In this article I followed on from an article in New
Humanist by Bill Durodie - 'Panic on the streets'. That article
outlined the political consequences that the effect of the 'war
against terrorism' has had on undermining people's feelings of
security..
I pointed out the similarity of the tactics with
those used by the organised religions, for very similar purposes. I
took up his challenge and proposed that the way forward is the
promotion of the rationale of a political agenda that includes
secularism.
I briefly selected the main points, added what I see
as the other half (the missing half) the specifically secular humanist
aspects of the subject, and went on to suggest that it might be time
for a Humanist Political Agenda, what that should be, and the
rationale that I think supports it.
This article was submitted to New Humanist but was
not accepted for publication on the basis that it was 'opinion'.
It was later the subject of a talk to the South
Place Ethical Society in Jan 2005 - For the edited 2 page printed
version click here
for the text of the talk with preamble, speaker's definitions etc.Click here
Is It time for a Humanist
Political Agenda?
Democratic, Secularist &
Redistributive
In his interesting article 'Panic in the Streets'
(NH May '04) Bill Durodie considered the effect of the West's response
to terrorism in creating a climate of anxiety. In Britain we have been
told authoritatively that a terrorist attack is inevitable, "not
if, but when". We are told to be alert but not unduly anxious,
and that everything is being done (or not being done) to keep us safe.
Many in America and the UK are railing against what they see as a
widespread attack on their hard won civil liberties under the cynical
guise of protection against terrorism.
It is, he said "almost as if the moves to
assuage public concern actually increase anxiety". He suggested
that "In a world that stresses human vulnerability, rather than
human resilience, we find the growing assumption that individuals
cannot cope without professional support in a crisis. Constant
reassurance is required to stave off severe anxiety" and that
"This ensures that whatever steps the government, security and
emergency services take, there is still an appetite for more."
Further, that the demand for the authorities to plan
for the possible targeting of even the smallest communities gives them
a sense not only of their own importance, but also their consequent
vulnerability!
He rightly puts this down to "[an undermining]
of confidence in humanity that downplays our significant
achievements". And our amazing potential to cope with any given
situation has been shown time and again in endless conflicts and
disasters, and Durodie used as an example the national values and
morale building during of WW2. Concluding that "it is time we
gave flesh to such concepts and debated where it is we are heading as
a Society"
In response to this challenge I would like to draw
attention to the fact that the tactics of undermining human
self-confidence are exactly the same as those that have always been
employed by the organised religions in maintaining their psychological
and physical control over their followers. For 'professional support',
'Government', 'Security' and 'Emergency services' read 'priests' and
'religions'. With every breath they persuade people that they are
weak, vulnerable and helpless, safe only with the protection of their
particular god and within their religion. Only with the constant
'faith' in some god or prophet and the help and guidance of their
priests, scriptures and holy scholars can they hope to survive, let
alone thrive. They might have 'god given' talents or potential, but
without continuing faith, prayer and worship, it will all come to
naught!
The more persuasive the religion, the more dependent
people become on it - a classic example of a self fulfilling prophesy.
The stronger the assertion of supposed superiority, power and
omnipotence of the deity, the smaller and more insignificant becomes
the individual. Attacking any notion of independence or ability of
people to challenge authority, or to influence change makes the
populations easier to manipulate and control.
The importance given to an individual or group, as
'the chosen ones' - for the love of a saviour by religion, or the
target for an attack by 'terrorists' in politics, far from enhancing
their self confidence, undermines them and reinforces their reliance
on 'the authorities' be they political or religious. They are
encouraged to believe that ultimately it is the protection of those
above them that will keep them safe, so the powerful message is to
'stay on side'.
Whether it is a political strategy to keep people
reliant on Big Daddy and his authority, or on people who are more
educated than we are, or on supernatural beings, it all goes to
subvert our confidence in our own human potential to take control of
events. It keeps people compliant and dependent, one step away from
catastrophe - physical poverty, terrorist attack or hell fire and
damnation. For me the apparent paradox of the extent of overt
religiosity in the US and its constitutionally secular state is
explained by its right wing politics that further reinforces the
paranoia - by constant threat of physical and psychological insecurity
to individuals in that society.
