Connor gets "Secularism" wrong

Once again Connor Wood demonstrates his lack of critical thinking and poor understanding of science. Right from the start of "Is a secular America a worse America?" he makes a number of idiotic conflations. He writes as if there is only one possible definition of secularism. Wrong. In the context of political science secularism has far more to do with the system of governance than the individual preferences of the citizens under that government. Generally, the two are fairly closely aligned but do not have to be. For a government to be "secular" it must make an effort to separate religion from government. Historically speaking, a non-secular America would not be America at all. Separation of Church and State is a basic principle of our Constitution. Anyone who tries debating that is a wilfully ignorant fool.

Connor also conflates organized religion with religion in general. This is equally foolish and ignorant.  Not belonging to an identifiable religious group does not make an individual non-religious. The more individuals move away from organized religions the more, not less, important secularism becomes. In theory, if a religious group is large enough or influential enough it can provide a certain level of protection to its members in the form of social or economic power. If the group is small or there are many different groups (like in our country) this is not effective. Having codified protections from government has been the best and most effective way to ensure everyone can worship or not how they see fit. Basically, regardless of an individuals religious preference the only way to ensure religious freedom/freedom of conscience is through secularism, through Separation of Church and State.

Not surprisingly,Wood shows once again how much of a misnomer his blog's title is. This piece is just another example of his writing from an entirely religious perspective with religious motives and predetermined conclusions. It is the antithesis of science.

Secularism is a Global Issue

A recent opinion piece in the India Express touched on a number of issues that impact societies around the globe. It was written specifically with the election of Narendra Modi to the Prime Minister's office in India but is still notable for its connection to similar circumstance and themes elsewhere. Gurpreet Mahajan's "The divisiveness of secularism" is rather well written and quite interesting despite the title. Mahajan a decent job examining the intersection between religion and politics as well as pointing out some of the ways secularism is misinterpreted and misrepresented. Unfortunately, the author doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on secularism either. Compared to a wide variety of pieces I've read on secularism this is probably one of the best in recent years. At least, from a theistic perspective.

Be an Asshole for (organized) Religion

Apparently, the Acton Institute doesn't think being a decent human being should count for anything. They don't even seem to think simply being a believer matters all that much either. You must belong to a specific faith and blindly follow that organized religion or else you are scum. That is main message in Elise Hilton's Power Blog post "'As Long As I’m A Good Person'"

She opens with:
“'It doesn’t matter what I believe…as long as I’m a good person.'
How many times have you heard that? As our society trends more and more to the secular, this type of thing becomes more common. We’ve gone from a society that, at the very least, paid lip-service to communal worship and having moral standards set by a higher authority, to 'I can worship God on my own; I don’t need a church to do that' to 'It doesn’t matter what I believe, as long as I’m a good person.'
Is that right? Can a person believe “whatever” and still be good."

Her answers end up being, big surprise, NO. You must be a blindly obedient ignorant sycophant to be a good person. It never crosses her mind that if a person ends up behaving decently then perhaps their beliefs are positive. It certainly never occurs to her that beliefs do not always translate into actions. Perhaps we should look at a balance between what a person believes and what they actually do with those beliefs?

Nope. Religious Right assholes cannot accept such a reasonable approach no matter how positive the outcome. They are as interested in controlling people as they are anything else. At least the blog's name is honest.

Why Should Religion Have a Role in Public Life?

At the Huffington Post, Oleksandr Feldman goes on about "Finding a 'Third Way' on the Role of Religion in Public Life" and yet he never really questions whether it should have a public role at all. He also never demonstrates at any point that religion is actually capable of adding anything significant to society that can't just as easily be gained from other sources. It seems rather wasteful and pointless to commit so much energy, time, and resources to something that may not actually be of any real benefit.

