Justifying secularism

I’m trying to decide how much to agree or disagree with this post by Russell Blackford:

I don’t want someone else’s values and practices imposed on me whether these values and practices are “delusional” or not. I don’t want them imposed on me because they are not my values and practices. All religious believers, as well as atheists, have a stake in living under a political system that allows each person a great deal of latitude to live in accordance with her own beliefs and values, and engage in her own practices. It is better all round if the state does not get too far into this, and most of us could agree that the state does not do a good job of it. For a start, it should not be identifying and imposing the “correct” religion.

I said “a great deal of latitude” because the state does, in fact, require some things, such as that we not murder each other, that we look after our children, and that we pay our taxes. But modern secular states do not impose comprehensive systems of thought on their citizens, and they do not impose specifically religious standards of morality (or at least they have tended to move away from imposing such standards). If these states have a legitimate interest in imposing a morality at all, it is a rather minimal one related to avoidance of worldly harms and requiring some basic mutual cooperation. That leaves all sorts of other decisions to the individuals concerned. Hence such catchphrases as, “Don’t like abortion. Don’t have one!”

A lot of that sounds plausible, but I can think of a few issues with it. On Russell’s view, I take it, religion is just one subset of the set of things that are none of the government’s business. He thinks secularism needn’t involve putting special restrictions on government interference on religion. Locke had a similar view.

This gets a bit sticky for anyone who isn’t a hard-core libertarian, though. For example, whether or not science is a comprehensive system of thought, the government does things to promote science that definitely end up promoting certain ideas. And it would be incompatible with secularism for the government to promote religious ideas in the same way, even if it were just promoting a view specific ideas and not a “comprehensive” system.

In fact, the US constitution (as currently interpreted by the courts) places fairly strict restrictions on government promotion of religion, yet leaves the government free to promote all kinds of other nonsense–to promote a whitewashed version of American history in public schools, for example, or run public service annoucements claiming that marijuana will ruin your life. So, at least as currently practiced in the US, secularism isn’t a matter of religion being one of many things the government can’t promote.

Similarly, you have to stretch the meaning of “some basic mutual cooperation” pretty far to include everything most people want the government to do. I don’t actually have a great sense of Russell’s political views, so maybe he’s much more libertarian than I am, but it’s hard to see how “basic mutual cooperation” could stand for a view most people would endorse.

Finally, there’s just no way to avoid certain questions in setting government policy: Is abortion murder? Are Africans people? etc. As you already know, I think there are multiple independent arguments in favor of the legality of abortion. However, I’m unable to see how “as a matter of principle, we should set aside our disagreements and leave it up to the individuals concerned” could be one of them.

Sign petition to get Arizona high school to follow the law
Religion deserves no special treatment under US law
Chris Rodda leaving Freethought Blogs
Let's have another thread on the Catholics

CLOSE | X

HIDE | X