What is a secular society? Fundamentally it is based upon two basic principles:
-
The state should exist independently of any and all religions.
-
All are equal under the law regardless of their religion or beliefs.
However, despite research within the 2015 British Social Attitudes Survey which seems to show that by far the single biggest faith group in the UK are those without a religious faith (49%), significant criticisms have been made that militant secularism is attempting to destroy religion.
Critics of secularism often claim it oppresses faith groups, is anti religious and promotes atheism. Theists have made some fairly harsh criticisms of the concept of secularism. Some examples of this are:
“the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity” – Baroness Warsi
“You want to have two guys making out in front of your 4-year-old? It’s OK with them. A guy smoking a joint, blowing the smoke into your little kid’s face? OK with them. And I’m not exaggerating here. This is exactly what the secular movement stands for.” – Bill O’Reilly
But these criticisms fail to adequately account for what secularism really means. So let’s look at it’s real defining principles.
Secular Society Definition:
Essentially a secular society separates the operation of state legislation from religion. This does not mean that the state can not be influenced by religion, as some anti secularists suggest. A secular state does not deny religious communities within it the right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion. In fact, in a secular state, religious groups have as much right to lobby and influence state legislature as anyone else.
However, in a secular state, religious groups do not have a unique privilege to do so. For example, in what is a secular society, the UK, the Christian faith have a uniquely powerful voice within the state legislature. There are 26 seats reserved for representatives of the christian faith within the House of Lords. Furthermore the Church of England and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland are recognised as, so called, state religions.
Given that recent studies show that less than 42% of the UK population describe themselves as Christians, with less than 17% attending church at least once a year, secularists argue that there is no reason to bestow this unique law making power upon what is actually a religious minority.
However, contrary to the criticisms of critics such as Baroness Warsi, secularists do not claim that Christians don’t have the right to be heard only that their rights do not outweigh those of any one else. Similarly UK secularists do recognise the historical significance of Christianity in British history. However they argue that there are a great many cultural and religious influences that have shaped and continue to shape modern Britain who are not afforded any unique legislative power.
Far from discriminating against religion a secular state actually protects religious freedom, including the freedom not to be religious. An oft made criticism is that secularism is synonymous with atheism. This is a complete fallacy.
Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in deities. It is not a belief system at all. However, in a secular state, it is illegal to discriminate against anyone on grounds of their religion or their rejection of religion. As a consequence many atheists, who may object to the very concept of a state religion, identify with secularism. However secularism itself does not promote atheism or any other religious view, quite the opposite in fact.
A secular state would mean that all religious beliefs are protected and any and all individuals will have the right to observe their religion providing that their observance does not impinge upon the rights of others or contravene the law.
For example forced marriage is illegal in Britain but many cultures and faiths practice arranged marriage. This is perfectly acceptable within a secular state. However where that arrangement involves the abuse of or coercion of an individual to marry against their will the state can intervene. This has nothing to do with the oppression of religious freedom but is simply a matter of the law.
The core tenet of secularism is to uphold human rights regardless of religion, ethnicity, sexuality, age, disability or gender. So if someone asked me, “what is a secular society?” I would say it is a suggested framework for a successful democratic society and not an attack upon anyone’s religious or philosophical freedoms.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
In your introduction “What is a secular society?” you state the following:
“Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in deities.”
Please stop perpetuating this widespread misunderstanding.
I hold no belief in deities yet I am NOT an atheist. To be an atheist I would need to hold the BELIEF that there is NO DEITY.
I neither believe nor disbelieve in a deity so I am neither a theist nor an atheist.
It is unnecessary and illogical to create terms for people who do NOT hold a belief. I do not believe in fairies – so am I an afairyist? I do not believe in green men on mars. Do we need a word to describe this (and many other) ABSENCES of belief? There is no end to the things we may not believe.
It IS useful to create terms for those who DO hold a belief. Thus a believer in a deity can be termed a deist.
Were I to hold the BELIEF that there is no deity then I WOULD be an atheist.
