Eric Pickles's comments on 'militant atheists' belie an ignorance as to what secularism is, writes Matthew Broomfield.
Eric Pickles’s comments on ‘militant atheists’ belie an ignorance as to what secularism actually is, writes Matt Broomfield
“We’re a Christian nation”, Conservative party chairman Eric Pickles recently told the party’s spring conference. “We have an established church. Get over it. And don’t impose your politically correct intolerance on others.”
These comments belie an ignorance of the rights and freedoms available to religious believers of all denominations under a secular system. He is not alone in failing to understand the positive impact of constitutional secularism on liberal democracy.
What secularism is:
1) Unifying.
Narendra Modi, the Hindu Nationalist expected to triumph in the ongoing race to become prime minister of India, has a track record of nurturing anti-Muslim sentiment. In 2002, an anti-Muslim massacre in the state of Gujarat (where Modi is chief minister) resulted in over 1,000 deaths.
At the time of the pogrom, Modi did little to check the violence, and spoke out against opening relief camps for those affected. Last year, he said he cared about the deaths of these Muslims as much as he cared about a puppy being run over by a car. If he is elected, he will have been borne to power on a tide of anti-Muslim sentiment. Secularism insists that there is no place for this type of sectarian hatred in public discourse.
2) Accommodating.
The exam watchdog Ofqual and the Joint Council for Qualifications are currently meeting with Muslim groups to discuss the possibility of moving exam dates in 2016, when they will clash with the day-long fasts of Ramadan. A secular system allows for compromise: Muslim pupils have the right to engage in the private religious practice of fasting and the right to take their public exams at full strength, yet at the same time they must not be allowed to gain an unfair advantage over non-Muslim pupils.
This dialogue between faith groups and the government is an often-overlooked aspect of state secularism. It recognises the importance of religious belief on a personal level, and seeks to accommodate all belief systems into society without allowing them to negatively affect state policy or the rights of other citizens.
3) Profitable.
If religious institutions were subject to the same rules of taxation as other organisations, they would contribute significantly to the national economy. There may be as much as $100,000,000,000 of untaxed church property in the United States, and Nebraskan senator Ernie Chambers has recently tabled a motion to try and access the currently untaxable wealth bound up in the roughly 3000 untaxed religious properties in his home state. The Church of England alone is worth around £5,000,000,000, and a secular reform of religious taxation policy in the UK would allow the government to tap into this wealth.
Ultimately, perhaps Pickles might best be persuaded by the bottom line, as the religious institutions of Britain follow Biblical precedent and render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.
Secularism is not:
1) Atheism.
It merely gives atheism an equal footing alongside other belief systems. The aggressive anti-theism of the Hitchens-Dawkins axis (the ‘thuggish hard left’ Pickles referred to in his speech) has little to do with secularism.
2) Extremist.
In his speech, Pickles aligned secularism with the extremist doctrines of the English Defence League and militant Islam, saying “they’re all as bad as each other”. In reality, secularism is not a religious or political ideology at all, so much as it is the absence of any one dominant ideology.
In Saudi Arabia, new measures introduced by King Abdullah redefine terrorism as “calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based”. It is a long way from prayers in local council meetings to this totalitarian subjugation of religious minorities, but secularism exists to safeguard against religious extremism, not “appeasing” it – as Pickles claimed.
3) Intolerant.
In the wrong hands, it can undoubtedly be abused in order to infringe the personal rights of citizens. “There is no reason for religion to enter the public sphere; that’s the law,” Marine Le Pen told RTL radio in France, in an attempt to justify the National Front’s plans to force Muslim schoolchildren to eat pork.
The issue here is that what an individual has for his or her lunch is not in any sense a public affair, in the way that it would be if all children were forced to eat halal meals. Secularism encourages rather than denies individual choice, and recognises that religious institutions have a role to play in society. Its focus on the separation of church and state simply serves to prevent any one belief system from affecting the rights of other individuals.
Le Pen’s brand of virulent Islamophobia is a poisonous ideology in its own right, and has no more place in the secular public sphere than Sharia law.
40 Responses to “Eric Pickles needs a lesson in what secularism is (and isn’t)”
Simon Watts
But no one is actually murdering you with the active consent of the law are they? Or enslaving you? Not my fault you live in a nuthouse, but comparing the rights of Atheists with the struggles of women and black people is damned offensive. You may get flak from others, on this page, I hope so. And you’re a bigot. End of discusdion
Edwin
What a silly person Simon Watts is to bring in the relativity of prejudices. If somebody steals my car the loss is not ameliorated because somebody had their life savings stolen. I am a Brit and I do agree with Paine. If some atheists are smug and like to talk about atheism how does that negate their arguments?
S Cruise
“Modern evangelical Atheists however are tedious, tedious people who bring their beliefs up at every possible moment”
Says the agnostic who brings up his beliefs at every possible moment.
Yes, most religious people – especially here in the UK – don’t wear religion on their sleeves and try to foist their beliefs on others at every given opportunity. The majority of atheists are just the same. However, the element of religious folk who do attempt to foist their beliefs on others – generally or through law – shouldn’t expect a free pass. An atheist, agnostic or theist has every right to voice his or her opinion or disagreement with such people. If a theist says god exists, I should have the right to say I don’t see any good reason to believe that. If a theist says god exists therefore you can’t work Sundays or eat pork, or says you have to pray when you attend a civic council meeting, I should have every right to state my disagreement – and I should have the right to work Sundays, eat pork and not pray to something that doesn’t exist to me.
Religion has a great deal of privilege in this country; privilege that you probably aren’t aware of. As a secularist, not as an atheist, I oppose those privileges that the religious are given with a free pass. We should all be treated equally. And no religion should be given special status or privilege in government.
S Cruise
“And the advantage of not believing in something is not having to care or worry about it.”
I agree. Unfortunately, a lot of people do believe – and a number of those people are doing all they can to gain power and privilege in government where they can easily deny you rights, undermine education, health-care, you name it. Both atheists and theists have to guard against that.
Martin
Except it seems he is receiving NO flack. Seems most folk agree.
You don’t seem to understand what agnostic means either. It is not some halfway house term in between atheist and theist. YOU whether or not you like it are an atheist my freind. If you are not a theist you are by definition an atheist.
A/theism refers to what one believes.
A/gnostisism refers to what one knows, or can know.
They are both different terms. A/gnostic is almost a useless term Id argue that no one knows. Regardless that they claim to know.
Id also argue that the only reason the religious are no longer hanging, burning or otherwise disposing of “heretics” (in most now civilised countries) is due to the fact we now have secular laws and sensibilities.
The sooner we rid ourselves of these patently ridiculous old divisive myths and simply view them as stories from a by gone age the better off we’ll all be.
Not that I would legislate it. But as we now have the internet it seems these beliefs will eventually die a death as education and information become easier to access.
Lets hope it doesn’t take too long before they are in the minority everywhere. Not just here in the UK and Europe.