S
Sair
Guest
Wasn’t quite sure where best to post this, but as it’s a topic with considerable social and political potential, I thought it would be better discussed here than on the Philosophy forum.
What are people’s views on the concept and practice of secularism in society?
In the US, as I understand, there is a constitutional separation of church and state, such that there can be no active or implicit government involvement in the establishment or promotion of any particular religious faith or church organisation. The reason for this, historically, was that the original European settlers in the Americas were often fleeing religious persecution in their native lands, and sought - perfectly reasonably - an environment in which they could practise their own beliefs unmolested by authorities acting on a different set of beliefs.
The Australian constitution has some similar wording with regard to the establishment of a state religion and the involvement of government in religious practice, but this has been interpreted differently by Australian courts such that we have government-funded Christian scripture and chaplaincy programs in schools, and the federal government pitches in to support explicitly (and primarily Christian) religious activities, such as the Catholic World Youth Day and recently, the canonisation of Australia’s first saint, Mary MacKillop.
So technically, Australia does not have any legally enshrined separation of church and state, and cannot properly be called a fully secular society - even though, in practice, we have a plethora of religious communities and a wide variety of faiths amongst our population. So saying, I’m aware that in certain areas of the US, it would be difficult to believe it was a fully secular society - only in that case, for social rather than constitutional reasons.
In inviting people’s views on secularism, I’m also aware of the philosophical implications underlying it. Champions of secularism in public life tend to insist that secularism is not inherently opposed to or antagonistic towards religion - and in practice, this appears to be so. Given the history of secularism, born as it was out of an emerging pluralism of religious belief and practice, it tends to manifest - in those societies which actively try to realise it - as a particular form of multiculturalism, where even small religious minorities are free (by law, for the most part) to worship in whatever manner they see fit, provided they do no harm to others in the process. This seems like a reasonable requirement for a harmonious society, at least.
But just to throw a spanner in the works, I find I can’t agree that secularism is unopposed, in principle, to religion. If you think about it, many religions - and particularly the monotheistic religions - tend to claim that they are the ‘one true faith’, the only path to salvation, or the only ‘right’ way to live. Secularism implicitly denies this. At the very least, taking up the cause of secularism is as much as to say, “No-one has such access to spiritual truth as to claim that their faith is the only legitimate one; therefore none have the right to coerce any other to adopt their beliefs or religious practices.” Essentially, it’s an acknowledgement that we really can’t know which faith is the ‘true’ faith, or even if there is such a thing. That, to me, seems at least philosophically antagonistic to many religious schools of thought.
What are people’s views on the concept and practice of secularism in society?
In the US, as I understand, there is a constitutional separation of church and state, such that there can be no active or implicit government involvement in the establishment or promotion of any particular religious faith or church organisation. The reason for this, historically, was that the original European settlers in the Americas were often fleeing religious persecution in their native lands, and sought - perfectly reasonably - an environment in which they could practise their own beliefs unmolested by authorities acting on a different set of beliefs.
The Australian constitution has some similar wording with regard to the establishment of a state religion and the involvement of government in religious practice, but this has been interpreted differently by Australian courts such that we have government-funded Christian scripture and chaplaincy programs in schools, and the federal government pitches in to support explicitly (and primarily Christian) religious activities, such as the Catholic World Youth Day and recently, the canonisation of Australia’s first saint, Mary MacKillop.
So technically, Australia does not have any legally enshrined separation of church and state, and cannot properly be called a fully secular society - even though, in practice, we have a plethora of religious communities and a wide variety of faiths amongst our population. So saying, I’m aware that in certain areas of the US, it would be difficult to believe it was a fully secular society - only in that case, for social rather than constitutional reasons.
In inviting people’s views on secularism, I’m also aware of the philosophical implications underlying it. Champions of secularism in public life tend to insist that secularism is not inherently opposed to or antagonistic towards religion - and in practice, this appears to be so. Given the history of secularism, born as it was out of an emerging pluralism of religious belief and practice, it tends to manifest - in those societies which actively try to realise it - as a particular form of multiculturalism, where even small religious minorities are free (by law, for the most part) to worship in whatever manner they see fit, provided they do no harm to others in the process. This seems like a reasonable requirement for a harmonious society, at least.
But just to throw a spanner in the works, I find I can’t agree that secularism is unopposed, in principle, to religion. If you think about it, many religions - and particularly the monotheistic religions - tend to claim that they are the ‘one true faith’, the only path to salvation, or the only ‘right’ way to live. Secularism implicitly denies this. At the very least, taking up the cause of secularism is as much as to say, “No-one has such access to spiritual truth as to claim that their faith is the only legitimate one; therefore none have the right to coerce any other to adopt their beliefs or religious practices.” Essentially, it’s an acknowledgement that we really can’t know which faith is the ‘true’ faith, or even if there is such a thing. That, to me, seems at least philosophically antagonistic to many religious schools of thought.