays an important role in providing community activities, but recent statistics show that there is virtually no difference in the number of religious and secular volunteers. Another myth pervaded is that those practising religion are more moralistic – but it is clearly possible to live a life based around strong values without the need for a belief in a higher being.
Religious folk often use census statistics to justify unfairness too, with the 2001 data implying that 72 per cent of people are Christians, with just 15 per cent having no religion. Politicians and others often use this ‘official’ data to determine how and where to divert resources and public funds.
However, there are two key problems with this – the first is that the gathering of information from the census on this topic is obtained through asking a leading question – namely ‘What is your religion?’ rather than using a neutral one.
Secondly, to rely on the accuracy of the census question is also to support the premise that ‘Jedi’ is the UK’s fourth religion – above Sikhism and Judaism. People will frequently tick the box saying ‘Christian’, without considering if they are actually one – essentially they were told they were as a child and never thought about it since.
More accurate surveys in fact suggest something very different. The British Social Attitudes Survey instead shows that 51 per cent of people are non-religious, with 43 per cent of citizens being Christian. In fact, only about one in nine people actually practices religion regularly.
Many countries around the world separate church and state effectively, but being separate doesn’t mean religion can be above the law. In the 21st Century, writings on ancient religious scrolls should never subsume genuine laws and be used as a justification for bigotry.
Fortunately, in social terms we are growing closer to this point – for instance, owners of private businesses such as B&Bs can no longer use religious beliefs as an excuse to turn away those they disapprove of. Marriage is now also being actively considered for same-sex couples, which again is a positive step.
However, in the public sphere an issue still remains – the use of public money to fund and support organised religion. People committed to genuine freedom should show a commitment to ending this publicly funded activity and the entrenched privilege that it brings.
See also:
• We need to defend the hope at the heart of Christianity, not fight militant secularisation – Ed Jacobs, February 14th 2012
• 2012 – the year the world must wake up to Christian persecution – Ed Jacobs, January 8th 2012
• Dawkins’s divine intervention challenges faith in his atheist integrity – Dan Smith, June 12th 2011
• Diversity and democracy: Reforming the Lords – Patrick McGlinchey, June 1st 2011
• Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore – Symon Hill, March 2nd 2011
47 Responses to “A state free of religion is a core liberal belief”
Pastor Bob
A state free of <b>religion</b> is a core liberal belief | Left Foot Forward http://t.co/NwKjlUCG
AKT
Surely, a “core principle of a liberal state” ought to be that parents should be able to educate their children as they wish, provided they are not teaching them beliefs which will lead to public disorder.
As a Christian, I would not oppose people of no faith using public funds to establish a school for their children. Atheists pay their taxes to fund the education system just like me and so I do not think it is unjust, in principle, for them to expect that some of those funds should be used to establish a school to educate their children according to their wishes.
However, even if, as you point out, the census data grossly exagerrates the number of Christians in the UK, the fact is that there are a lot of us! If we are going to be asked to fund the public education system it is reasonable that we too should expect that this system (for which we pay!) should make provision to educate our children according to our wishes.
Your idea that all trace of religion should be expunged from the public square sounds like less like genuine “liberalism” and more like a tyrannical desire to impose your own ideology on the rest of the country.
Edward English
A state free of #religion is a core liberal belief http://t.co/DznSkFaA
Ash
Essentially we have two options if we want equality for parents and children of all faiths and none.
One – ensure that in every local area, children of Christian parents have access to a Christian school, children of Muslim parents have access to a Muslim school, children of atheist parents have access to an atheist school, etc.
Two – have universal access to secular (not atheist)* schools that simply don’t take a view on such questions as whether God exists or not, that emphasise shared values, and that leave the big questions about God etc. to parents/churches/mosques etc.
Even in purely practical terms, the second option makes far more sense. (Of course, it makes even more sense if you believe that, in principle, no state institution should take an official view on whether God exists, how he wants us to live, etc.)
*The distinction seems to confuse some people, but if you think of (say) a GP’s surgery: this is not a religious institution (your GP doesn’t lead you in prayer, or ask you to reflect on what God thinks of your behaviour), but obviously it’s not an *atheist* one either. It’s a secular institution that treats the beliefs of its patients as their own business.
AKT
I see your point, but you are forgetting the fact that in large parts of the country communities tend to be very homogenous. The practical problem you describe does not occur so frequently as you tend to suppose.
If everyone in a particular borough is a Muslim, for example, why should they not have Muslim schools? Similarly, in large parts of rural England, many people either identify as Christian, or are happy to send their children to Christian schools.
Your suggestion sounds like forcing everyone to go to *agnostic* schools.