Some of the assertions he makes throughout his piece seem to be somewhat self defeating. For instance, "What we aspire to achieve is a healthy democratic and pluralistic society strongly influenced by the eternal moral values advocated by all of the world's great religions; a society in which people of all backgrounds can live side by side in peace and security." This statement contains both contradiction and unfounded assumptions. Are "moral values" really advocated by all the worlds religions? Do they advocate the same values or even recognize each others values? In a pluralistic society how can religion be anything other than divisive? It seems to me that the only hope for tolerance and democracy amidst diversity is to keep religion out of the public sphere. If everyone is allowed to believe and worship their own way in private there is no reason for conflict or intolerance. Religion in public automatically leads to conflict. Each religion seeks special privileges that it then feels the need to deny others. This is not a matter of opinion. History has shown this to happen.

Religion is not a public good. Religion is not and should not be treated with any greater deference than any other institution. Freedom of religion is best served by strict adherence to separation of church and state.

"Faith-Based Office" is Anti-Secularist

A few weeks back Obama announced the new head of the White House's Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. This appointment seemed to be greeted with some enthusiasm among religious moderates and liberals and even among some in the freethought-humanist-atheist-etc communities. I have to admit this has confused me a little bit. She sounds like a decent person and Obama's handling of the office is better than Bush II, who created it. However, I still see no reason to be happy about.

For me, a title of one of Hemant "Friendly Atheist" Mehta's blog says it all, "The New Director of Obama’s Faith-Based Office is a Supporter of Church-State Separation." Let me repeat that, "The New Director of Obama’s Faith-Based Office is a Supporter of Church-State Separation." The very existence of the office is an innate affront to the basic principle of separation of church and state.

I sincerely hope Melissa Rogers does a decent job dealing with the problematic aspects of her new office. However well she runs the office it does not diminish the criticism that it should not exist in the first place. Her leadership will not change the fact that the Faith Based Office makes a mockery of one of the foundational concepts of our constitution.

1st Atheist "Church" in England

If you haven't heard yet, a small portion of the media is making a little noise about the first atheist "church" to be created in England. A minor problem with the story is that it is not actually going to be a church. It is more like a cross between a community center and a performing arts venue. The only unique aspect is that it is going to offer a variety of services that are traditionally ascribed to religion. It is those services that have once again fueled the idiotic among theists to point fingers and claim that atheism is just as much a religion and therefore faith-based as their own beliefs. Bullshit!

Humans are social animals. We all, theist and atheist alike, need to interact and feel as though we belong. There are a number of naturally occurring milestones throughout our lifespans. Even our demise is considered worth memorializing. The fact that atheists and/or non-theists feel the need to celebrate such events as births, coming of age, marriages, deaths, etc. simply makes us human. It does not imply anything "spiritual" or "religious."

A short list of pieces touching on this topic:

Stand up comedians launch UK’s first atheist church in Islington
http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/stand_up_comedians_launch_uk_s_first_atheist_church_in_islington_1_1747944

First atheist church opens in London
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/for-gods-sake/post/first-atheist-church-opens-in-london/2013/01/07/ed6136fc-5918-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_blog.html

Atheist Church 'Sunday Assembly' Is First Of Its Kind In Britain
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/atheist-church-sunday-assembly_n_2432911.html

Deceit by Headline

Once again, "secularism" is not a synonym for "atheism", "irreligion", or any other term that has to do with a lack of religious belief. It is notable that the initial headline that appears on the main page of Huffington Post's religious section, "Is This The Secular But Spiritual Person's Church?," changes to "Unitarian Universalists See Chance For Growth In Growth Of Secularism" when you actually go to the piece. Notice the discrepancy and its implications.

It is yet another example of the pervasive bias and distortion of what secularism actually is. Secularism in no way infringes on the right of an individual to believe what they want. Though it is true that among secularists, non religious (not necessarily atheists) make up the majority it does not mean that religious people cannot be secularists. Many are. The person who leads Americans United for Separation of Church and State, one of the most prominent secularist groups, is the Reverend Barry Lynn. That one particular denomination finds secularism useful to them is not really that significant in and of itself. It is interesting and in some ways hopeful but still cannot change the basic meaning of Secularism.

For the record, Unitarian Universalists are no more unified than any other denomination. Overall, they are fairly liberal in their outlook but they do vary within that framework. I have met UU members who are agnostics and atheists and others who believe in God as wholeheartedly as any other Christian.

