by Jessica Reed
Today on the openDemocracy forums: David Thompson and Matt Murrell discuss secularism vs. religious beliefs and the separation of church(es) and state:
David:
It seems to me that the way to deal with religious impositions is not to try to accommodate them, in the hope that eventually the demands and threats will stop (...) A more credible response is to stand up to such demands, politely but unapologetically. If believers call for, say, their own religious laws to replace or run parallel with the laws governing everyone else, then one has to say 'no, this is divisive, arrogant and unethical' (...) one has to point out - quite firmly - that religious belief is a private matter, not an issue for the state. Religious groups have no right to impose their own taboos on others; nor have they any right to 'opt out' of the laws and responsibilities that govern the rest of us.
Matt:
The way I see things, we have two issues here.
1. The encroachment of minority values into the political and social sphere. Here, I completely agree with you. The best response to those looking to impose their values onto those who don't agree with them is to "politely but unapologetically" tell them to fuck right off. As long as my behaviour doesn't harm others or restrict their freedom then nobody has any right to stop me.
2. Building a more democratic and secular society. Here, unless we resort to force and oppression, it's necessary to get a large number of believers on our side by convincing them of the importance of individual rights and freedom of religion - an argument which I strongly think can be won if gone about in the right way. This requires us to structure our arguments in such a way as to avoid seriously annoying the very people we're trying to convince. This requires tact. Not deference, not respect for their ideas, just tact.
