Novus Ordo Seclorum - A New Order of the Ages
DECLARE, without apology or faltering, that secularism is the best of systems for mankind; and though it may have its failings, it is better in many orders of magnitude than the other systems, and especially more so than those which rest upon the authority of a fictional autocratic God. This essay is to prove the point and carry the conclusions.
Human Rights
Let it be clear that the idea of human rights does not come from the theistic religions. Those religions have only divine duties, duties toward God, among which are a few commands for the equitable treatment of fellow humans, and even those are conditional upon the belief of the particular humans. See, for example, Leviticus 19:18:
לֹא
תִקֹּם וְלֹא
תִטֹּר אֶת
בְּנֵי
עַמֶּךָ
וְאָהַבְתָּ
לְרֵעֲךָ
כָּמוֹךָ
אֲנִי יהוה
lo tikkom v'lo tittor et b'nei 'ammekha
v'ahavta l're'akha kamokha ani YHWH
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children
of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am YHWH.
The "I am YHWH" at the end of the command is instructive: be kind to your fellow human being (in this case, the Israelites) not because it is right to do so, or because it will improve societal well-being, but because the Superking commanded so. The command to love one's neighbour is on the same level as donning the t'fillin (phylacteries) and sacrificing animals on the Temple altars. The Qur'an, in similar fashion, seals commands to be kind toward fellow humans (only if they are Muslims, of course) and to perform such rituals as prayer and pilgrimage with the same epithets of Allah's glory, such as inna llaaha hakiimun 'aliim ("Allah is Wise, Knowledgeable", إِنَّ اللهَ حَكِيمٌ عَلِيمٌ). Goodness towards human beings is an order from above, not an internal obligation. If the humans are infidels with regard to the particular One True Religion, then they are unworthy of respect (in the best case) or life (in the worst), for they are hated unto God, and then are the believers justified in committing every atrocity.
What do we get in return for doing our duties unto God? Food and lack of food; peace and war; health and disease; calm skies and hurricanes; stable ground and earthquakes; social welfare and internecine warfare; and I could go on, but it should by now be obvious that there is no rhyme or reason behind fate, and that the perfomance or neglect of the divine duties has nothing to do with it. In desperation, realizing it is so, religionists evolved their beliefs as to adapt to the disparity between deed and outcome, and forged a world of justice after death. Convenient, because it can be neither verified nor disproved, but the findings of science have furnished us with a case against body-independent consciousness which makes the afterlife an improbability.
One may say God owes us nothing, but that is not true, if one is to go with the belief that God created us. If God created us, then he instilled us with needs. Suppose I build a car, and I want to drive it. Do I owe the car any fuel? Strictly speaking, no, I owe it nothing, but the fact is that the car has so been created as to require fuel for its operation; likewise are we living creatures in need of food and drink for our operation, and the lack of necessities of life for millions of people is a failure on the part of God. However, since I do not wish to speak evil of God (who is, after all, just an idea, a fruit of human conjecture), and I wish to eliminate the convoluted epicycles of theodicy which are required of anyone who adheres to a theocentric worldview, I shall simply repeat what I have stated before: no creator, no divine providence, and no set of commands from above. Bible, Qur'an, Mahabharata and Adi Granth (the text sacred to the Sikhs) and all other "holy" scriptures are of totally human origin, with no trace of divine inspiration (for there is no-one who could have inspired). In short: no-one rules according to what Jehova or Allah or Brahma has revealed; they all rule according to scriptures of hearsay of supposed revelation to Homo Sapiens from a fictional Superking God. It is time, therefore, to prefer the relevant rules of secular humanism to the "godly" laws, which are so flawed with misplaced priorities.
Proper Priorities
Among the "divinely-ordained" laws I have an example of one which is extant in both Orthodox Judaism and Mormonism: the total prohibition of all masturbation. The literature about this prohibition and methods of prevention in the two faiths is hilariously similar: the evils of masturbation, how it creates demons who destroy the world, ways of thinking about wholesome things (mainly holy scripture) to take away the desire, and so on. Reading only an inkling of this literature in sanctified books and on the Internet (do a search, I shan't give links...), I wonder about the distorted priorities of religious systems. People starving to death, lost in disasters, reduced to poverty in social crises and ground to dust under dictatorships, and those "people of God" worry about the "evils of masturbation"! Were this not a serious business I would laugh myself silly! But I have given this extreme example as a highlight; in a similar order of tomfoolery are the serious businesses of the correct way to prostrate in prayer, of the exact place of the t'fillin on the head, of the debate whether people are saved by faith or by works, and other such things which relate to the imaginary (God, afterlife et cetera). The chief justification of secularism lies in its pertinence to proper priorities, its attempts to give relevant solutions to real problems. Secularism is concerned with humanity and ecology because they are real, and all other things are conjectural. A problem in many Islamic countries is an explosive growth in population. New campaigns for family planning are launched by the governments every few years, but they meet the stumbling-block of "Allah provides for all His creations". Those blind religionists fail to see the obvious: if the population exceeds the means of living, then people will starve. Allah does not provide for anyone, because Allah does not exist! Real problems in the real world need secular cures.