Accurate? Mostly. Biased? Slightly.

Jacques Berlinerblau's "Secularism Is Not Atheism" is pretty accurate but is still a little on the biased side. He is certainly correct that the two terms are not synonyms and that secularism is very important. His take on atheists, unfortunately, is a little less accurate and a bit more prejudiced. He seems as concerned with having secularism tainted by atheism as he is with the accurate use of the terms. Even though he is not outright hostile to atheists he still appears to use the term as if it is slightly dirty and distasteful. In the last few paragraphs he misrepresents a couple of atheists, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, in order to make an equally erroneous statement about secularism.

"Finally, we need to distinguish secularism from atheism because some atheists, of late, have taken a regrettable anti-secular turn. True, secularism is a proponent of religious freedom and freedom from religion. It sees the 'Church' as a legitimate component of the American polity. It doesn't view religion as 'poison' (to quote Christopher Hitchens) or hope for an 'end of faith.' As noted earlier, secularism has no dog in that fight."

Berlinerblau is confusing their personal preferences with what they deem acceptable for public policy making. They are not the same. Neither of the two referenced ever encouraged or condoned limiting the rights of people because of what they believe. They ARE NOT anti-secular in any way. In fact, both had on more than one occasion pointed out that it is the subjective nature and potential hostility around such things as religion that make it unsuitable for government. That is a secular point of view. Both on various occasions also expressed the need to fight for everyone's rights, religious or otherwise, not just those you happen to agree with. Also a rather secularist point of view. Berlinerblau also seems unable to separate religious individuals from religious ideas and institutions. Everyone has the right to participate in government. Everyone, however, does not mean institutions. It applies to individual citizens. "Church" is not an individual. Seeing "church" as a legitimate component actually is anti-secular. Catholics should never be barred from running for office or participating in politics in any way. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has no place and should never have any say in our government. The difference may seem subtle to some but it is essential.

Religious Whining about Secularism

It is somewhat surprising that a professor of comparative religion like Arvind Sharma would so thoroughly misunderstand the structure and nature of organized religions. In his Huffington Post piece, "The Religious and the Secular in the Modern World", he also clearly doesn't quite grasp the basic definition of secularism.

So here's a quick review of the term:
"secularism (noun)
1. Philosophy a doctrine that rejects religion, especially in ethics.
2. the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs.
3. the state of being secular.
Derived words: secularist noun, adjective, secularistic adjective."
Collins Collins English Dictionary, HarperCollins Publishers 2000

Essentially, it is about keeping religion out of public matters. There is nothing about denying individuals the right to believe or worship how they see fit so long as they don't drag the rest of us into it. Sharma's insistence that there must be a balance between the religious and secular is ignorant for two main reasons. He admits to the dominant role religion played in society but fails to realize that this was not due merely to a few misguided leaders. Religion by its nature is authoritarian. It will always try to dominate. Secularism is not a mirror image like he implies. Secularism, by definition, has no interest in what people personally believe or do outside the realm of public policy. It can't dominate religion. I have never heard of any secular advocates seeking to strip individual rights away from others. I know there are those who would love to do that but what is it they are seeking to impose? It is not secularism.

Unfortunately Sharma is not alone in his misunderstanding/misrepresentation of secularism. Elizabeth Hunter fails to grasp a few things as well. In "Courts Confuse Our Thinking on What 'Secular' Means" she does seem to make a valid point but once you examine it closer it falls apart. Perhaps simply using public space for worship services does not then make that venue a "church." So what? A religious body is still using a publicly paid for space for non-public purposes. Did they pay to use it? How often do outside groups without any connection to public education get to use public school grounds without paying some sort of fee? Basically she is whining that a religious group failed to gain special treatment. How is that an abuse or over-extension of what secular means? Seems pretty appropriate to me.

Religious people need to get over themselves. Your beliefs are no better or more special than anyone else. Go ahead and worship how you choose. You can even do it in a publicly available venue if you do not currently have a church, temple, synagogue, etc. However, you don't deserve to get it for free. In a lot of ways religions are already getting a free ride since they don't pay taxes yet still use public funds and services. So stop whining already!