Why Secular societies need Religion

Why Secular societies need Religion

In one way or another all Western countries are secular, with differing degrees of enforcement of this division between religion and the State.  This means that the laws put in place are all positive laws based on reason and formulated by people for the benifits of the people who live in a  given country. Positive laws are not only preferable but essential if we are to legislate on the complexities of modern life; we can't very well go back to the Old Testament if we wish to revamp the Highway Code. Yet, as any decison is inevitably value based we should may be assess the appropriateness of the values we base such laws on.

At present we live in a time with few all - pervasive belief systems. One that has however become onipotent in the field of modern ethics is Natural Law. This has become, as a theory, so powerful that it is now operating in the state of an unquestionable truth. However, as I have argued previously, natural law in fact encourages an egocentric attitude to the world as it enshrines our rights to look after ourselves.  Even if this were not an issue let us may be question the 'natural' nature of these laws. Few people would question the bond of a mother and her newly born child. Most would indeed see it as natural. Yet applying natural law we could argue that this is far from natural as the dependency of the child on their mother in fact imprisons both of them and therefore limits the 'freedom' of both. This is of course an absurdity as there is nothing more natural than birth and family thus a different motivation must be working, one that is stronger than the so called natural rights.

It could be therefore that there is nothing natural about Natural Rights. Although the concept has been around in various forms for over two thousand years it is to the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries that we must look to understand the modern version of Natural Rights. In this time we see the slow and painful transition from monarchy to democracy. It took different paths in different countries but this process gave us the freedoms we have today. Alas as part of this we threw of the precepts of religion in favour of positivism and secularism.  This in many ways was natural as the Church stood for tradition and monarchy. However, in escaping these shackles we undermined our belief system.

With no higher authority we are our own judges relying on the Natural Laws we in fact created. These laws in turn tell us to do no more than look after ourselves. Human Rights law, based on Natural Law, has tried to deal with this problem but only really creates an equality thus falling far short of true justice. Treating people equally can have very unjust results as they may theoretical have equal chances that don't take into account the very real material and structural differences. For true justice we must look for something more, a higher goal to aim for.

Whatever great religion you look at they all have a concept of perfection,  of goodness. You can call it God or just truth, it doesn't really matter. But simply put it puts an ideal above our basic desires.  Sure we fail most of the time to achieve this ideal but we can nevertheless strive for it knowing that the alternative would most certainly be worse.

Returning to positive laws then, we must indeed base them on something. Some concept must underpin our deliberations when we legislate. A Religious State would be truly unjust as it would limit the interpretations of this concept if a higher truth and invariably become dogmatic and judgemental, yet a Secular System underpinned with a highly religious culture would indeed encourage the searching for truth in any descion. This needs to be at all levels however as otherwise it would become hollow: well meaning laws sabotaged or corrupted by the citizenry. Such a system requires therefore a reengagement with religion. All religions, it really doesn't matter which as there inner truths are the same.

Of course this system should be, ironically enough, backed up by strong secular laws and anti-descrimination legislation in order to ensure a truly healthy debate where no one feels victimised. This revolution would indeed require the rewriting of laws and constitutions so as to ensure that the concept of a greater truth becomes instrumental at every level and we do away with the promotion of the ego.

The US constitution & Liberal Fundamentalists

I recently commented on a Facebook post of an old army buddy who had posted the following video:

My first impression of the woman was that she was somewhat rabid and that perhaps I should call a vet and have her humanely dealt with. This may seem harsh but if you take a moment to view the film you will see

how she is so full of anger and venom that she basically spits at the camera. Ok, maybe this is her normal demeanour and she would be just as aggressive ordering a KFC, therefore I will try to ignore her out burst

and deal with her points.

My initial reaction was this:

That is almost comical; her islamaphobic rant displays a major lack ofunderstanding of constitutional law. Since when has freedom of speech meant freedom of incitement and offensiveness. Her claim of the Koran being a book of paper and ink... is laughable; even the stupidest schoolchild knows a religous book of any ilk has more meaning than it's paper value. Also since when has Islam been the sworn enemy of the US? Does that mean that the US bases in Saudi Arabia are now in enemy territory? I think she displayed who the real jackass is.

