Militant secularists fail to understand the rules of secular debate | Andrew Brown

Aa nonbelievers

Angry take "religion" do not have access to the right - all they do is repeat aloud

Aa defense lucid reading Julian Baggini

of secularism in the light of three years of observations on Cif belief, the point is clear that among those who do not understand most of the activists who are secular atheists . But who are they?

There are three types of people in Britain today, which could be taken to secular activists: that is, people who are not only for themselves unbelievers, but have an emotional investment in eliminating religious beliefs of others. There are teenagers who have just discovered the "rationality", there are those gays who feel personally threatened by the traditional moral monotheism, and in this country, there are parents frustrated by the admission policy of religious schools controlled

About

adolescents, there is nothing to do. Some find Richard Dawkins, how others discover Ayn Rand. Large reliable solutions to all problems of the world, is paralyzed only because of the stupidity and selfishness of the age, will always appeal to teenagers. Most of them grow and those who will never listen to people young and old themselves, who had called tragics.

The position of homosexuals in this culture war seems historical and contingent. All the major monotheistic traditions strong currents and conflicting views on homosexuality, ranging from hostility unwavering understanding and sympathy far more than what is found in the secular world until recently. My feeling is that humanity will win here. I could be wrong, but in 20 or 30 years we will know.

The situation is different with the schools of the Church is also unique in Britain. However, the arguments on prejudice are different arguments about resources, because resources are limited. My possession of injury may or may not impoverish, but anyway, I'm not rich. My possession of a place in a good school in a bad system is totally different. I enriched to the extent that it is private.

This works in both directions. This means that for every loser in the current situation, whose son is not going to the school of your choice, there is a winner, winners probably several, including children. This makes it much more difficult to change.

• This has nothing to do with religious beliefs. It comes from the general shortcomings of the school system, and the fact that education is, to some extent a good position. We all want our children are above average. An indication of this is how schools controlled by religious volunteers, where the selection is held by the local authority, and therefore influenced democratically, take fewer children on free school meals for volunteers assisted, where governors appointed religiously decide the selection policy.

which will remain a problem, because people who earn under the current system with the vote as much as the losers. But it will not be resolved. They never seem terribly important in the broader agenda.

None of these groups are large enough in themselves a threat to the future of Christianity or Islam, in this country. But make it a useful enemy for political and Lady Warsi.

His real crime, however, they do not understand the rules of the secular debate. I know it seems a contradiction in terms: how a layman to understand the rules of debate secular? But the definition of Baggini provides a way to understand this. A layman, he says, is someone who uses natural reason, not divine law. And that kind of reason is, by definition, shared by both sides of the argument. However, militant secularism assumes that "religious" does not have access to the right. There can be no reasoning with opponents. All you can do is repeat louder until the idiots understand.
This is a trait rather than a set of beliefs. It is certainly not limited to atheists. George Carey, who has a very large extent. And of course, Britain today, no militant has the power to persecute their enemies with the force of law. But it's not because we are better than others, but because of our political system is better.