The Ads Are The Price Of A Free Site
So Please Feel FREE to IGNORE THEM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TEXTS

Religion Cannot And Should not be opposed by State Suppression

Edmund McArthur

Text Of Talk given to stimulate Ethical Dilemma Debate at South Place Ethical Society  Conway Hall, Red Lion Sq, London WC1, England  6^th Feb 2005  For Details of the Society and its programme see  www.ethicalsoc.org.uk/events.htm

For Conay Hall Location see  www.conwayhall.org.uk. to receive programme update mail spesupdate@yahoo.co.uk   . For SPES Information Pack  supply a Street  Address

=====================================================

My contention is that opposing of religion and other forms of superstition by state suppression is wrong morally, unnecessary and is ultimately in effective in countering the spread of such belief systems.. It may even be counter productive

I speak from the extreme libertarian position, I do not accept the right of the state to abridge the liberty of the individual other than to protect the equal liberty of others (JS Mill) and I see “religious freedom” as the outcome of free speech free association etc.

It is important here to make the distinction between the STATE and CIVIL SOCIETY. As a member of civil society , I reserve the right to be as rude and offensive as I choose re religion, that does not abridge their liberty

I also have the right to deny them access to any space over which I have control(which of course is very limited) If SPES decides that religious groups cannot meet at Conway Hall they are still able to meet else where, in a pluralistic society they will always be able to find a space if they need it.

 It is quite different when the state tells them they cannot 
meet or seeks to regulate them for example by forcing them to join a registrar or tells SPES they cannot meet at Conway Hall.

Now if you are going to support brutally suppressing religion as in the Soviet Union , and China (with particular ref to Tibet) or restrict it selectively as in France, you don’t have a case against the medieval church and its acts of brutality because what you are saying is that might is right- the church once has the power to stifle all dissent and so did , the Soviet state was all powerful and did as it  liked(.    It is arguable that it did not object to religion on moral or intellectual grounds but simply sought to suppress it as a rival belief system, and as part of its general drive to abolish civil society.

Those who would enlist the state in their battle with religion, must ask themselves the following question

Why did you object when the church of old used the might of the state against dissenters? Was it because you were in sympathy with those dissenters or was it empathy with  
victims of repression, if your answer is the former you are likely to be less in sympathy with my position  

If we look at Russia today we see that religion after over 70 years of brutal repression (which continues to a lesser extent) religion and religious sentiment ever stronger than in the West. In the Soviet era the Orthodox enjoyed a monopoly as the only religion not suppressed - its Metropolitan and pirachs were appointed by the state making it defacto an established church

The Communist party also held a role similar to the Church in medieval Europe see lecture by Robin Blick Given to SPES 6^th Feb 2000) but with the aid of modern technology was far more successful at stamping on dissenters both within and without

In France the ban on religious symbols in schools is the most recent in a long catalogue of shameful racist episodesbut more to the point it has not eroded religion one iota , nor does it in any way protect Muslim girls from their families . The net result is that Muslims will become more insular and extremist gain at the expense of moderates

Some secularist or so called secularists seem not to understand the meaning of the word SECULAR.   In the context of “Secular State” it does not  mean,  ANTI RELIGIOUS but rather NON RELIGIOUS an important distinction .  (I speak as one who considers myself anti- religious - the point is individuals and groups within secular society can be pro or anti religious but the secular state must be neutral  

We should aim to fight religion through propaganda (in the sense of information rather than lies) and education, and what we should be seeking is not a secular state , but a secular state of civil society.  

===========================================================