To which my former colleague replied with:

How is burning a book incitement? She referenced how Christians were offended by matters such as Andres Serrano 'piss Christ' but tell me how many people were killed by Christian mobs when that occurred? What she is saying is that freedom... of speech includes the right to offend, yet Muslims seek to erode this vital right by causing chaos whenever 'their' religion is subject to criticism or mockery. It's also ridiculous to suggest that Americans in AFG are endangered by a Pastor burning a Qur'an in Florida, was it safe before that?

This was alas to big an issue to reply to on Facebook and so I decided to respond here.

Firstly let us look at the First Amendment; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Mainly people refer to the 1st amendment as “freedom of speech” yet this is in fact only a small part of it and must be read in the context of the whole amendment. The amendment also must be understood within a historical context. The bill of rights was a hastily put together document mainly ripped for the English constitution and was aimed at curtailing the powers of the ensuing federal government. As such it was the product of the contemporary culture: a culture built to a large degree on puritan foundations (as remarked upon by Samuel Huntingdon in his book: Who are we?)

 Were Ann Barnhardt to burn a bible (a mere collection of paper and ink – using her argument) at this time she would no doubt have been lynched on the spot and given her behaviour in her video no doubt burnt as a witch to boot.

It does not take the brains of an arch-bishop (forgive the religious pun) to understand that freedom of speech concerns not restricting the topic under discussion and does not mean you can just go around insulting everyone. Were Barnhardt to be correct it would mean that you could conceivably walk into a kindergarten and yell sexual expletives or go up to a policeman and tell him where he can stick his truncheon. As

we all know this is not the case. While freedom of expression should be defended, it should not be stretched to the ridiculous.

Regarding her comparisons with attacks on Christian symbols. This is just a childish argument at best. Saying that people in the west do not respond to attacks on Christian icons actually only points out the level

of evolution of western society. I for one am glad that we no longer respond violently to attacks on our sense of self. To use the difference between east and west as justification for intentionally offensive actions just belittles her argument. If the US constitution and, by Barnhardt's association, the bedrock of western political belief has come down to defending a moron burning Korans then god help us. To burn a Koran is intentionally incitefull. It does not matter if you belief or not, the book is sacred to millions and as such is part of a joint human heritage. All such books, whether they be eastern or western should be

respected.

While she is of course right in regards to her comments concerning WW2 censorship. Her understanding of the situation in Afghanistan is astounding. Following her logic she would have it that all civilians in the country be regarded as targets. This is I think generally regarded as genocide.

Consternation and its casues: the 1997 Constitution?

Recently whenever I have switched on either the radio or TV various "experts" seem to be endlessly discussing the dates of the looming elections in Poland. Is it me or is this just an excuse to fill air-time with drivel?

The Warsaw Voice announced on 2nd March that The PM and President would consult the leaders of the main parties. The phrase: too many chefs spoil the broth, springs to mind. I know that the British system is inherently unfair and the Polish Constitution no doubt allows for a pluralist electoral system etc etc, but I for one am in favour of the Prime Ministrial prerogative that exists in the UK. None of this continuous debate: The PM says May 15th (for example) and the country prepares. Is it so difficult?

 Alas, a lot of the problem lies with the 1997 Polish Constitution which has this to say on the matter:

Elections to the Sejm and the Senate shall be ordered by the President of the Republic no later than 90 days before the expiry of the 4 year period beginning with the commencement of the Sejm's and Senate's term of office, and he shall order such elections to be held on a non-working day which shall be within the 30 day period before the expiry of the 4 year period beginning from the commencement of the Sejm's and Senate's term of office.

Such a strict guideline is bound to create unforeseen problems. A lot of the current debate has been centred around the falling of All Saints Day, which is traditionally a long weekend. People are afraid that many voters will simply not bother turning up to vote.

This is not the first time I have blogged on the matter of problems with the constitution (See Constitutional Crisis?). I am not sure what the prestigious leaders were doing between 1992 and 1997 when the current constitution took affect; but to be honest, my dog could probably have come up with a constitution with less chance of confusion and overlapping competencies.

