The neutrality of secularism?

I was amazed at the decision of the Judge in the Bideford case to rule that prayers had no place in Council meetings. I am confident that the decision will not hold and that Councils will be able to continue praying as they see fit.

The case was brought by a disgruntled former councillor with the help of the National Secular Society (NSS), which, as Cristina Odone points out, has a membership of 7,000 - less even than the British Sausages Appreciation Society.

The NSS has shown a complete contempt for democracy in this case. Bideford Council voted twice to retain the prayers, and no one was forced to attend. Yet the secularists were determined to impose their beliefs on others, and resorted to the Courts to do so.

These campaigners are aware that they are pushing against our Christian heritage, and that the majority of people in the UK still identify themselves as Christians.

So they are now trying to persuade the public that, in a pluralistic society, secularism is the only fair way to offer rational neutrality in the public square. (And that therefore faith should be restricted to private homes).

Dangerous Myth

This claim that secularism is the neutral option is a dangerous falsehood. The truth is that there is no neutrality.

Secularism would denigrate and reduce the influence of Christianity in this nation whilst elevating the ideology of atheism as the only acceptable basis for public discourse.

Yet atheism itself is not neutral. Atheists share a very similar set of common assumptions that flow directly from their belief that there is no God. They may not have any official doctrine but it is a world-view that comes with a lot of baggage.

Moral values

Atheism, and its rejection of God, brings with it the rejection of objective moral truth. Human life itself loses its objective value. We become merely a bundle of cells.

If life, therefore, has no intrinsic value, then there can be no moral objection to abortion or euthanasia. Hence, the secularist campaign groups are fiercely pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia. Far from being neutral on these issues, they are at the extreme end of the spectrum.

Why stop there? Richard Dawkins himself confessed in an interview that ‘purely morally speaking’ he would be in ‘favour’ of the infanticide of young children if they were very ill. That’s not an NHS I’d wish to visit!

Peter Saunders noted this about Richard Dawkins: “He builds a profoundly anti-Christian set of ethics seemingly out of a vacuum.”

Atheists also appear to be entirely unconcerned about freedom of belief. The secular campaign groups often weigh-in against individuals who seek to protect their freedom of religion in the courts. Whether you prayed for a hospital patient or wanted to wear your cross, you will find little sympathy from the NSS.

This is the totalitarian streak which continues to raise its ugly head. Secularists would love to ban religious programmes in prisons. They hate faith schools. They want to ensure that all welfare and aid can only be delivered through secular bodies. Where does this kind of ideology lead? To the dismantling of the Coronation and preventing any prayers in Parliament?

If they got their way, a host of charities would face closure. Will the NSS step in and help the ill or feed the poor?

Democracy doesn’t seem to be their strong point either - Bideford is a case in point.

Those who reject God have always tended to believe that mankind can make the world a better place without God. They tend to be utopians; which, as communism demonstrated, has never worked out very well. North Korea is hardly an advert for humanistic atheism.

So they are anti-life, pro-death, prone to totalitarianism and have a total contempt for religious freedom. How can they ensure the neutrality they are promising in their brave new world?

Choice

As a nation we have a choice – what values do we want to allow to shape our nation? Do we really want to live by the values that derive from atheism?

Christianity has shaped our society to such a positive extent that people of many faiths and none flock here from around the world to enjoy the benefits that this country offers.

As Bishop Nazir-Ali noted in his recent debate with Richard Dawkins, Christian principles have led to the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the abolition of slavery, industrial legislation and the reform of the nursing profession, to name but a few. It has been Christians who have pioneered hospitals and many programmes for the poor.

I count myself blessed to live in a country founded on Christian principles. The Bible states that we are all made in the image of God, endowing humans with a dignity that is a bulwark against oppression and savagery.

Yet, as a nation, are we seriously considering replacing this with the values of the NSS? It is very much for Terry Sanderson and his ilk to prove that his atheism has something positive to offer the British people. I won’t hold my breath.

This nation knows the answer.

Andrea

Media: Bishop Nazir-Ali and Richard Dawkins debate secularism

Blog: Utopianism