Introduction

In October 2014, 250 delegates gathered in London for the international secularism conference. After the conference, Peter Tatchell posted the 'Manifesto for Secularism' on his web site:  Manifesto for Secularism, along with some commentary which includes the following paragraphs.

Secularism - the separation of religion and the state - is a vital precondition for democracy, equality and human rights. It protects people of all faiths and none; creating a level playing field where no religion has legal privilege and no faith can abuse its influence to victimise people of different beliefs.

Wherever religion has political power, human rights are attacked and restricted - as in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Even when religion has little or no formal political power, such as in the UK and US, the Religious Right has often sabotaged women’s reproductive rights and equality for LGBT people.

Of course, there is a great deal of good in the manifesto and elsewhere on that web page. But some of the content needs a response and some of it (I would suggest) needs some revision. This is a personal contribution towards that end.

Details

  The Full Text of the Manifesto

Our era is marked by the rise of the religious-Right – not because of a “religious revival” but rather due to the rise of far-Right political movements and states using religion for political supremacy. This rise is a direct consequence of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism and the social policies of communalism and cultural relativism. Universalism, secularism and citizenship rights have been abandoned and segregation of societies and “communities” based on ethnicity, religion and culture have become the norm.

The Islamic State (formerly ISIS), the Saudi regime, Hindutva (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) in India, the Christian-Right in the US and Europe, Bodu Bala Sena in Sri Lanka, Haredim in Israel, AQMI and MUJAO in Mali, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria are examples of this.

For many decades now, people in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and the Diaspora have been the first victims but also on the frontlines of resistance against the religious-Right (whether religious states, organisations and movements) and in defence of secularism and universal rights, often at great risk to their lives.

We call on people everywhere to stand with us to establish an international front against the religious-Right and for secularism. We demand:

1. Complete separation of religion from the state. Secularism is a fundamental right.
2. Separation of religion from public policy, including the educational system, health care and scientific research.
3. Abolition of religious laws in the family, civil and criminal codes. An end to discrimination against and persecution of LGBT, religious minorities, women, freethinkers, ex-Muslims and others.
4. Freedom of religion and atheism and freedom to criticise religions. Belief as a private affair.
5. Equality between women and men and citizenship rights for all.

  Comments on the commentary

Secularism - the separation of religion and the state - is a vital precondition for democracy, equality and human rights.

• I should point out that, if you take this definition, then I think secularism is a good thing. I support it. However ...
• I'm not sure what they think they mean when they say that secularism is "a vital precondition for democracy, equality and human rights". But I'm confident that they don't mean what they say. What this seems to mean is that "democracy, equality and human rights" all exist in the USA and France (where they have a separation of religion and the state), but they do not exist in the UK and Finland (where there is no such separation). I find this quite offensive.
• Moreover, given that I have heard many people argue that even in the USA there is insufficient separation of religion and the state, this would seem to mean that "democracy, equality and human rights" don't exist in the USA, either. I don't know what they think about the situation in France.

It protects people of all faiths and none;

• Pardon? Secularism protects people? You mean that the separation of religion and the state in Russia protected the people of Russia? I would like to see the evidence for this. It seems to me the statement is obviously absurd. So why is is here? I suggest two reasons.
• Firstly, it's a classic example of people stating an aspiration as a reality. The people who wrote the manifesto would like to live in a world in which secularism protects people. Sadly, they live in a world in which secular states oppress people just as much - if not more - than the other states.
• Secondly, while they would like to say this, I think that what they actually intended to say is that secularism protects people by creating "a level playing field where no religion has legal privilege". In other words, the level playing field is itself a protection. But, if this is the case, then it is the level playing field which protects people, not the secularism. The level playing field in the USA comes not from a belief in secularism but a belief in a Creator: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

creating a level playing field where no religion has legal privilege and no faith can abuse its influence to victimise people of different beliefs.

• You can argue about whether atheism and secularism are religions, but you can hardly dispute that they are faiths - they are systems of belief, which some people believe in and other people do not.
• So what these people are arguing for is a situation where secularism - their belief system - has legal privilege. They want a 'level playing field' for all faiths other than their own.
• And they seem to be missing one obvious and vital fact: people with power will tend to abuse that power if they think they can get away with it. There is nothing here to prevent the secularists from abusing their influence and using it to "victimise people of different beliefs".

Wherever religion has political power, human rights are attacked and restricted - as in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

• So are they saying that human rights were never attacked and restricted in atheistic communist states? If the religion is the cause of the problem in Iran, then atheism must have been the cause in Russia, and should be restricted in the same way. As I said, you can argue about whether atheism is a religion, but it seems clear that - given the opportunity - it certainly behaves like one.
• The problem is neither religion nor the lack of it: the problem is the unrestrained exercise of power.

Even when religion has little or no formal political power, such as in the UK and US, the Religious Right has often sabotaged women’s reproductive rights and equality for LGBT people.

• Regarding equality for LGBT people, it is clear that some religious people opposed it - but other religious people supported it. And non-religious people were also on both sides of the argument. Despite what some people seem to believe, you don't have to be religious in order to be prejudiced.
• The fact is that people struggle to cope with change, whether they are religious or not. And, throughout history, the main driver for social reform and human rights has been people motivated by their religious faith - usually Christians who believed that all people are loved equally by their Creator.
• And I think it is terribly unfair to present only one side of the difficult and complicated moral arguments concerning abortion. It is hardly unreasonable to suggest that an unborn human baby is a human being - or to say that an unborn human should have rights, like a born human does, including the right not to be killed.
• The key point - in this context - is that these ideas are not religious in nature: if you have any compassion, you have to struggle with the difficult moral issues here – whether or not you consider yourself to be religious; and this has been the case throughout human history. The Hippocratic Oath forbids both abortion and euthanasia and claims no religious basis or justification for this ethical stance.
• I am not suggesting that the Hippocratic Oath is the last word on medical ethics: things have moved on since those days. Personally, I think that neither of the extreme positions on the subject of abortion (a complete ban, or a complete no-questions-asked, whenever you want it availability) are either moral or healthy (either for people or for society). But that's not what we are talking about here.
• I think it is wrong and harmful to trivialise such an important issue as abortion. And it is especially wrong to do so just to score debating points in a context like this.