I am of course not the only one who sees problems in the 1997 constitution as I wrote here. Although I am generally reluctant to side with any codified constitution as it tends to lend itself to dogmatism and entrenched beliefs in outdated ideas (see here), I can see the need in a post-revolution period to have a fresh start. Therefore the 1992 and 1997 constitutions were necessary for the rebirth of Poland; shame the constitution makers did not envision the possible points of clash within their "little baby".

Oh well, perhaps the next revolution will bring a brighter future :) .......

Constidtutional considerations

On Tuesday The Warsaw Voice published this:

Government and Opposition Parties Argue Over Constitution Changes, January 19, 2010
Poland's leading party PO refuses to consider constitution changes suggested by the main opposition party PiS, which includes strengthening the position of the President, the daily Rzeczpospolita writes.

PiS proposal is being criticized by PO as "a return to a state system where the constitution confirms the centralized and ideological character of the state with the President in the role of the First Secretary", PO parliamentary club spokesperson Andrzej Halicki said.
PiS in turn blames PO for lack of constructive collaboration for the common good and failure to present own project.

Well as if in answer to the lack of a PO proposal, on the following day The Warsaw Voice published this:

Polish PM Proposes Weakening of Presidential Veto, January 20, 2010PM Donald Tusk proposes dampening of presidential veto, according to theses send by the PM's chancellery to the parliamentary Speaker, the daily Dziennik Gazeta Prawna writes.

Tusk wants the presidential veto to be rejected with an absolute majority and not with three-fifth majority, as it is the case at present.
The PM also wants to make an unambiguous provision that it is the PM who is responsible for foreign policy.

Personally I would go with a simple majority rather than an absolute, as the difference between 3/5 (60%) and absolute (51%) is hardly worth the trouble of changing. An absolute majority takes in to account all parliamentarians; even those not present. Whereas the simple just takes into account the ones who can be bothered to turn up and vote (var more sensible).

These two articles illustrate well the chasm that exists between the two sides. They have fundamentally opposing views, which does not bode well for cooperation.

I am of course in favour of the PO option. Being British I am not used to a division of powers between a PM and President. In theory the Queen can veto (refuse to enact) any law in the UK. She can also simply sack the PM and rule directly. For that matter she could install her butler as PM. Luckily she doesn't do any of these things and we seem to get along quite happily. The last occasion she used such powers was appointment of Harold Wilson as Prime Minister in February 1974; following political chaos. The last monarch to veto legislation was Queen Anne, who withheld assent from the Scottish Militia Bill 1708.

Therefore, please could the President simply open Supermarkets and Hospitals, Present hours and medals and have dinner with distinguished visitors?

Guns, Guns, Guns

If you ever have that double-take moment when you stop and check whether you truly saw/understood something correctly; then this will undoubtedly be reminiscent of such an occasion. I logged on to BBC News today and read a headline entitled 'US pastor tells flock to bring handguns to church'. Ok, I thought, this looks like some kind of amnesty/social reach-out thing. I was a little bemused to read the title 'US pastor opens church to guns'. The pastor was not trying to combat street crime, but defending the rights of people to carry guns. He fears, along with some of his flock, that the Obama administration will clamp-down on gun laws and the pastor is trying to advertise the fact that not all gun owners are homicidal maniacs and that as Mr Pagano told the congregation, "... there are legal, civil, intelligent and law-abiding citizens who also own guns,"

Being an ex-soldier and having spend half my life playing with guns, I appreciate the old adage (/NRA slogan) that 'it's not guns that kill people; it's people' but I also think Eddie Izzard was right when he commented
” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that…”

I truly don't understand the US's fascination with guns in the modern 21st century world. I appreciate that back in the wild-west , having a gun was a real important issue. However, those days are long gone. The pastor claimed "If it were not for a deep-seated belief in the right to bear arms, this country would not be here today," errr how excatly???
Gun ownership was important in the revolutionary period, as it allowed for the raising of a well trained militia, however at this time the whole world was packing. The US was not anything special.

