Roman Catholic Diocese of Leeuwarden

Transcription

I'm sometimes asked what I mean when I refer to myself as a secularist. The term "secular" has different meanings. But when I describe my own position as "secular", I'm referring to a view encompassing two broad principles. Firstly, the separation of religion from state leaves religious people free to practise their religion, provided they don't infringe the freedoms of others, and allows the non-religious to live without the imposition of religion through law, education, government, employment or health. This promotes freedom OF religion and FROM religion. Secondly, the principle of equality before the law seeks to remove all privilege or penalty for having or lacking religious faith, to insure that no belief -religious or otherwise- receives special protection from criticism, and that inequalities, which some support within their religion, won't be supported outside it. Obviously, under this principle, blasphemy and apostasy are non-punishable. When properly understood, secularism creates an environment of equality, that benefits us all. Which is why it is supported by theists and atheists, religious and non-religious people alike. Until recently, many of Britain's councils began meetings with religious prayer. But in February this year, after informal requests for this to stop were ignored, the National Secular Society won a legal challenge, when the High Court declared the practice unlawful. Some commentators and parts of the British media were quick to portray this as "militant secularism". But where was the injury here? Was religion criticised? Were councillors told they must abandon their beliefs, or stop praying in their own time? No. All that was established, was that prayer had no place in formal proceedings. As NSS Campaigns Manager Stephen Evans points out: "The absence of prayer simply creates a neutral space, and removes an unnecessary barrier to local democracy being equally welcome to all sections of society." Prayer has never been a part of any business meeting I've attended, nor have religious colleagues taken issue with that. Even before the High Court ruling, many councils didn't open meetings with prayer. The fact that some councils have traditionally done this in the past, does not justify them continuing to do so. The fact that you have a history of doing X, doesn't make it okay today. After all, it was once tradition for only men to vote. Those who think prayer is a worthwhile use of their time, *can* pray in their own time. But supernatural rituals will naturally fall by the wayside, as fewer and fewer people believe in the supernatural. So it is utterly misguided to try and preserve them as part of our heritage. Just as I, as an atheist, would oppose inserting atheism into business meetings, banknote design or oaths of national allegiance, no matter how many of the population are non-believers. Many theists recognise the inappropriateness of inserting theism in those contexts too. Of course, some don't. Michael Langrish -bishop of Exeter- has claimed "prayers said before [council] meetings set its decisions in a wider moral context." But acts of worship that exclude and alienate people at the outset, create an unnecessarily narrow context. Also, religious rituals are not needed to set a moral context. Gloucestershire council has replaced its original prayer with the following: "May we find the wisdom to carry out our duties, the humanity to listen to all, the courage to do what is right and the generosity to treat each other with respect." Worthy sentiments, one might think, though eChristianNews reports this as "shocking". Langrish said he finds it sad that what he calls a "tiny minority" are "trying to ban a majority, who appreciate this activity." Being in the majority is not a licence to ignore the impact your activity has on everyone else. And besides, Christianity is in dramatic decline in Britain. Recent research by Ipsos MORI indicates only just over half the population now identify as "Christian". More significantly, of the self-identifying Christians polled, over a third express no positive belief in the power of prayer. The same numbers said they never or almost never pray from choice. In fact, when asked why they identify as Christians, fewer than 3 in 10 cited belief in Christian teachings as one of their reasons. Far more said it was because they were christened or baptised into the religion, or their parents were Christian. By reporting actual attitudes rather than assuming them, this research undermines Langrish's assumption that those who identify as Christian, will share his perspective on council prayers or indeed any other matter. Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association draws attention to the way certain public figures and parts of the media sensationally misrepresent religious news stories, so as "to create a narrative of victimhood and persecution, as a cover for what is actually going on: Christian lobby groups arguing for more influence." Andrea Williams of Christian Concern, who warns of "totalitarian secularism", reveals her motives by urging councils to "Be vocal and visible for the Lord Jesus by continuing to keep prayers on their agenda." Christian Concern's website currently states: "We want to work to infuse a biblical worldview into every aspect of society." Like egocentric infants who've grabbed all the toys, then throw a tantrum when some are taken away to be distributed fairly, some people behave as though it's *unbearable* if their religion isn't given prominence or even dominance, regardless of setting. While secularists seek to establish fairness and equality for all groups, these people seek to establish religious privilege for their own group. Earlier this year, David Cameron pledged to legalise same-sex marriage. Keith O'Brien, head of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, condemned this as "grotesque" and "shameful". Many would say that about O'Brien's views. More people in the UK and US now express support for same-sex marriage than opposition to it, and it's legal in more and more European countries. But secularism defends O'Brien's freedom to express his views, no matter how shabby, insular and irrelevant they may seem, at first, second or forty-ninth glance. However, Vincent Nichols and Peter Smith, two RC archbishops, took the extreme step of composing a letter to be read out 2,500 churches, urging parishioners "to ensure that" what they called "the true meaning of marriage (a commitment between a man and a women) is not lost." They gave several reasons for their definition of "marriage": -They said "it reflects our nature". Clearly, if many want same-sex spouses, mixed marriage does not reflect our nature. -They said "the stability of marriage provides the best context for the flourishing of relationships." If that's true for mixed couples, it's true for same-sex couples. -They said "it recognises the complementarity of the sexes." Many women feel they complement each other, and so do many men. And surely, it is the relationship of the two people involved that matters in marriage. Self-indulgent musings on male-female harmony don't justify denying marriage equality. -Lastly, they asserted "marriage is for creating and raising children", which is absurd off the bat. The church has no problem marrying mixed couples who don't want or can't have children. Also, if they say marriage helps people raise children, that's a reason to support marriage of same-sex couples, many of whom raise children. So we can easily dismiss these feeble justifications. For whatever reason these two had given, trying to mobilise Britain's Catholics against civil same-sex marriage, to bully government into inshrining a religious view in civil law was wholly unacceptable. However, in an even more extraordinary intervention, reported by the Guardian and the BBC a month later, the Catholic Education Service contacted nearly 400 state-funded Catholic secondary schools in England and Wales, to promote the letter and a petition against same-sex marriage, to pupils. One pupil reported the bristling reaction in assembly as her headteacher explained parts of the letter, and encouraged them to sign petition. Expressing her disgust, she added that the talk prompted some pupils to buy gay pride badges to pin on their uniforms. Using children as political lobbying tools to prevent non-religious same-sex marriage is a deeply unprinciple tactic. This shows the depth to which these people will sink to interfere in the freedoms of non-Catholics. Secularists don't seek to interfere in the internal squabbles of religion. If some religious leaders don't want same-sex couples to marry in their church, they're free to make that known. And individual Christians can judge for themselves whether that's acceptable to them. Certainly some bishops have spoken out against the Church of England's so-called "official opposition" to same-sex marriage. As bishop of Buckingham Alan Wilson notes: "There is a groundswell of opinion that says: This does not speak for us." "There is a sea change going on." And these sentiments have been echoed by Tim Ellis, bishop of Grantham. Secular atheists and theists campaign on many issues. They work to ensure public services are delivered in a neutral way, without religious discrimination, promotion of religion or religious judgements that may deter people from making use of such services. They seek to disestablish the Church of England as a state religion, which is as crucial to the church's autonomy as it is to the government's, to guard against mutual interference. And as Church of England priest Giles Fraser points out, "society is too diverse to sustain a state religion." A secular state stops any single religion monopolising power. Secularists want the removal of the 26 unelected bishops from the House of Lords, who unfairly inflate Church of England representation in this law-making body. There no evidence that bishops bring superior moral insight, as is sometimes argued to justify their presence in the House. On the contrary, some may have unduly limited insights on certain key issues. The current lack of female bishops in the UK also creates automatic and total sexual inequality among the 26. Another secular campaign highlights the unfairness of hospital chaplaincy services, which, despite being publicly funded, exclude patients who don't share the chaplain's religion. As the National Secular Society points out, the major religions have enormous wealth. The Church of England has assets of billions of pounds. If they want hospital chaplains, they should