args

A secular society should not prevent religious people from acting on their beliefs.

While I am rather a strict atheist, or antitheist some might say, I do genuinely believe that religion has not only the universal right to be expressed, but the constitutional right. By this, I mean firstly it's one of our most basic and palpable human rights, and secondly, religion has unequivocally shaped almost every civilized society on earth. This doesn't mean, however, that every civilized society must remain politically theocratic -I'm absolutely convinced in saying that secularism is, without a shadow of a doubt, the way that modern society must progress; be that socially, politically, or in fact religiously; the reason being that secularism supports an obvious distinction between religion and government, where neither have any executive power on one another. Another fundamental principle of secularism which is incredibly advantageous to both state and religion is that it allows everyone in the public square to voice an opinion and gives them the right to persuade or dissuade people in any respect. In other words, secularism is about inclusivity, so why would a secular society essentially ban all religious practice? In doing this, it excludes a vast majority, which defies the very nature of secularism. Many would argue that France is the most secularized country on earth, because of its tight restrictions on religious practice. But don't you think that this has something to do with public opinion, where 40% of the population has absolutely no religious belief? If you won't buy this, then how about the claim that this is just a piddling attack on faith executed by a few hundred corrupted politicians? And I'm sorry, but when I was researching this topic and searched 'French corruption', three politicians had been taken to court on grounds of corruption, in the past 2 days. I'd say that the France are both politically and morally questionable at best. Because of this, I hope we won't be using France as a flagship in this debate. A notable chapter in history was the rise of communism in the Soviet Union, where Stalin grasped the power of state. While he was in power, he banned religion, claiming that he was the supreme ruler, and his people should have no other idols. Indeed he made a very good case, and worked hard to make sure religion was eradicated. Religion didn't die out though, it simply went underground, and very few were dissuaded from their beliefs. The point of this is that religion is ineradicable, so a law that prevent religious people from acting on their beliefs would be absolutely frivolous. Quite frankly, the criminalization of something so dear and sacred to people is both frivolous and unacceptable. I personally have known people who have had incredibly difficult and harsh childhoods, and the way that they obtained comfort was through simply going to a church and praying. This is a religious practice isn't it? Do secularists really wish to take this offer of refuge and salvation away from the masses. Around 70% of England has a religion... How could it be democratic to ban religious practice? I understand that not all of these people will practice regularly, but I've mentioned a few times now how secularism is inclusive of all and doesn't give any culture a predominant position in society. Instead, it demands equality. How awful would it be to prevent a woman, whose son is near to death after a horrific accident, to act on her beliefs and pray? It's inexcusable, and while I do still maintain my position on religion that is purely atheistic, I truly believe that banning something so dear to people would be an unwise and terrible thing to do.