Secularity and Value

Secularism and Shared Values - Richard Norman

A Review from an atheist, secularist point of view

On a cold, wet Tuesday in June 2008 I attended a public lecture in a series on 'Secularity and Value' – (secularity - the state of being secular!) -at the LSE - (an example of the language that confuses the discussion of the value of secularism onto a plane where only the Academic elite of Philosophers can argue out the supposed nuances, without developing or clarifying general understanding of the real issues as they affect the population in general in Europe and the rest of the real world.)

The title of this talk by Emeritus (honorary, semi-retired) Professor of Moral  Philosophy, humanist  Richard Norman was 'Secularism and Shared Values', in which he gently rebuked religionists for claiming their privileged place in public life,  based on their traditional (dominant) role in Britain, Europe and the US without challenging their claim to have promoted 'general benevolence' and being the inspiration for social progress. This despite the history of Christianity and its warring sects and factions having opposed practically every social and political reform pursued by dissidents and rebels throughout history, and still do.

He pointed out that Christian/Judeo values were shared with the preceding Greco-Roman regimes, and appeared to accept that  Christianity was the source of todays values, because it was (is) the dominant (and enforced) ideology of Western culture, a 'development' rather than the result of determined 'rebellion' against those 'values' – sexist, racist, exclusive, repressive, punitive and aggressive.

And far from promoting progress and opening out discussion, they take every opportunity, helped by some humanists who do not want to offend the religions, to close down the discussion of secularism, by pulpit pressure, on politicians, professionals, the media, in schools and in places of higher education.

Whatever the qualities and reputation of Professor Norman as an academic moral philosopher, he did not appear to have much grasp of the importance of secularism in developing social and political progress towards the future peace and harmony of Britain, Europe or the rest of the world.

He could have pointed out that the power elites of Judeo-Christian ideology, like the Greco-Roman is based on male supremacism, 'The Brotherhood of Man' and the divine favour of god for 'His Chosen People' i.e. Christians and Jews, and more laterly White, Educated, Christian, Aryan and male, symbolised by the Swastica and the Burning Cross.

Using Slavery as an example he discussed the conflicting views of different Christian perspectives, he did not mention the role of women freethinkers who recognised the link between the rights of black slaves and the subservience of women and the teaching of the Church - and were pilloried and abused for so-doing. The exclusion of women from education, the professions and public life over centuries, has been one of the most damaging effects of Christian Values and are still at the root of  the aggressive macho attitudes that are still so prevalent in our violent blame culture.

He linked the rise of liberal democracy to Christian values that had actually sustained feudalism and repressive Monarchy rather than to the efforts of those dissidents who struggled with the conflicts between them and the God in which they believed, and the church that colluded with their oppressors.

Instead of deriding Bishop Nazir Ali and Archbishop Murphy OConnor and the rest, for claiming to stand for autonomy, freedom and equality, he gave them a credibility they do not deserve. Although he did admit at the end of his talk, that the religions did not warrant the privileged position they still enjoy.

Christianity has a history of lionising individuals who opposed the church, its clergy and their teaching, turning them into heroes - as examples of Christianity and not people who had the courage to oppose it, however difficult and confusing it was for them.

Questioning how values and morals will change as religion recedes with the rise of rational atheist opinion and secularism is not a cause for agonising and concern but one of optimism if we discuss them within the context of  universal human rights and enlightened self interested. Balancing the rights of the individual with the well-being of the community and society.

It would be more to the point in considering the importance of secularism in Europe and the US if we looked at and discussed the essential role of secularism and freedom of speech and freedom of expression within the Liberal Democratic Political Agenda

www.workshop3.freeuk.com/ASecularHumanistPoliticalAgenda.htm

If as it is claimed, education, academe, and groups such as the Forum for European Philosophy want to promote genuine discussion on this subject, it should admit active grass-roots atheists, secularists and non-academics into the discussions instead of limiting them to the selected elites who have climbed the academic ladder high enough to make themselves heard. Because in doing so, all but a few will have been seduced by the elitist status it conveyed on them.

At the end of the talk I grasped the opportunity to make some of the points above, but it was hurried and there was no time to make them in more than a cursory manner.

S. Mayer 2008

Atheist and Secularist

NB. 'Values' is one of those words, like ‘change’ 'progress' and 'reform'  that can be 'good' or 'bad' depending on ones aims and objectives, but that are used to infer one or the other.