08 December 2009

Secularism and religion

Speech delivered by John L Perkins, President.

Many religious people have reservations about secularism and the promotion of non-religious views of religion, society and morality. But they have nothing to fear. Secularists wholeheartedly endorse the concept of religious freedom. The Parliament of World Religion’s theme is bringing religions together in peace. Secularism provides the ideal philosophy to achieve this.

Secularism had its origins in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended decades of religious warfare in Europe. State sovereignty in matters of religion was then established, together with the private right to practice the religion of individual choice. They agreed to live and let live.

Still today, most countries in Europe have an established state religion. What we now commonly regard as secularism, “the separation of church and state, derives from the constitution of the United States, as amended in 1791.

In 2005, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, defined "comprehensive secularism", with three components. These are: the separation of religion from the institutions of state; state impartiality between religions; and protection of human rights from intrusion from religious beliefs and practices.

In this regard, in Australia, we are not secular, because while the state may be somewhat impartial between religions, we massively endorse religions to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per annum in subsidies to faith schools and tax concessions to religious enterprises.

How can a non-religious moral philosophy provide a guide to both personal ethics and also provide a basis for social and economic policy? It is the view of many in the religious fraternity that religious beliefs are necessary for morality. However, I think this is clearly not the case, and indeed, the reverse is the case, for religious beliefs can often seriously impair moral decision making.

A non-religious basis for morality can easily be stated, based on the universal principles of compassion, honesty, freedom and justice. In any moral dilemma, we should try our best to implement these principles. Such principles are not absolute rules. But, as Immanuel Kant suggested, a principle should only be ignored if circumstances justify that another principle has higher priority.

Such a principle-based system is commonly used in biomedical ethics, where the principle of compassion that is used is non-malificence: do no harm. The universal application of a principle-based system of ethics can be seen with the addition of a further principle: the principle of utility, as first articulated by Jeremy Bentham in 1789. The “the greatest good for the greatest number” still forms the basis of most economic and social policy today.

Why do I suggest that adherence to religious belief may impair moral judgement? The first reason is in relation to the principle of honesty. This requires a diligent search for the truth using all available evidence and reason. Religious advocates systematically avoid this quest. Where, in this parliament, has there been any discussion as to which belief system is justified by evidence, which is true, if any?

The second great moral failing of religion is in relation to freedom: the ability of the individual to make free choices, free from coercion. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the right to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion", and for the right to freedom from coercion in matters of religion. A child is a person. Children also have this right. In what religion is a child encouraged to exercise freedom of choice regarding religion, free from any coercion?

As John Lennon once wrote:

Imagine there’s no heaven, it’s easy if you try,
No hell below us, above us only sky.
Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do.
Nothing to kill and die for. And no religion too.

That is the path to a better world.