pay for them. Especially as they also get special tax exemption, another example of preferential treatment that should stop. An NSS study has shown that our best-performing hospitals tend to spend the lowest proportion on chaplaincy services, and that if all health trusts brought their spending in line with the best ones, savings could pay for 1,000 nursing assistants a year. Some of the biggest concerns secularists have, regard religion's role in education. Many agree there is value in teaching children *about* different religions. A worldly understanding will naturally involve learning about what different people believe, why some follow religion, and equally why others don't. What is not acceptable, is using a national education system to segregate and indoctrinate children in particular religions. Around a third of the UKs publicly funded schools are so-called "faith schools", which enjoy many unfair privileges. They can discriminate in employment by denying jobs to teachers who don't share the school's faith. They can also refuse to admit children whose parents don't share the school faith or "aren't religious enough", often forcing them to travel much further for their education, when nearby faith schools won't take them. In fact, a study commissioned by the Department of Education and Skills, found that the high academic performance of faith schools, often cited to justify their continuation, is actually due to their being able to pick and choose which children they admit, based on what they can observe about the children and their backgrounds. In other words, their success is due to their privileges of selection, not religion. Many faith schools supplement science classes with religious lessons that are not subject to the inspections required in other schools. We end up with schools claiming to teach science, while guiding children to reject it, incompetent science teachers stumped by elementary questions, and children academically hobbled because some adults, not content with having their own beliefs insist on injecting their religious dogma into others' education. What too often gets lost, is any genuine consideration of the child's interests. Leaving aside all the high talk about parents' right to do this or that with their children, what about the child's freedom to make their own balanced assessment of religion? Children are *not* their parents' property. Parents are temporary guardians of children. Parenthood *doesn't* authorise one to disfigure another person's body for religious reasons, or fill impressionable minds with beliefs that may hinder their subsequent education. Parents have no right to expect children to carry on their religion, any more than they have a right to dictate their career choices or expect grandchildren. We're all entitled to develop our own experience and beliefs about the world around us. We equip children with the most effective tools to do that, by modelling and nurturing emotional and intellectual skills. Children should not be valued in terms of their usability in religion, as they are by egrigious manipulators like Becky Fisher, and those who see faith schools as a way of generating new believers. They should be allowed to make their own decisions about religion after a well-balanced education, not segregated into faith groups in their formative years. There is no justification for publicly funded schools teaching religious myth as fact, promoting religious beliefs, or requiring children to perform acts of religious worship. Parents determined to raise their children in a particular religion, can do that without publicly funded faith schools, which should convert to community schools without religious practice or privilege. This is not a Christian nation. It's not even a religious nation. It's a nation of many faiths and none. And even within faith groups, there can be fundamental differences of opinion on important issues. Establishing secular boundaries that prevent any single religion imposing its values on everyone else, is as much a protection for the religious as it is for the non-religious. Boundaries naturally upset those whose nature is to impose, and people who've got used to privilege, don't like it being removed. Their complaints are to be taken for granted. When Sayeeda Warsi told the Vatican earlier this year that "aggressive secularism is being imposed by stealth", likening it to totalitarianism and saying secularism denied people the right to religious identity, this was shameless misrepresentation. Secularism denies no one religious identity, it defends that freedom, but *not* the freedom to impose that identity on others. What secularism says, is that having a religious identity does not justify -special tax exemption (especially for the already rich) -preaching religion in state schools -inserting narrow religious values into common law -having unelected religious leaders as legislators -or demanding council prayers. Redressing these unjust and inappropriate privileges is not totalitarian, nor is it an attack on faith. It's a recognition of the freedom of all people, to live without divisive inequalities. Secular principles, supports by theists and atheists alike, encourage fairness and mutual consideration, and help us all within reasonable limits, to live together in the way we choose.