The laws of secularism are based on canonical, but not immutable, sources, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the democratic constitutions of states which were founded with Man, and not God, in mind, like the USA. Their details should evolve to fit changing circumstances, but their spirit must remain constant: maximization of the number of humans in well-being. In sum, secularism is based on a realistic approach to reality, on restriction of actions that they should harm as least as possible, and on adaptive corrections. Contrast secularism to religious law: a conjectural approach to reality, a free hand in actions that they should please God, no matter how much misery they cause other creatures, and petrification of the written word. Therefore secularism is not only necessary, but it is also primary, overriding all religious law.
Prevalence of Secular Law
Declare the rule of secular prevalence: tolerance to all worldviews and ways of life under the constraint of humanist rulings. Null and void is any religious law which violates the principles of humanism. Any rule that aims to improve the future state of people in an imaginary next world on expense of worsening the present state of people on this real world is to be vanquished from all self-respecting secular states.
Do not apologize towards religionists about disrespecting negative aspects of their religions; they say secularism spreads immorality on the world, but in fact they are the spreaders of immorality. Those who would burn people at the stake for denying the deity of their god-man say, "we purge the land of wrongdoers", but they are the wrongdoers. They deny the truth of biological evolution and blind fate, and speak in the name of a Superking who does not exist, and in the name of that king above they commit deeds of unpity and unmercy which beasts do not commit, but programmed machines commit. What sane person would bomb himself on a group of fellow humans, or organize serial murder? Only if he is programmed to do so by blind faith, whether in God or in an infallible human dictator. Let them hold on to their unfounded beliefs in a creator and his divine providence, but do not permit them to do harm for the greater glory of their imagined truth.
Suppose there is a community of believers with an exclusive revelation from their deity, a sacred book whose words are immutable. Their deity has thirteen names. Twelve of those are to be used regularly, to glorify the deity and protect those who utter them. As for the thirteenth name, however, it stands written in the book, never to be pronounced, and the book decrees that whoever pronounces the sacrosanct name shall be beheaded at once. It is the Word of God; who can therewith argue?
Now, if that community has a state of their own, then there is no question as to what will be done: any of the residents of the state, be they believers or unbelievers, will be executed if they utter the Holy Thirteenth Name. But what of such a community in a secular state? If they are allowed to execute blasphemers of the Name in the secular state, then we have an external, anti-human law within the state; but if beheading of blasphemers is prohibited, then will the believers complain of lack of religious freedom. It is the command of God, they will say, and a prohibition to execute blasphemers is a restriction on religious observance. "You are pluralists, are you not?" they will ask. "Do you not respect the customs and laws of other people?". No matter that in their own state they will not respect the customs and laws of secularists. The believers take advantage of the pluralism of the secularists, who are, as the saying goes, so open-minded that their brains fall out!
Recall the answer of a British governor to an Indian Maharaja who complained about the prohibition of the old custom of widow-burning (sati, "suttee"): "We hang widow murderers". Exactly: we punish those who kill in the name of God. You are free, believers, to pray standing on your hands and to abstain from sexual intercourse during the full moon, but you are not free to behead a person for uttering something. Absolute, Immutable, Unchanging. Freedom of religion goes so far as people are not harmed. Jews may don the t'fillin as they please, but forbidding women to testify in court is not allowed, even if the Talmud decrees so! Christians may warn fellow believers on the issue of homosexuality (which, like masturbation, is one of the burning problems in our world!), but they may not put time-bombs in gay bars. Muslims may fast from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ramadan (رمضان) anywhere they wish, but in the secular states killing people for leaving the religion is strictly prohibited - haraam (حرام) - under secular law. The practices of rreligious people in secular states should be respected of them on condition that they do not contradict the rules of secular humanism. If the believers are displeased with such conditions, then they should move to a state where their religion is law.
There is, of course, a debate over the extent of tolerance, that is, what deeds on the part of religious people infringe the rules of humanism. Again, as with all controversial debates, humanists should excercise the method of rational judgement, with room for mistakes which will later be corrected. The main thing to keep in mind: make no apology for secularism. It is far more justified, both philosophically and practically, than theonomy, than ruling by what a non-existent deity is alleged to have revealed. Apologies and apologetics are for the irrational religions.