A chara, – David Grimes (Opinion Analysis, May 7th)believes that the term “militant secularism” is an oxymoron. Why? Is there some oath that secularists take that prevents them from being in any way militant in pursuit of their agenda? In which case, Dr Grimes should consider himself to be on report: the tone of his article was militant from beginning to end, especially in his use of denigrating terms such as “sky God” and “Stone Age tome”.
But perhaps he believes that to be a secularist is to be inherently militant? In which case the word he was looking for was “tautology” not “oxymoron”. – Is mise,
Sir, – I take issue with Robert Grimes’s article. The secularism that people complain about is much more than the separation of church and State. Neither is it all motivated by those who want to hold on to church power.
The objection to secularism is that it disallows religious viewpoints in public life, but gives free rein to other philosophies of life. It assumes that religious views are arbitrary, incapable of debate. It says, “You have your view and I have mine; they have nothing to do with each other or with truth.” It ignores the need to rub shoulders with different views.
Since he mentions Christian sexual teaching, I will respond. Many secularists argue, for example, that the anti-abortion position is a religious one, therefore a private view, therefore not allowed in public debate. Therefore only the pro-choice view (“religion-free“) is admissible.
The mistake is to assume that Christian views on all the issues he mentions have no secular grounding. A fairer approach would be to listen for reasons that agree with Christian teaching but also make secular sense, and weigh these on their merits.
Instead, he says “frank discussion is clouded by often misinformed religious objections”. This sounds like, “If you don’t agree with me, your judgment is clouded.” By this logic, only the secularist view is unclouded. This sounds a bit like old-fashioned religious dogmatism! Secularism is a specific belief, which is subject to debate. It is not worthy of any special privilege in public life. People oppose it with good reason. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Is David Grimes referring to the Bible as a “Stone Age tome”? If so, it is hardly a good starting point for a balanced and logical debate on secularism.
Christians regard this book as the living word of God, when properly interpreted, and without taking it literally without due regard to the translation and customs of that time. – Yours, etc,