  Comments on the manifesto

Our era is marked by the rise of the religious-Right – not because of a “religious revival” but rather due to the rise of far-Right political movements and states using religion for political supremacy.

• This part of the text seems quite perceptive. The problem is not religion, but the use of religion by those in power.
• The perspective is quite interesting. If you define 'our era' quite tightly, then you can justifiably be concerned about the human rights abuses of the far-Right; but go back just a few years and many of the the abuses were being committed by the far-Left.

This rise is a direct consequence of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism and the social policies of communalism and cultural relativism.

• I'm glad that someone feels they understand the reason why the world is the way it is. But I'm not sure I understand what is being said here, or even if it makes sense. The problem, they say, is with the new way of being conservative and the new way of being liberal. Is there no problem with the new way of being socialist, or are they just not interested in such problems?
• And then, according to Wikipedia, "Communalism proposes that markets and money be abolished and that land and enterprises (i.e., private property) be placed increasingly in the custody of the community." Are they saying that countries are abolishing markets and money, and that this directly causes the rise of the Religious-Right? I would like to see the evidence.
• Again, according to Wikipedia, "Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. Cultural relativists believe that all cultures are worthy in their own right and are of equal value. Diversity of cultures, even those with conflicting moral beliefs, is not to be considered in terms of right and wrong or good and bad." But it seems to me that this is exactly what the secularists have been arguing for. It is the faith groups who argue that good and bad exist objectively, outside ourselves and outside our cultural norms and preferences.

Universalism, secularism and citizenship rights have been abandoned and segregation of societies and “communities” based on ethnicity, religion and culture have become the norm.

• I'll accept "have become the norm" in some places.

The Islamic State (formerly ISIS), the Saudi regime, Hindutva (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) in India, the Christian-Right in the US and Europe, Bodu Bala Sena in Sri Lanka, Haredim in Israel, AQMI and MUJAO in Mali, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria are examples of this.

• I'm not in a position to evaluate the accuracy of this list, but I'll take it on trust. Which still leaves a large part of the world in which citizenship rights have not been abandoned.

For many decades now, people in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and the Diaspora have been the first victims but also on the frontlines of resistance against the religious-Right (whether religious states, organisations and movements) and in defence of secularism and universal rights, often at great risk to their lives.

• Ah! I now understand! The problems in the Middle East are all about people resisting the religious-Right.
• Okay, they didn't actually say that. But if this is not what they are saying, then I struggle to understand what they are actually saying here, beyond the trivially-obvious that they choose to interpret some aspects of what is happening in these places as resistance against the religious-Right - whether or not the people involved see their own actions in those terms.

We call on people everywhere to stand with us to establish an international front against the religious-Right and for secularism.

• I have heard such calls before. Usually what happens is that "people everywhere" do not stand up, but the small group of believers decide to go ahead on their crusade anyway.

We demand:

Complete separation of religion from the state.

• A great idea, but tricky to achieve. Once you start trying to pull things apart, I suspect that no two people will agree on what is religion and what is something else.
• When people have tried this in the past, my own observation is that they have started out trying to ban religion, and ended up banning religious values, and then banning ethics and morality, and ending up with the only good being the good of the state or something similar.
• Before they ask for it, I suggest they get people to agree on what the state would look like once you have completely separated the two. Then they have something to argue for.

Secularism is a fundamental right.

• When did this happen?
• I've had another look at  The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. Not a word about secularism.

Separation of religion from public policy, including the educational system, health care and scientific research.

• This suffers from much the same difficulty as the "complete separation of religion from the state". Great in theory, hard to deliver in practice.

Abolition of religious laws in the family, civil and criminal codes.

• Ditto.

An end to discrimination against and persecution of LGBT, religious minorities, women, freethinkers, ex-Muslims and others.

• Excellent idea. The Christian communities I know (and there is quite a lot of them) would all support them in this.

Freedom of religion and atheism and freedom to criticise religions.

• So people are free to believe in both religion and atheism, but they are only free to criticise the religions. Again, belief in atheism has a special and protected place in this system. Freedom to believe both and freedom to criticise both is something I would agree with.

Belief as a private affair.

• This is the killer. We can believe what we like in private, as long as we keep it private. We can believe what we like as long as it doesn't affect the way we live. Sorry - it doesn't work that way.
• What you believe has to be lived out, otherwise that belief is worthless. Or so it seems to me... and a lot of other people.
• The natural progression from "Belief is only allowed in private" is "Belief is only allowed in private between consenting adults" - which makes it impossible to practice your belief in private in the familiy home when children are around, and almost impossible to talk about your belief in private with anyone who does not already share that belief. Forgive me if I'm sounding paranoid here, but totalitarian states (of the Right or of the Left) do want to control what their people believe.
• In passing, this explains why these people are so keen to maintain the fiction that atheism and secularism are not beliefs - they want to be able to practice their beliefs in public, even when they prevent everyone else from doing the same.

Equality between women and men and citizenship rights for all.

• It's always good to end on something we can all agree upon.