Secularism is a Loaded Word

Secularism is the rage nowdays, in several ways, lately it has been used as word of hatred.
We have an anti-thiest agenda driving secularism those strongly advocating it are using the term as an attack on religious institutions, practices, and freedoms. The rallying cry of "Freedom from Religion" is used.

Secularism is a two way street, just as much government does not support or hold a perticular religous view, neither can the state force any said view unto the individial, as such it is up to the individual himself to choose what their inclination should be.

The new way of secularists, do not realise this, and infact hide a terrible agenda under their banners. Islam has become the political new whipping boy. None more so than the due of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Both of these authors like to drive a secularist agenda, at least in theory, but their rhetoric, prose and style say otherwise.

Both are ardent believers in the state, and both do an incredible amount of damage to open societies, by both undermining their foundations while being destructive on the other hand.

Christopher Hitchens started this when he raised the spectre of the extremeist muslim, a totally irrational being whose fear of western freedoms, reason, and secularism undermine his belief in Islam. Therefore this is an enemy motivated by a religious agenda who cannot be reasoned with. He will do anything and everything to destroy our way of life and more importantly convert by bloody-force the world. Sam Harris has picked up on Hitchen's concept and run with it, the point being is that both authors have created this totally irrational force, and simply ignore or downplay the history of the region.

These authors have radicalised atheism, and painted Secularism as an extension of atheism. As a consequence they see secularism as an atheist agenda and want people to push for this, creatign the problem of equating secularism with atheism.

As stated these authors do damage to society, I will explain how.

First of all dividing the left, nothing more stupid to watch a radical leftists quoting Hitchens, with out understanding on who he is and what his message is. Especially given that Hitchens identified himself with the neo-cons of the right of US politics. It is nothing more sadder than watch these people attack religious freedoms and even encourage mocking of another person's beliefs while at the same time comign with the double speak by stating they are seperating church and state. While in fact aiding the state in persuing ultimetly a totallitarian agenada.

Encouringing a totallitarian agenda under the umbrella of secularism. By ignoring history, mocking beliefs and re-writing terms, defending Islam you are labelled as a islamo-facists, a term totally coined up by Hitchen's. While Facism has its own history and terminology, by pevernting the term and using a us-vs-them attitude defenders of relgious freedoms are forced to step back. Why would you defend Islam? You are not defending the religion, you defend the right of billions of people who are at the moment nothing more than the political whipping boy of the state. They encourage discrimination, and more importantly support the status quo. They come up with things like no country under Islam can be democratic, yet ignore the young democry of Iran, which was totally destroyed by the western powers, they speak of Saudi States as dangerous, yet forget to mention that is western imperial power and aid is what keeps those governments in power against their people. They ignore or greatly magnify the problems in Turkey at their whims. Ignore the presence of west and their real-politk games in the middle east, ignore or gloss over the costs in lives of western military present there. Presenting a very skewed picture of the world.

This is not to say no danger is present, but they greatly magnify the danger extremist present and hide how extremist come about by redirecting the cause from terrible human conditions to that simply of being a side of religion.

By doing these two the authors undermine the openess of a society, by asserting that secularism is a uniquely athiest agenda, and by extension offering support to religous discrimination, which is truly dangerous, by allowing the discrimination of a group of peoples based on their beliefs it opens the door for further discrimination against others who do not align with the states agenda.

In at the west, secularism faces a huge battle, it must get rid of the extremist hijacking adn perverting the term for their own purpose. Realign secularism as a tradition not as a consequence of the elightenment, and one that is crucial for an open society, on which people are free to express their beliefs with out fear or intimidation from the state.

Commenting on this Blog entry will be automatically closed on May 20, 2014.