*****به خود بنگريم، به اطرافمان، به خود بيانديشيم، به اطرافمان، توجيه‌گريها و فلسفه بافيها، شك و ترديدها، يأس و نااميديها را كنار بگذاريم، تصميم بگيريم، برخيزيم و حركت كنيم. هر جا كه هستيم، در هر سن و سالي، با هر عقيده و ديني... بياييم قبل از آنكه عالِم باشيم، دانشمند باشيم، مخترع و كاشف باشيم، تاجر و كاسب باشيم، كارگر و كارمند باشيم، سياستمدار و سياستگذار باشيم،...، انسان باشيم، انسان باشيم، انسان باشيم*****

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Religion in a Secular Society: What Place or Role can Religion Have?
By Austin क्लीन


If secularism opposes the public support of religion or the presence of ecclesiastical authorities simultaneously exercising public authority, what role is left for religion in a secular society? Is religion doomed to a slow decline and attrition? Is it relegated to a web of quaint but unimportant cultural traditions? Such are the fears of opponents to secularism and secularization who argue that religion is too important to be eliminated in such a manner and blame atheists for their woes.
A word of caution is important here when it comes to terminology. One frequently hears or reads about secularists seeking the restriction of religion to "private" life and getting it out of "public" life — a position which gives people the impression that secularists don't want anyone ever talking about religion in public again. Although some secularists may harbor such feelings, this interpretation relies upon the fact that the public/private distinction has more than one meaning.
For secularists, they do not mean it in the same sense that a person's financial situation should remain private rather that becoming public knowledge. Instead, they are using "public" in the sense of "maintained for or used by the people or community." Thus, the desire to have religion removed from "public life" involves removing it not from public view but from public (read: government) support. The desire for religion to be made private involves not keeping it secret but keeping it a personal, voluntary endeavor.
We can see, then, that there is nothing about the process of secularization or a philosophy of secularism which requires the demise of religion. Secularists themselves are quite divided in their evaluations of religion and what role they think religion should have in society. Many are adamant in their belief that religion does more harm than good and they do hope that it will eventually disappear. Many others, however, are happy for it to retain a role in the social and moral lives of believers. Some secularists even support religious charities in their social efforts for the relief of poverty and suffering.
If religion withers in a secular society — and such a fate is entirely possible — the blame cannot be laid directly at the feet of secularism and secularization. They can only be held accountable for creating the conditions for the actual cause: people's disinterest in religion. In a non-secular society, people have little chance to ignore or get away from religion. Everywhere they go, either ecclesiastical authorities have some power over them or the principles of some particular religion are used as a basis to control their lives.
In a secular society, however, escape from domination by religion and religious leaders is possible. No one is beholden to any religious organization or religious values unless they specifically choose to be. If enough people choose not to be associated with religion, then religious organizations will decline due to decreases in income and membership.
Religious leaders are surely justified in lamenting such a possibility, but by opposing secularism and secularization, they make two errors. First, they place responsibility for such a predicament in the wrong place. Instead of attacking secularism for allowing people the chance to ignore religion, they should instead take a closer look at why they might be worth ignoring.
Second, any attempt to attack secularism essentially admits that they are unable to maintain people's interest and support on a purely individual, private, and voluntary basis. This may indeed be true, but it is a devastating thing to acknowledge — yet religious leaders who attack secularism don't seem to understand what it means. For some reason, they fail to realize that publicly supported and/or enforced religion is ultimately worthless. If they really believe that that is the only way that religion can survive, then they admit that religion itself is worthless — and that validates the secularist position that religion simply isn't necessary for the public good.