Site Meter

Contact Us

For enquiries, questions, or anything else, please contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Newsletter Subscription


Secularism is not neutral



Secularists often like to brand secularism as being neutral, which is why it’s the supposed best form of ruling, because it takes no set position on who’s set of beliefs is correct, or incorrect, and as such this leaves out squabbling from the public.

So secularism will not come out and say Islam is correct, or Christianity is correct, and Judaism and Hinduism are wrong. Secularism will be neutral on all of these faiths, not taking one specific faith, as it’s sole arbitrator of conducting the system in which it rules. So this is why secularism also argues and stands upon the separation of state and church, to allow for this neutrality to be properly carried out.

So is secularism neutral as secularists like to say? The answer is a clear no, because secularism does take an explicit position on which it stands and rules upon, which is the separation of church and state. That is called taking a position, that’s not a neutral stand, but a very active stand on a certain issue, specifically in regards to the status of religion and it’s role in society, i.e. it’s role in the public affairs and public life of it’s citizens. Secularism makes it absolutely clear by it’s main pillar of separation of church and state, that religion has no role in the public affairs and regulations of it’s citizens, that’s hardly what you’d call as being neutral, and not taking a stand.

Secondly, not only does secularism adopt this position, thereby clearly not making itself neutral, secularism seeks to enforce and implement this system onto it’s ruled citizens, secularism tells it’s citizens that they will not have, and will not be allowed to have religion having a role or say in their public life, i.e. as in being institutionalized by the government.

Also indirectly, whether it seeks to or not, secularism by default favors atheism, whether it intends to or not, after all is it a coincidence that atheists, particularly anti-theists who hate religion and would love nothing more than to witness the death of religion, push for secularism? If secularism was surely that neutral, then why would ardent atheists intent on the death of religion, be so pro secularism if it were not in fact a system that did favor the atheist position over that of theists and religion?

Now some may say secularism does not promote atheism, well actually in a sense it does because by saying religion plays no role in public life, that in itself is a default atheistic position. Atheists have no religion, nor do they have faith understood in the traditional sense of faith being connected to the divine. So when you establish a system saying religion and faith have no role in society, this completely favors the atheist position, who argue that religion and faith are make belief and none existent, and secondly, that these things have no place in society.

Put it this way, if atheists were to rule, and were to be able to form their own government, what type of government would that be and look like? Does one really think it would be a government that would allow for religion to have a role in the public affairs of its citizens? Or, would it rather be a government that would ban religion from having a role in the public affairs of it’s citizens, having no place in government. We both know the answer; it would be the latter, and not the former.

And this is precisely what secularism, or the secularist system puts forward and implements, a system that says religion and faith have no place in the affairs and regulations of the public, and equally having no place in government.

Which party is directly affected by such secular creeds? It’s certainly not the atheist who has no religion, or faith in the divine. So if a government says they’re not allowing religion to play any role for the public, this obviously has no impact on the atheists. But if you’re a theist now, who has a religion, who has faith in the divine, then you surely are the one affected by such a ruling, this ruling specifically clamps down on your religion, and faith.

This again demonstrates how secularism favors the atheist over the theist; because it’s the theist who’s the one getting affected here, not the atheist.

We also go back to the point of neutrality, the fact that secularism tells theists that their religion will have no place in government, or running the affairs of society, is a very non-neutral position! This is a clear position being imposed on theists; a clear position of telling them that their faith has no place in society, hardly a neutral position in any meaningful way.

Secularists may argue well the secular state equally clamps down on all religions, thus it’s neutral, not at all. What this means is that secularism merely doesn’t discriminate in clamping down against any specific faith, but rather, it takes a position on all religions, and all faiths, which only further supports our claim, that by default, it has thus favored the atheist position. The atheist position, just like the secular position, is against all religions, not just Islam or Christianity, but any form of religion, or any form of faith that has the divine. So when a secularist says they’re against all religions in the public sphere, that’s precisely what an atheist would say, atheists don’t want any religion or faith to have a specific role in public life.

Secondly, yes, secularism clamps down on all faiths, but that doesn’t make it neutral, it simply means its taken position against all faiths!

It seems that secularists need to understand what neutral means, so let’s give them some examples. Let’s say you have two warring sides, being neutral would mean that you don’t support side A, or side B, simple as that. That’s your sole adopted position, you help neither side, and take no action against either side, you essentially do nothing for both sides, and you just sit and watch.