It is time for Secular Humanism to assert itself
Now, as believing in god is set to decline at least
in Europe, it falls to governments to take over from and reinforce if
they can their age old alliance with the religions that prevents
populations challenging their authority and control over them. So my
answer to Bill Durodie's call to "promote our values or way of
life" and "give flesh to such concepts" is for us to
expose the tactics used by both political regimes and the
religions.
The particular role for secular humanists is, I
believe to assert the place of secularism as part of a political
agenda incorporating humanist values, not as a political party, but to
promote the rationale for an agenda. Calling for an 'agenda' rather
than a particular ideology is not difficult to explain if one accepts
that no one ideology can deliver the freedom of the individual,
freedom for minorities and the wider society - a peaceful and
harmonious society, and the right for people to participate in their
government. Given the charitable status that prevents political action
by the BHA it would be up to individual members of the BHA , National
Secular Society and others, to promote such an agenda long with other
aspects of secular humanism within the movement. It could even enliven
some of the debates within the movement that can become sterile and
unfocused.
Just as no single tax can deliver a perfectly fair
system for financing the state and public administration and services,
no single aspect of government can deliver a perfect form of
government that balances freedom of the individual with freedom of the
society. A common fallacy deployed to confuse these discussions is to
try to drive discussions into one cul de sac, constantly
challenging on one aspect, as if that one aspect was being put
as the only aspect. Every discussion can thus be diverted and
made meaningless. To discuss a complex subject one must be allowed to
put forward a combination of ideas, a combination of factors -
advantages and limitations - a manifesto.
My view is that the position that maintains the
maximum freedom of the individual while also balancing the rights and
freedoms of the society is a left leaning, secular democracy. I do not
intend to go into the polemics of 'the left'. I do however want to
differentiate 'left leaning' from the right, particularly their
ideological base regarding competition vs co-operation, the commitment
to the balance of rights between rich and poor, and economic
dependence on which freedom of the individual relies.
Each brings significant gains to the table but none
of them are sufficient in themselves,
Secularism brings the freedom of religion,
freedom from religion and the freedom to be against religion, with the
state preventing oppressive domination by any one of them and giving
no privileges or subsidies to any of them.. But secularism itself is
not enough, because it does not in itself curb the greed of the most
powerful, or insist on the right of a people to participate in their
government an although it protects the rights of religious minorities
it does not protect other minorities.
Democracy brings a significant element of
popularconsultation, participation and control over policy and
decision making m but is not enough in itself, because as we all know
there are many kinds of 'democracy' and we can all find examples of
elected dictatorships, theocracy being a typical example. So far from
ensuring the rights of minorities it can reinforce the power of the
majority at their expense. Neither can democracy be relied upon to
curb the unbridled accumulation of wealth and privilege and the
'rights' and 'freedoms' they buy, often to the detriment of others.
Left / Liberal policies may bring about economic,
security and independence, but do not necessarily ensure the
democratic rights of minorities, nor freedom from religion. It can
however bring about a fair distribution of wealth that brings economic
freedom for everyone not just the few. Those without financial
independence and security cannot claim their freedoms Wealth buys
power and privilege that can easily subvert both democracy and equal
rights if it is only in the hands of the few. The lack of economic
freedom subverts democracy and secularism in many ways - through the
financial considerations of political organisation, the law, the
elitism of education and the flow of information through control of
publishing, advertising and media, all of which are restricted and
distorted in favour of the few who have the money to buy their
services or control them.
Unfairness and huge discrepancies in the reward
system causes resentment and alienation that leads to civil strife and
foments prejudice and scapegoating that threatens peace and progress.
The extent to which it protects minorities, and strengthens
participation is a matter of debate.
No perfect democracy has yet been attained, there
are secular states that cannot deliver secularity because of the
strength of the religions, and it is unlikely that wealth could
or should ever be entirely equally distributed. None of these are
sufficient alone, but combined can produce the best model we have so
far attained. but the bottom line is that everyone should be able to
live to a basic acceptable standard relative to the society in which
they live, and that basic human rights should not be disadvantaged by
poverty least of all children. Surely a humanist objective.