Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • I'm sometimes asked what I mean when I refer to myself as a secularist.

  • The term 'secular' has different meanings.

  • But when I describe my own position as secular

  • I'm referring to a view encompassing two broad principles.

  • Firstly, the separation of religion from state leaves religious people free

  • to practice their religion, provided they don't infringe the freedoms of others

  • and allows the non-religious to live without the imposition of religion

  • through law, education, government, employment or health.

  • This promotes freedom of religion and from religion.

  • Secondly, the principle of equality before the law seeks to remove all privilege

  • or penalty for having or lacking religious faith;

  • to ensure that no belief, religious or otherwise

  • receives special protection from criticism;

  • and that inequalities which some support within their religion

  • won't be supported outside it.

  • Obviously, under this principle, blasphemy and apostasy are non-punishable.

  • When properly understood

  • secularism creates an environment of equality that benefits us all

  • which is why it's supported by theists and atheists

  • religious and non-religious people alike.

  • Until recently, many of Britain's Councils began meetings with religious prayer.

  • But in February this year, after informal requests for this to stop were ignored

  • the National Secular Society won a legal challenge

  • when the High Court declared the practice unlawful.

  • Some commentators and parts of the British media

  • were quick to portray this as 'militant secularism'.

  • But where was the injury here? Was religion criticized?

  • Were councillors told they must abandon their beliefs?

  • Or stop praying in their own time? No. All that was established was that prayer has

  • no place in formal proceedings.

  • As NSS Campaigns Manager Stephen Evans points out

  • the absence of prayers "simply creates a neutral space

  • and removes an unnecessary barrier to local democracy being equally welcoming

  • to all sections of society."

  • Prayer has never been part of any business meeting I've attended.

  • Nor have religious colleagues taken issue with that.

  • Even before the High Court ruling, many councils didn't open meetings with prayer.

  • The fact that some councils have traditionally done this in the past

  • does not justify them continuing to do so.

  • A history of doing X doesn't make it okay today.

  • It was once tradition for only men to vote.

  • Those who think prayer is a worthwhile use of their time can pray in their own time

  • but supernatural rituals will naturally fall by the wayside

  • as fewer and fewer people believe in the supernatural

  • so it's utterly misguided to try to preserve them as part of our heritage.

  • Just as I, as an atheist, would oppose inserting atheism into business meetings

  • bank note design or oaths of national allegiance

  • - no matter how many of the population are non-believers -

  • many theists recognize the inappropriateness of inserting theism in those contexts, too.

  • Of course, some don't...

  • Michael Langrish, bishop of Exeter, has claimed prayers said before council meetings

  • set its decisions in 'a wider moral context'

  • but acts of worship that exclude and alienate people at the outset

  • create an unnecessarily *narrow* context.

  • Also, religious rituals are not needed to set a moral context.

  • Gloucestershire council has replaced its original prayer

  • with, “May we find the wisdom to carry out our duties,

  • the humanity to listen to all, the courage to do what is right

  • and the generosity to treat each other with respect.”

  • Worthy sentiments, one might think, though eChristianNews reports this as 'shocking'.

  • Langrish says he finds it sad that what he calls "a tiny minority

  • are trying to ban a majority, who appreciate this activity".

  • Being in the majority is not a licence to ignore the impact

  • your activity has on everyone else.

  • And besides, Christianity is in dramatic decline in Britain.

  • Recent research by Ipsos MORI

  • indicates only just over half the population now identify as Christian.

  • More significantly, of the self-identifying Christians polled

  • over a third expressed no positive belief in the power of prayer.

  • The same number said they never or almost never pray from choice.

  • In fact, when asked why they identify as Christians

  • fewer than three in ten cited belief in Christian teachings as one of their reasons.

  • Far more said it was because they were christened

  • or baptised into the religion or that parents were Christian.

  • By reporting actual attitudes, rather than assuming them

  • this research undermines Langrish's assumption that those who identify as Christian

  • will share his perspective on council prayers, or indeed any other matter.

  • Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association

  • draws attention to the way certain public figures and parts of the media

  • sensationally misrepresent religious news stories

  • so as to create a narrative of victimhood and persecution

  • as a cover for what's actually going on:

  • Christian lobby groups arguing for more influence.

  • Andrea Williams of Christian Concern, who warns of totalitarian secularism

  • reveals her motives by urging councils to "[B]e vocal and visible for the Lord Jesus

  • by continuing to keep prayers on their agenda."

  • Christian Concern's website currently states: "[W]e want to work

  • to infuse a biblical worldview into every aspect of society."