Secularists will argue that that’s exactly what they do, which is false, because we’ve already shown that by default, their position favors atheism. Secondly, by telling all religions they have no place in public life, they have imposed themselves and a position towards religion, which is certainly not neutral. For secularism to be neutral, all it would mean is that the state does not get involved in the fights and quarrels between two faiths, or the intra-religious arguments of two faiths. So what it means is that a secular state would not agree with the Islamic argument of alcohol being a sin, so the secular state would not ban alcohol to favor Muslims, and equally not make a law telling Muslims they have to accept Jesus as their lord and savior favoring Christianity. In essence, the state favors no one set religious group, the state does not say Christianity is right, and Islam is wrong. But secularism doesn’t simply do that, secularism comes and tells both Islam and Christianity that they both have no place in society, that’s taking a very clear non-neutral position towards the role of these faiths in public life. To be neutral would simply mean secularism does not favor one over the other, without having to take either out of society, and respecting both of these faiths and their place in society and their roles in regulating the affairs of their own adherents without placing one above the other.

The state could be neutral in the fights and arguments between two faiths, while at the same time respecting the role of faith in regards to the specific faith involved.

So if Muslims wanted a form of public regulation in regards to themselves only, then there’s no reason as to why the state could not allow and respect that, since the laws in question only regard Muslims and their faith. So for example, marriage and inheritance laws, Muslims would have the right to carry out these practices under the full scope of the recognized and legal law, but under Islamic guidelines to such practices. And the same would be extended to Jews, and Christians and so on.

Thus the state is being completely neutral, because it allows Muslims to judge and rule by their Islamic laws, while not imposing these laws on the rest of society. That is being neutral. But does secularism do that? No, it tells all religious people that religion has no role in the public affairs full stop, so even if you want religion to have a part in the public affairs of your life only, not to affect someone else, secularism would not accept that. So if you wanted the church or the mosque to be intertwined with the state, only in regards to you, and not being imposed on someone who didn’t, secularism would not allow it.

So a neutral state would allow the Muslims to live and rule by their customs and traditions, the Jews to live and rule by their customs and traditions, the Christians to live and rule by their customs and traditions, and for the people who have no religion or faith, or choose to not follow any regulations of religion and faith, well they could have their own ‘secular’ customs and traditions to live by. The state being neutral does not force or impose one certain faith over another.

Yet the secular state tells all these groups, except the ones who don’t want or have religion (thus favoring a position), that their faith has no role in the public regulations of their lives.

Now secularists may argue that if it allowed all groups to live by their own laws and customs that this would create chaos and confusion, not really. You could still have a set of rules that everybody has to follow, an all-encompassing state law on all citizens. So for example, murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, raping is wrong, and so on and so on. So if anyone breaks any of these all encompassing laws, they will be judged and sentenced. These are laws everyone follows, and have to follow.

Plus there’s no confusion because say you’re a Muslim and you want to start a will and an inheritance according to you faith, well it’s simple, simply have the paperwork which allows you to tick a box, and the boxes give you the options of which set of customs and rules your going by, the Islamic regulation, the Jewish regulation, or if neither and not having to do with faith, then have the secular regulation, and the same for several other matters and issues.

Do secularists argue that having several different tax categories, or housing categories, such as single, or being married, or having children, or being over this or that age, create confusion and chaos? The same applies here; the state would obviously formalize everything as to leave no chaos and confusion, leaving everything very orderly.

This in essence is what would make the state neutral, and secularism doesn’t fulfill any of these positions. Now look, it’s fine for secularism to not be neutral, there’s no law or set political philosophy that says unless a doctrine or system of rule is neutral, then it’s corrupt and evil. That’s not what we’re arguing, all we’re arguing is that it’s simply false, to argue that secularism is neutral, because it’s not, and this is a deceptive argument that is used to try and allure people into supporting secularism.

Secularists must be honest about secularism, that’s all we’re arguing for, that secularists admit, that secularism is not neutral, and takes a clear position, which we also demonstrated, as favoring atheists and atheism by default.

If we’re mistaken on this point, then we ask again, when secularism says that religion will play no role in the public affairs of it’s citizen, who’s the one affected by this? The atheist? Or the theist? The answer is clear, thus our argument of secularism favoring the atheist is established.

When secular states ban Muslims from wearing their headscarves, ban Jews from wearing their yarmulke, ban Christians from wearing their crosses, ban Sikhs from wearing their turbans, who are the ones being affected here? Theists? Or atheists? The answer is clear again; atheists are not affected in the slightest when a secular state imposes a law banning all forms of religious clothing or representation, but the theists however are clearly affected by such rulings. Thus again it’s been established that secularism by default, favors atheism.

So in conclusion, secularism is neither neutral, nor impartial.


Who's Online

We have 61 guests and no members online

Visitors Counter

All days

Server Time: 2017-11-18 13:43:07