Two myths about secularism

The Dawkins and Hitchins of the world are exercising their right to free speech, as are those who criticise them.

Opinions may be anti or pro-religion, but they are a function of political secularism insofar as they recognise freedom of speech, freedom of association and separation of church and state as irreducible principles of government. If you believe everyone is free to act according to their belief, it is logical to support a secular government.

But some religionists, innocently or deliberately, often equate secularists' criticism of religion as an attempt to impose an anti-religious agenda on them through government policy.

To test this claim, let us look at what secularists and religionists want governments to do.

Both want policies and legislation. They are asking for legislative change on controversial issues such as abortion and voluntary euthanasia. The legislation many religionists advocate would prohibit these with sanctions, some criminal, imposing their religious views on others. This is theocratic.

On the other hand, secularists are hardly demanding that abortion or voluntary euthanasia be made compulsory: people would retain the right to act according to their ethical dictates. Any controlling measures should be based on considerations such as public health, welfare and security, as well as human rights, not religious dogma. This is democratic.

Non-religious citizens have a right to question religion's long-standing privileges and ask that government re-examine them. It is passing strange that religionists believe they need taxpayers' money and government endorsement to uphold their faiths. Were religion to further decline if those privileges were withdrawn, surely that would be more a function of their failed attempts to hold their members and convert others during the course of the last century or so, despite all the government-funded advantages they have had.

Government privileges for particular religious groups results in institutionalised discrimination, between the favoured religions and others, as well as religion and other beliefs. This is creeping "soft theocracy".

Intimidating politicians with the threat of a loss of votes and making secularism a scapegoat is really a failure of religionists to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings. Political secularism is not their problem. It guarantees them freedom of speech and association. Failure to connect with hearts and minds is what is proving to be their intractable problem as the steady decline of religious belief in the census demonstrates.