Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

[frogmaster]

I stumbled on such a nice post on independent.ie.

It was written August 31 2008, so the author, Emer O'Kelly, wasn't talking about the several currently proposed "anti-blasphemy" laws (at least I don't think he was). But he hits that point and a couple other points that have been chafing at me lately very succinctly. So I thought I would share!

Comments

[quetzal]

When I glanced at the title, I thought it said "Secularists have a right to maintain their clothes".

Even after having realized my mistake, I'm still going to read the article. :D

--

What a lovely article. Thank you for sharing.

[frogmistress]

I believe he was responding to this address the cardinal gave just a few days before.

I read most of the address and, well, it sounded like the typical fundy screaming about "our Christian heritage" because of fears that his church is losing the power it used to have.

While I agree with most of what Kelly says, a few statements seem a bit off.

First, the Cardinal is wrong about hostility. The only hostility in the relationship between religion and secularism is religion's hostility to the demand for rational proof that is the basis of atheism. Religion is also hostile to liberal humanism, because its own doctrinaire authoritarianism won't accept that people can be trusted to live by the tenets of their religion unless the civil code imposes them by law.

This is, obviously, not the only hostility. But, I understand hyperbole and generalization. :)

Yeah, this is stuff that's been grating on me, too.

It's ok to disbelieve.