  • Like egocentric infants who've grabbed all the toys

  • then throw a tantrum when some are taken away to be distributed fairly

  • some behave as though it's unbearable

  • if their religion isn't given prominence or even dominance, regardless of setting.

  • While secularists seek to establish fairness and equality for all groups

  • these people seek to establish religious privilege for their own group.

  • Earlier this year, David Cameron pledged to legalize same-sex marriage.

  • Keith O'Brien, head of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland

  • condemned this as 'grotesque' and shameful.

  • Many would say that about O'Brien's views.

  • More people in the UK and US now express support for same-sex marriage

  • than opposition to it, and it's legal in more and more European countries.

  • But secularism defends O'Brien's freedom to express his view

  • no matter how shabby, insular and irrelevant it may seem

  • at first, second or forty-ninth glance.

  • However, Vincent Nichols and Peter Smith, two R C archbishops

  • took the extreme step of composing a letter to be read out at 2500 churches

  • urging parishioners to ensure that what they called the 'true meaning of marriage'

  • (a commitment between a man and woman) is not lost.

  • They gave several reasons for their definition of marriage.

  • They said it reflects our nature.

  • Clearly, if many want same-sex spouses, mixed marriage does not reflect 'our nature'.

  • They said the stability of marriage provides the best context

  • for the flourishing of relationships.

  • If that's true for mixed couples it's true for same-sex ones.

  • They said it recognizes the complementarity of the sexes.

  • Many women feel they complement each other, so do many men.

  • And surely it's the relationship of the two people involved that matters in marriage.

  • Self-indulgent musings on male/female harmony don't justify denying marriage equality.

  • Lastly, they said marriage is for creating and raising children

  • which is absurd off the bat.

  • The church has no problem marrying mixed couples who don't want or can't have children.

  • Also, if they say marriage helps people raise children

  • that's a reason to support marriage of same-sex couples, many of whom raise children.

  • So we can easily dismiss these feeble justifications.

  • But whatever reasons these two had given

  • trying to mobilize Britain's catholics against civil same-sex marriage

  • to bully government into enshrining a religious view in civil law

  • was wholly unacceptable.

  • However, in an even more extraordinary intervention

  • reported by the Guardian and BBC a month later

  • the Catholic Education Service contacted nearly

  • four hundred state-funded Catholic secondary schools in England and Wales

  • to promote the letter, and a petition against same-sex marriage, to pupils.

  • One pupil reported the bristling reaction in assembly as her head-teacher

  • explained parts of the letter and encouraged them to sign the petition.

  • Expressing her disgust, she added that the talk prompted some pupils

  • to buy 'Gay Pride' badges to pin to their uniforms.

  • Using children as political lobbying tools to prevent non-religious same-sex marriage

  • is a deeply unprincipled tactic that shows the depths to which these people will sink

  • to interfere in the freedoms of non-catholics.

  • Secularists don't seek to interfere in the internal squabbles of religion.

  • If some church leaders don't want same-sex couples to marry in their church

  • they're free to make that known

  • and individual Christians can judge for themselves whether that's acceptable to them.

  • Certainly, some bishops have spoken out

  • against the Church of England's so-called 'official' opposition to same-sex marriage.

  • As bishop of Buckingham Alan Wilson notes:

  • "There is a groundswell of opinion that says, 'this does not speak for us'.

  • There is a sea change going on."

  • And these sentiments have been echoed by Tim Ellis, bishop of Grantham.

  • Secular atheists and theists campaign on many issues.

  • They work to ensure public services are delivered in a neutral way

  • without religious discrimination, promotion of religion

  • or religious judgments that may deter people from making use of such services.

  • They seek to disestablish the Church of England as our state religion

  • which is as crucial to the church's autonomy as it is to the government's

  • to guard against mutual interference.

  • And as Church of England priest Giles Fraser points out

  • society is too diverse to sustain a state religion.

  • A secular state stops any single religion monopolizing power.

  • Secularists seek the removal of the twenty-six unelected bishops

  • from the House of Lords, who unfairly inflate Church of England representation

  • in this law-making body.

  • There's no evidence that bishops bring superior moral insight

  • as is sometimes argued to justify their presence in the House.

  • On the contrary, some may have unduly limited insight on certain key issues.

  • The current lack of female bishops in the UK

  • also creates automatic and total sexual inequality among the twenty six.

  • Another secular campaign highlights the unfairness of hospital chaplaincy services

  • which, despite being publicly funded, exclude patients

  • who don't share the chaplain's religion.

  • As the National Secular Society points out, the major religions have enormous wealth.

  • The Church of England has assets of billions of pounds.

