29 sep. 2014

"Karen Armstrong, Do you support Secularism, or not?"

Stephen Law skriver ett öppet brev till Karen Armstrong med anledning av hennes artikel i the Guardian. Law förklarar vad Sekularism (med stort S) är, visar hur de som motsäger sig detta väljer att kritiserar en annan typ av sekularism och slutligen ber han Armstrong förtydliga sig om vad hon anser om Sekularism.
Dear Karen, 
In your recent Guardian article you suggest that: 
(i) religious conflicts often involve other, non-religious factors (that’s a fairly uncontroversial claim with which I can agree), 
(ii) the violence of Isis has ‘nothing to do with Islam’ (I consider this silly, but will let it pass), and, 
(iii) while secularism has been of ‘value’ to the West, it has a history of being oppressive and unjust, particularly towards the religious, producing a violent fundamentalist backlash. 
It’s that third and final claim that I’ll focus on here. In particular I’m concerned with your thought that, while the violence of Isis has ‘nothing at all’ to do with religion, it’s at least partly a product of an oppressive ‘secularism’. 
I’ll start by pointing out that whatever you might mean by ‘secularism’ it’s not what most of those who now self-identify as ‘secularists’ and who campaign under the banner of ‘secularism’ mean by that term. 
‘Secular’ has various meanings. When people say the West is becoming ‘more secular’ they often just mean the West is less religious than it used to be. On this use, ‘secular’ means ‘not religious’.
However, political ‘secularism’ is something else. Contemporary political secularists are concerned with religious neutrality. They want the state to be neutral on matters of religion. They want church/state separation. They believe the state should not endorse one religion over another, or endorse religion over atheism, or indeed endorse atheism over religion. They suppose the state should not fund religious schools, or automatically put religious people into positions of political power (any more than the state should be doing this for atheists). 
This secular neutrality extends to the law. There should not be one law for the religious and another for everyone else. Secularists say, ‘One law for all’.
Läs vidare hos CFI.

1 kommentar:

Krister V sa...

Man får i alla fall tacka för tipset om Armstrongs artikel.
Om Law också läst den hade han nog kommit på någon intressantare fråga.

Religion Blogg listad på Bloggtoppen.se