Baroness Warsi certainly gets some unpleasant jobs, though I’m certain she wouldn’t see it that way.
Four years ago she was dispatched to Khartoum to mediate in the teddy bear blasphemy furore. Two years later she could be seen sharing a panel on Question Time with BNP fuhrer, Nick Griffin. Now she’s making the news as part of a delegation to the Vatican to mark 30 years of renewed diplomatic relations between Britain and the Vatican. Life was never going to be easy for an unelected, token Muslim woman in the Tory party.
According to The Guardian, she was given a “rapturous reception” after addressing an audience of trainee Catholic diplomats on Tuesday the 14th and was due to meet the pontiff in person the following day.
If you’re wondering what all the fuss may have been about, Baroness Warsi’s full speech can be seen here but I warn you, it’s not for the faint-hearted. Should anybody choose to read the entire thing (and despite making it readily available to you, I strongly suggest you don’t) you will probably be left wondering the same thing as me: did she get anybody to check through it first? Apparently not but if she did the other person or persons had as little grasp as she when it came to European history. I’m kind of glad for her sake she was only there to preach to the converted.
Her mission has to do with putting God back on the agenda. More specifically, putting him right at the top of the agenda. The problem of late has been those pesky “militant secularists” who would rather see the good Lord relegated to ‘any other business’ or off the agenda altogether. The Baroness has made common cause with the Pope, calling for Europe to be “more confident in its Christianity” and to reject “intolerant secularisation.”
What exactly is a militant secularist? What do secularists of a militant nature do that ordinary secularists do not?
Anybody describing themselves as secularist would wish to see the separation of church and state. This may consist of campaigning for disassociation in a nation that has an established state religion, such as England, or the enforcement of separation in an officially secular one, like the United States, where, perversely, the separation appears outwardly non-existent.
What secularists do not call for is the complete abolition of the state religion. That would be atheism and a fairly militant atheism at that! Her speech reads as though she has consistently used the word secularist when she actually meant atheist.
I am not contending that the Baroness has mixed-up her terms (though I wouldn’t completely rule that possibility out). More likely, she has deliberately sought to equate the two, which is, of course, absurd. Atheism and secularism are not the same thing.
I think I would be right in saying all atheists would support the disengagement of church and state, if only as a first step toward the eventual eradication of religion generally. The same cannot be said for people who simply describes themselves as secularist… particularly the proportion that belong to a religion.
As for the charge of militancy, since when has calling for the separation of church and state been an aggressive act? In the case of Britain, we have become an increasingly secular society and I would agree that there has been a rise in the number and in the visibility of people who would consider themselves secularists. Maybe the Baroness should ponder the reasons for this increase (though I’m sure she wont). It certainly doesn’t equate to militancy. Not unless a postman’s desire to deliver mail or a fisherman’s to catch fish can be seen as an act of militancy. Secularists oppose religions being afforded privileges denied other people (including other religious people). It’s what they do.
Wanting to establish or retain the exclusivity of church and government strikes me as rather a benign wish. After all, nearly half the nations on earth are officially secular and that’s besides those ambiguous or undeclared nations. I’m not naïve enough to believe all those considered secular truly are. Again, look at America which is constitutionally the most secular but is riddled with religious incursions into everyday life. But for those that genuinely lack an official state religion, it’s easy to see the advantages, to religious and non-religious alike.
In short, secularism is, among other things, a means of regulating religion and that includes competing religions. Even in a nation that is predominantly made up of people who subscribe to a religion (and most nations are), genuine secularism can and should prevent discrimination against minority faiths, as well as non-believers. Contrary to Baroness Warsi’s ludicrous remarks about intolerance, secularism is the epitome of tolerance. A secularist prepared to tolerate the intrusion by faith into the daily affairs of the state wouldn’t be a secularist.
In a futile bid to justify her argument, she claims that so-called militant secularisation can be seen “when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings” and “when states won’t fund faith schools.”