Also many Americans promote bearing weapons as their constitutional right. Granted the 2nd Amendment does claim that : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. However, the same is true of the UK: That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; Granted, the English law was a bit selective in terms of the religious credentials of those it granted the right to bear arms to. However, while the US law grants the people the right, the English law granted subjects said right. The term the people can of course be understood in two ways: 1) all individuals within a society or 2) the free members of the society as a whole. Given the reference to organised militias, it can be postulated that the meaning was in fact the later. Further to this, the punctuation suggests that the two are in fact connected as they are not separated by and but rather a comma. The English law, on the other hand, uses subject which does not have such a duality. It can only be understood in the individual sense. There is also no conditionality to the law such as in the US version (ok maybe the bit about protestants). Yet, modern Britons do not go around quoting 17th century laws. When the Hungerford or Dumblane massacres happened; gun control was tightened and the people rested peacefully in the knowledge that maniacs could not use the constitution to justify homicidal tenancies. Alas the same can not be said of the USA, where umpteen massacres have resulted in very little legislative action.

If anyone can give an answer to the quandary, then I'd be delighted to here it.


English 1689 Bill of Rights
(Incorporated in to and part of current UK law)

Equivalent to US 1st Amendment:
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

Equivalent to US 2nd Amendment:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Source: http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm accessed 28/6/09

Constitutional Crisis?

I have been very lazy in my upkeep of this blog. Sorry!!! I looked at the date of my last entry and was shocked to see that it was November 08. A lot has undoubtedly happened since then and i am not going to even try and fill you in on the details. Surfice to say that spring is on its way and my mind is awakening from its slumber.

Politically speaking, Poland has had an interesting couple of weeks. The most notable thing being the squable over the Nato summit between the Prime Minister and President. The President apparently ignored the PM's official advice on Poland's stance in relation to the appointment of a new Secretary General for Nato. The ins and out are perhaps not important. More that the most recent episode is just another in a long line of debacles that the two are having. The main problem lies in the over lap of juristiction that the Polish constitution allows for. Strictly speaking the President has tyhe right to initiate and nogotiate foriegn policy. However, any sensible person could see that this must be done in close conjunction with domestic policy as the two are inseperable. The fact that the PM and President can;t work together is perhaps more indicative of them rather than the consitutution. However, that said the constitution allows for this situation to happen and so perhaps does need to be changed.

In my mind, i would serverly curtail the powers and responsibilities of the President as to have two oppposing heads of the country is just asking for trouble. I understand that the constitution was written in such a way as to create a system of checks and balances, however the PM is unswerable to Parliment, whereas at present the President is not answerable to anyone.

A Cristian Europe versus An Open Europe

President Kaczynski - Christianity is the EU foundation

Poland's President Lech Kaczynski, in an article for the tabloid 'Fakt' that: 'The Union cannot build its future with no reference to the centuries old history of Europe and European roots. This is why it is so difficult for us to accept opposition to a reference to Christian values in the preamble to the future Constitutional Treaty.'

The Berlin Declaration is to be signed in the capital city of Germany, as part of events marking the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome and the birth of the EU.

The declaration is to play a key role in drafting the preamble to the bloc's new Constitutional Treaty.

President Kaczynski said that the Union must continue to expand.

"For Poland it is obvious that the European Union, if it wants to retain its dynamics and to count on a global scale – it must be an open union".

On behalf of the bloc's 27 member states, the Berlin Declaration will be signed tomorrow by the German Chancellor, the European Parliament and the European Commission leaders.

Poland's foreign minister Anna Fotyga is on leave and will not take part in the ceremony.

Above taken from www.poland.pl

Are the two points raised by the President of Poland not a little conflicting? If we make Cristianity a fundamental part of the Constitution, then to which countries are we supposed to expand. Is it a good message to send to Turkey, Bosnia and Albania, that yes you can come in, but please remember that we are Christian and we were here first!

Religion, is and has always been a private matter. Jesus himself made this crystal clear when remarking that what is ceasar, render unto ceasar and what is God's render under God.

This mix of politics and religion is the most frightening aspect of the current PiS government in Poland.