I don’t know if there is or is not a deity. This does NOT make me an agnostic. An agnostic is one who holds the BELIEF that we cannot know if there is or is not a deity.
I hold none of these beliefs so I am not a theist, an atheist or an agnostic.
Such questions do not arise for me and no special term is needed to describe me. UNbelief is not DISbelief.
Thanks Quint
I am not sure what your point is here. You say “To be an atheist I would need to hold the BELIEF that there is NO DEITY.” This is what I meant by my statement that ““Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in deities.” That is that atheists do not believe in any deities.
This chimes with the OED Dictionary definition of Atheism: – Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
When it comes to God or gods I feel atheism has to be defined as “NOT” believing. The existence of Gods or God is purely a matter of faith. You cannot define it in absolute catagorical terms. It is not the same as saying I do not believe in grass. Grass is evident and its existence is proveable. You can’t say the same about God or gods.
Therefore, while I accpet your point that there is no end of the things we may not believe, in the case of faith we have no option other than to discuss it in terms of either belief or the absence of belief. How else could we define “faith?”
Iain,
It seems that although my views seem plain enough to me I may not be able to express them clearly. Even if expressed clearly, I accept that they will not necessarily chime with either the views of others or with those enshrined in the O.E.D.
The axiom of excluded middle may well apply in some man-made systems of logic but not in the universe that we humans inhabit. In other words there is more to life than the simple two-values-only binary process of either believing or not believing. There are THREE values available to us:
1. Beleiving.
2. Its opposite, DISbelieving.
and
3. NONbelieving which lies between the other two. Neither believing nor disbelieving. Simply not knowing.
NONbelieving is the middle way that in human affairs should never be excluded IMHO.
(Previously I called this UNbelieving which may be misleading. I think NONbelieving is a better term.)
As an illustration, I ask four different people the same three questions:
Person A.
Q: “Do you believe that a god exists?”
A: “Yes.”
I could label person A a theist because she/he HOLDS THE BELIEF that a god exists.
Person B.
Q: “Do you believe that a god exists?”
A: “No.”
Q: “Do you believe that no god exists?”
A: “Yes.”
I could label person B an atheist because she/he HOLDS THE BELIEF that no god exists. (This is belief, NOT the ABSENCE of belief.)
Person C.
Q: “DO you believe that a god exists?”
A: “No.”
Q: “Do you believe that no god exists?
A: “No.”
Q: “Do you believe that it is impossible to determine whether a god does or does not exist?”
A: “Yes.”
I could label person C an agnostic because she/he HOLDS THE BELIEF that it is impossible to determine whether or not a god exists.
PersonD.
Q: “Do you believe that a god exists?”
A: “No.”
Q: “Do you believe that no god exists?”
A: “No.”
Q: “Do you believe that it is impossible to determine whether or not a god exists?”
A: “No.”
I would NOT label person D a theist, an atheist or an agnostic because she/he holds NONE of the three associated beliefs.
Person D, like myself, is someone who simply does not know, is unconcerned with not knowing and certainly does not need, or deserve, a label at all. A label for ABSENCE of belief is surely not just superfluous but actually misleading.
You ask “How else could we define ‘faith?'”
Well, in my experience I’ve found definitions to be slippery things – approximations that need to be revised in the light of expanding knowledge and understanding.
Presently, “faith” appears to me as belief (or the desire to believe) in the absence of (or with no requirement for) a body of supporting evidence. Indeed much belief seems to persist despite the presence of evidence to the contrary.
As a rational human being I realise that my evolutionary ancestors have bequeathed me with a mind that relies heavily on much that is irrational. I must never forget this though often I do!
I’ll continue with trying to keep an open mind so that if ever I encounter a body of evidence that supports and does not deny the existence of a god – then I suppose I’ll just have to become a believer. But it won’t happen through “blind faith”.
Thanks Quint, especially for reading one of my very first posts on this blog. I need to revisit themself as I am not sure I hold the same views today.