With regard to the “signs of religion”, the Baroness doesn’t provide us with much evidence where Britain is concerned but I can easily visualise her brandishing old press clippings from The Telegraph or the Mail (whichever may be her rag of choice) relating to the supposed victimisation of NHS nurse Shirley Chaplin and BA employee Nadia Eweida. Two women who fought valiantly to defy their employers dress code regulations by claiming religious discrimination.
As to faith schools in Britain, according to a 2009 poll commissioned by the Accord Coalition (which, incidentally, comprises both religious and non-religious organisations) 57% of people agreed that “state funded schools that select students by their religion undermine community cohesion”. Only 19% disagreed. The survey also found that 72% agreed that “all state funded schools should operate recruitment and employment policies that do not discriminate on grounds of religion or belief”, with only 9% in disagreement. I would therefore venture to say that state funding for faith schools isn’t overwhelmingly favoured by the population at large.
Not that such findings deterred David Cameron who announced the following year: “I think faith schools are an important part of our system, I support them and I would like if anything to see them grow.”
In fairness, the Baroness did show a little reservation here and there, like when she mentioned people’s understandable fear of “going backwards in history to the bad days when religion was imposed on people by despotic regimes.” Yet she still failed to grasp where secularists might be coming from. Rather, she thinks that “we have got to the stage where aggressive secularism is being imposed by stealth.”
I suppose one ought not to be surprised. This, after all, comes from a Muslim woman who sends her daughter to an Anglican convent school and leads a cringing and sycophantic delegation to the leader of the Catholic church. She just can’t seem to get enough of religion.
I could talk about the slightly more guarded comments she made about the Bishops in the House of Lords, exercising their undemocratic rights to oppose her government’s welfare reforms, which isn’t really what she had in mind when she talked about faith having “a seat at the table in public life.”
I could also comment on Pope Benedict’s role in the ongoing child sex abuse saga which has left him with less credibility than he had seventy years ago as a member of the Hitler Youth.
It would also be quite in keeping to point out Baroness Warsi’s own history of intolerance; perhaps singling out her 2005 election material which claimed that Labour’s lowering of the age of consent laws for gays led to schoolchildren being “propositioned for homosexual relationships” (to which she later, in a moment of touching contriteness, responded “God – why did I phrase it like that? What was I on?”).
I could do all of those things but I won’t. My main objective has been to repudiate the misguided and intolerant accusations made in Baroness Warsi’s speech toward people of a secularist persuasion. Anything else would be like shooting fish in a font.
While ever the European continent remains overwhelmingly secular and Britain continues to be secular in all but name – and the religionists refuse to comprehend possible reasons for people’s aversion to state religion – I feel that the tide of secularism is irreversible. As such, being a secularist myself, and an atheist of the non-combative type, I am quite content for the Baroness and her like to champion religion as much as they like and for them to encourage Christians to be “more confident” in matters of their faith, provided they are able to appreciate the feelings of those who are not like-minded.
I would even be happy to see the Pope break a few rules and have the Baroness canonized in her own lifetime, although there is already a patron saint of lost causes.
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.thenewjournalist.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.thenewjournalist.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.thenewjournalist.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://www.thenewjournalist.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[Reddit]](http://www.thenewjournalist.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[Slashdot]](http://www.thenewjournalist.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/slashdot.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.thenewjournalist.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.thenewjournalist.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://www.thenewjournalist.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Email]](http://www.thenewjournalist.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
I have to disagree with the part of this article that stems from this:
“What secularists do not call for is the complete abolition of the state religion. That would be atheism and a fairly militant atheism at that! Her speech reads as though she has consistently used the word secularist when she actually meant atheist.”
I would say this was completely backwards. Secularists DO call for the abolition of state religion, or at least request that the state religion is more of a traditional role, rather than an interfering one (much like the Queen). Atheism specifically has NO position on anything but the existence of God. The ONLY thing you can say about any given atheist is that they do no believe in God; the terms ‘atheist’ carries with it no further positional values.
As you elude to in the paragraphs preceding the above quote, secularists argue for the separation of church and state and the entanglement that exists within a ‘state church’ is exactly the kind of thing they object to.
