Politics and Religion - the place of secularism
My view is that the position that maintains the maximum freedom of
the individual while also balancing the rights and freedoms necessary
for peaceful society is a 'left leaning', secular democracy. Only
a combination of Secularism, Democracy, and Economic Freedom can
deliver fairness and equality.
I have been exercised recently discussing
politics, religion and secularism, with humanists and others from
strongly religious backgrounds - significantly, explaining secularism
to people who persist, either deliberately or through genuine
misunderstanding, in calling it 'a belief' on a par with religion. To
dispose of the obvious untruth of this, an analogy was suggested
recently on an Internet forum that this is like saying that health is
a disease, being unemployed is a job, or better still, that not saving
stamps is a hobby!
Many people do not even appear to see the
connection between politics and religion and particularly the effect
of religion on politics. Personal religious belief is confused
with political organised religion. Even more people it seems, do not
appear know what secularism is! I have had to spend hours explaining
that secularism means simply asserting the freedom 'OF' - 'FOR' - and
'TO BE AGAINST' religion, and that the state should be neutral on
'belief' its only responsibility being to maintain this freedom of
belief, and to prevent any one overriding the rest. Put another way,
it ensures freedom of religious belief - ensures that religions should
not have special privileges that give them unfair advantage over those
of no religion, and that those against religion should be free to, and
given the opportunity to express their views.
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 one into one box,
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 - causes and effects - 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, but 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 freedom of the individual.
This combination maintains the freedoms
of secularism, to believe, not believe or be against 'belief', with
the state preventing oppressive domination by any one of them ; with a
significant element of popular consultation and participation and
control over policy and decision making ; and a reasonable measure of
economic security and independence for the individual that allows
economic freedom. Those without financial independence and security
cannot claim their freedoms.
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.
Democracy itself is not enough, 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.
Neither secularism nor democracy can be relied on in themselves to
curb the unbridled accumulation of wealth and privilege and the
'rights' and 'freedoms' they buy.
Left / Liberal policies are necessary
to bring about economic freedom - fair distribution of wealth
brings Economic Freedom for everyone not just the few. 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 them.
It is unlikely that wealth could ever be
entirely equally distributed, 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 be
disadvantaged by poverty least of all children.
|