This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Religious freedom and religious privilege

Zeuglodon's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by Zeuglodon

Comment 4 by Steve Zara

There is absolutely no coherent reason for anyone to be against contraception.

Hence the glut of incoherent ones, I presume. The strongest ones I've heard are: a) it doesn't always work. This ignores the fact that a success rate well into the 90%-100% range just for condoms alone is still pretty impressive. b) it might be dangerous to one of the partners. I'm having difficulty imagining many cases where this would be true, though.

Neither of which are exactly justifying the knee-jerk vitriol that contraception seems to inspire.

This is my objection to secularism - it privileges organised stupidity. Because of that, secularism is fundamentally unfair - it does not allow for privilege to be given to individual stupidity. Secularism may be necessary, but I don't like it.

I don't understand the objection. Secularism is:

... the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be unbiased by religious influence.1 (See also public reason.) Some scholars are now arguing that the very idea of secularism will change.[2]

Separation of government from religious influence should be a good thing to you. What happens to religious institutions and religious dignitaries after that is entirely irrelevant. It can't be privileging "organised stupidity" (I'm guessing you mean religion) because the thing is designed to avoid religious influence like the plague.

It comes across as if you're saying that a non-plutocratic government is privileging rich people.

Even if, by definition, the opposite is not guaranteed to be true (a non-plutocratic government is not privileging rich people), it must be a guarantee that a plutocratic government is privileging rich people, so it's obvious the non-plutocratic one is the better one. Secularism as it is practised may be doing it wrong, but that's got more to do with problems putting it into practice. There's nothing inherent to the definition of secularism that makes it erroneous.

To put it briefly, I don't understand why you don't like secularism. I'd have thought you'd have been all for it, unless there's something I'm missing.

Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:53:27 UTC | #919830