I agree with Stuart; secularists do call for the abolishment of “state religion”. That said, it is still a misrepresentation about what Atheism represents to suggest, as Baroness Warsi did, that there is agenda to rid the country of religion.
Religion is a private matter. The only people who suggest otherwise are those with an agenda to keep it public for a host of reasons (prestige, power, money – the usual). They fail to consider that their some of their own religious books call for adherence to the faith but that it should be considered a matter for the individual.
Atheism is simply the noise that someone makes in the presence of a person/group claiming to “know” that there is a god.
The bit about state religion was, I’m sorry to say, just a bit of clumsiness on my part. When I talked about “the complete abolition of the state religion” I only meant the religion in question, i.e. Christianity in the case of Britain. In other words, secularists do not seek the abolition of Christianity. I can see how my choice of wording could mislead. As for atheism, you’re right Vaughan, Warsi sees atheists as being on a mission to rid the country of religion but she doesn’t have the sense or honesty to say as much.
I think we should all be slightly disturbed with the unelected representing Britain’s interests (or purporting to) when they have not been given a specific mandate to do so. Warsi is just one of many unelected politicians who have been given incredible levels of access to the government for no apparent reason.
I was going to write an article for this on TNJ but as you had written on I decided not to in order to prevent saturation on the site. Part of my research would have argued that Christians in this country should refer to their holy book when discussing whether prayers should be included in government meetings:
“Matthew 6:
1 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
2 “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
I think that says it all. No doubt there is another piece of scripture which contradicts this view. It would be in this contradiction that the problem of the Bible is revealed (should there be one). If not, then the argument is more compelling.
For me, as an atheist secularist, the most insulting thing about the whole religion/state discussion is the assertion that religion offers moral and social guidance. The implication here is that secularists and those of no religion are immoral amoral individuals who add nothing to the fabric of society. This is patently not true. It could actually be argued that to carry out charitable acts without the support or expectation of a church is actually a better thing to do. That type of act asks for no gratitude or expectation of a better afterlife.
Religion is something that should be practised in private not something that children should be force feed as part of education nor something that should be part of governance. It is outrageous that Eric Pickles has changed the law so that prayers can be included in council meetings. This discriminates against secularists and surely must be challenged.
“Religion is something that should be practised in private not something that children should be force feed as part of education nor something that should be part of governance.”
I would have probably agreed with you a few months ago but my view has changed somewhat so, on that basis, I must point out what I feel is a false dichotomy.
I feel is is perfectly acceptable for people to make their faith “public”. There is no reason for people to be hiding in their homes worshipping and fearing to step outside of the door. I agree with you; it has no place in the governance of any country.
In education, this is slightly different. I think some of the more public Atheists accept a need for religion to be taught in its proper context. I personally think the proper context is in the History classes rather than specific Religious Education classes and I would picket any school in this country who proposes theology as a counterweight in the science classroom.
You’re absolutely right to show indignation with the act of Eric Pickles. The High Court is there as an independent tribunal of the people in some respects. That Pickles has discarded this important role to serve the needs of piety in its most illiberal and divisive forms is a scandal which needs to be looked into immediately.
[...] British Humanist Association Nelson Jones The New Journalist Mark Steel Crispian Jago Newsthump Crispian Jago [...]
“I think I would be right in saying all atheists would support the disengagement of church and state, if only as a first step toward the eventual eradication of religion generally.”
Well, I’m an atheist, and I don’t recognize myself in that description, to be honest. I do support the disengagement of church and state, but I don’t think it logically follows from me being an atheist. You don’t need to be an atheist to dismiss the notion of the few forcing their beliefs onto everybody. As you point out yourself, there are plenty of religious secularists around.
As for the ‘eradication of religion generally’, that’s not something I’m looking for at all. Everybody’s perfectly free to believe whatever they like as far as I’m concerned, it’s just that I don’t, so as long as someone doesn’t try to push his or her religion into my face we’re gonna get along just fine.