  • If they want hospital chaplains, they should pay for them

  • especially as they also get special tax exemption

  • another example of unfair preferential treatment that should stop.

  • An NSS study has shown that our best-performing hospitals

  • tend to spend the lowest proportion on chaplaincy services

  • and that if all health Trusts brought their spending in line with the best ones

  • savings could pay for 1,000 nursing assistants a year.

  • Some of the biggest concerns secularists have regard religions' role in education.

  • Many agree there's value in teaching children about different religions.

  • A worldly understanding will naturally involve learning about

  • what different people believe; why some follow religion

  • and equally why others don't.

  • What is not acceptable is using a national education system

  • to segregate and indoctrinate children into particular religions.

  • Around a third of the UK's publicly funded schools are so-called 'faith schools'

  • which enjoy many unfair privileges.

  • They can discriminate in employment by denying jobs to teachers

  • who don't share the school faith.

  • They can also refuse to admit children whose parents don't share the school faith

  • or aren't 'religious enough'

  • often forcing them to travel much further for their education

  • when nearby faith schools won't take them.

  • In fact, a study commissioned by the Department of Education and Skills

  • found that the high academic performance of faith schools

  • often cited to justify their continuation

  • is actually due to their being able to pick and choose which children they admit

  • based on what they can observe about the children and their backgrounds.

  • In other words, their success is due to privileges of selection, not religion.

  • Many faith schools supplement science classes with religious lessons

  • that are not subject to the inspection required in other schools.

  • We end up with schools claiming to teach science while guiding children to reject it;

  • incompetent science teachers stumped by elementary questions;

  • and children academically hobbled

  • because some adults, not content with having their own beliefs

  • insist on injecting their religious dogma into others' education.

  • What too often gets lost is any genuine consideration of the child's interests.

  • Leaving aside all the high talk

  • about parents' rights to do this or that with their children

  • what about the child's freedom to make their own balanced assessment of religion?

  • Children are not their parents' property.

  • Parents are temporary guardians of children.

  • Parenthood doesn't authorize one to disfigure another person's body for religious reasons

  • or fill impressionable minds with beliefs that may hinder their subsequent education.

  • Parents have no right to expect their children to carry on their religion

  • any more than they have a right to dictate their career choices or expect grandchildren.

  • We're all entitled to develop our own experience and beliefs about the world around us.

  • We equip children with the most effective tools to do that

  • by modelling and nurturing emotional and intellectual skills.

  • Children should not be valued in terms of their usability in religion

  • as they are by egregious manipulators like Becky Fischer

  • and those who see faith schools as a way of generating new believers.

  • They should be allowed to make their own decisions about religion

  • after a well-balanced education

  • not segregated into faith groups in their formative years.

  • There is no justification for publicly-funded schools teaching religious myth as fact

  • promoting religious beliefs or requiring children to perform acts of religious worship.

  • Parents determined to raise their children in a particular religion

  • can do that without publicly funded 'faith schools'

  • which should convert to community schools without religious practice or privilege.

  • This is not a Christian nation.

  • It's not even a religious nation.

  • It's a nation of many faiths and none.

  • And even within faith groups

  • there can be fundamental differences of opinion on important issues.

  • Establishing secular boundaries that prevent any single religion

  • imposing its values on everyone else

  • is as much a protection for the religious as it is for the non-religious.

  • Boundaries naturally upset those whose nature is to impose;

  • and people who've got used to privilege don't like it being removed.

  • Their complaints are to be taken for granted.

  • When Sayeeda Warsi told the Vatican earlier this year

  • that "aggressive secularism is being imposed by stealth"

  • likening it to totalitarianism and saying secularism "denied people the right

  • to religious identity", this was shameless misrepresentation.

  • Secularism denies no one religious identity.

  • It defends that freedom, but not the freedom to impose that identity on others.

  • What secularism says is that having a religious identity

  • does not justify special tax exemption, especially for the already rich;

  • preaching religion in state schools;

  • inserting narrow, religious values into common law;

  • having unelected religious leaders as legislators

  • or demanding council prayers.

  • Redressing these unjust and inappropriate privileges is not totalitarian

  • nor is it an attack on faith.

  • It's a recognition of the freedom of all people to live without divisive inequalities.

  • Secular principles, supported by theists and atheists alike

  • encourage fairness and mutual consideration

  • and help us all, within reasonable limits

  • to live together in the way we choose.

I'm sometimes asked what I mean when I refer to myself as a secularist.

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級 英國腔

世俗主義 (Secularism)

  • 383 20
    Keith Hwang 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字