If Gillian Gibbons, the British schoolteacher, was not incarcerated somewhere in Sudan, the whole Teddy Bear called Mohamed incident would be comical. But it serves to remind us once again that fundamentalist religion and Western values do not sit together. And it rubs in that we should spend more time promoting secularism around the world and worry less about spreading democracy.
Consider some dates. Native Americans got the vote in the United States in 1924. Spanish women were given the same privilege in 1931, French women in 1944. Lords of the Realm in the United Kingdom could not vote in parliamentary elections until 1999. Although democracy began in Athens two and a half thousand years ago, it was for centuries a fragile flower and has blossomed only recently.
Democracy, we tell ourselves, is a hallmark of “the West”, the treasure that the rest of the World envies and that accounts for the pre-eminence of Europe and North America in economic progress, intellectual dominance and moral freedoms.
But it's not the case when you examine the chronology. The rise of the West had much less to do with democracy than with the rise of secularism. The West's advance was chiefly related to the decline in the influence of religion that sought the truth by “looking in” to see what God had to say, and its replacement by looking out, deriving authority from observation, experimentation and exploration.
The original figures to draw attention to this were Bishop Robert Grosseteste, early in the 13th century, the first person to imagine the experiment, and his contemporary, St Thomas Aquinas, the first man to imagine a secular world, a world without God directing everything. Secularism is not the same as atheism, of course — both Grosseteste and Aquinas were priests. But they helped us to escape from the overbearing medieval view that the world has meaning and pattern only in relation to God.
Building on that came the Florentine bankers, funding the expeditions to Africa, the Far East and the New World, Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, showing that even the heavens were rationally organised, culminating in the first Industrial Revolution and the steam engine, the spinning machine, modern chemistry and electricity and the second industrial revolution, mainly in Germany and Britain at the end of the 19th century, that gave us pharmaceuticals, the motor car, aniline dyes, movies and atomic energy.
These innovations owed little to democracy. They most certainly had to do with new thoughts about liberty and psychology (Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, David Hume's Treatise of Human Nature), and with the belief that men and women from the lower classes have abilities commensurate with those of their social “betters”. But they were unrelated to the formal extension of those liberties in the form of suffrage.
Prosperity, initiated by science, fostered yet more secular thought, more thought about liberty and human nature, in a virtuous cycle that led to democracy. That prosperity was not the fruit of democracy. Britain became a world power in the 19th century at a time when only one man in seven and no women had the right to vote. German science made great advances when the country's Chancellor and his Cabinet were not elected at all, but appointed by the king/emperor.
This is not an argument against democracy; it is an argument about priorities. At a time when the world is calling for elections in Pakistan, this basic truth is being overlooked. Forcing Pervez Musharraf, a dictator but a relatively benign one, and most importantly a secular ruler, into elections that radical — or openly political — Muslims might win, risks a replay of Iraq, where the West deposed a secular ruler, a brutal one it is true, but nowhere near as threatening as the risk that will exist if radical Islam gains the day.
The same is true of Turkey, which has elected an Islamic party whose Prime Minister, according to The Times's own accounts, is taking the country surreptitiously into an intolerant Islamic — and inherently anti-Western — stance. Look at what democracy has produced in Iran, Palestine and Zimbabwe.
The inconvenient truth is that the West should be exporting secularism around the world before it exports democracy. Democracy implies not just one person one vote but —
no less important — that the political process proceeds by rational means, by argument, by persuasion, and is based on knowledge that is as objective, as scientific, as one can make it. The objective knowledge has to come first.
In China, at the moment, every member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo, the central bastion of power, is a trained engineer — every one. There is not a religious figure in sight, the country is going from strength to strength, former Maoists have seen the light, recognising rationally the prosperity that technology can bring; and elections are simply not the issue there that they are in Pakistan. Prosperity comes from secularism, and where you have prosperity you have political and social stability. Only once you have stability can you start thinking sensibly about elections.
Peter Watson is the author of A Terrible Beauty: The People and Ideas that Shaped the Modern Mind, and Ideas: A History from Fire to Freud
Religion has been the worst plague upon humanity. The Inquisition, the Dark Ages, the Crusades, the witch hunts, the Holocaust, the european invasion of North America and subsequent destruction of the entire native north american culture... Were it not for religion, we might have world peace on this very day. And yet so many people delude themselves with a lie because they are either brainwashed, afraid of death, lack a purpose in life, or suffer from a mental disability.
Embrace freedom. Reject religion.
Zahr Dalsk, Toronto, Ontario
For those who don't think that secularism is an important should think about what happens in a society when there a multiple groups who disagree with each other, refuse to back down and insist that their view is right and must be implemented. It is called a civil war. The really fun part about this is that theists find smaller and smaller hairs to split as you can have infighting in the "same " religion. Secularism is an attempt to stop this madness by telling everyone the state is off limits for doctrinal disputes.
Oh, in case you are curious, a secular government is on where there are no religious tests and laws are not based on holy writ.
Samuel, San Jose, CA
One cannot very well preach secularism (or even illustrate it) to nations that accept their religious authorities as the current basis for their societies. Secularism was a controlled accident in a few places - the US, for example - and an evolutionary process in others such as the UK, Spain, Italy and France. If it were even remotely possible to secularize a culture or nation (most of Europe managed it in a sense), it seems proven by history that the causal mechanisms equate to serious revolution that is virtually impossible to inspire in "God's Countries".
We have a great deal of evidence, though, that secular cultures may easily be transformed into non-secular cultures and thus reduce democracy to a mere shop-tag on a sow's ear ( with the USA as an example).
RJ, Orange, USA
This is one of the most insidious, conscious mistakes on the side of pro-religion, anti-enlightenment people: the idea that Nazis were somewhat atheists and antirreligious. Even if some elements of Nietzsche's philosophy were appropriated and manipulated by the Nazis, these were on the whole very conservative on religious issues. And Christian churches blessed them for that, by the way.
If Steve has really the interest, he could have a look at Mein Kampf to see how far was Hitler not only from atheism, but from reason itself.
Enrique, Brussels, Belgium
I afraid I'm singularly unconvinced by this argument that Secularism is the root of our prosperity and thus the hope for others. As Andrew from Cambridge pointed out, Peter's historical analysis lacks substance and credibility, but more importantly,Peter offers neither definition nor description of what he means by the term. For example the institutions and laws that order society were born out of our Judeo-Christian world view and still to a large extent reflect it's theology and it's Judeo-Christian heritage. The separation of sacred and secular authority being but one manifestation of this. Secular government is an effect not a cause. So what is Peter trying to sell ?
Gordon Neil, Huntingdon, UK
Steve from Manassas is talking absolute clap-trap. Science is irrelevant to religion, and some of the most important science happened under polytheistic societies - one only need mention Pythagoras! The Romans had very good engineers, who used science. The Christian world didn't match the pagan Romans for well over a thousand years.
He is also wrong; the Nazi state was not secular. Hitler was religous. And the alternative he gives to gods is ridiculous; he completely ignore humanism, and the fact that morality doesn't stem from religion.
Finally, the assumption that putting gods to one side *is* more rational than assuming that they should be included in any way. To claim otherwise is credulous.
Steve should think and be sure of his facts before he comments, I think!
James, London, UK
The separation of church and state (not necessarily secularism, I admit) is and always has been a basic Christian doctrine. Jesus said to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and we could do a lot worse than to follow that teaching.
Jo Ann McNamara, New York, ny
1. Science came from religion, not secularism. The success of Catholicism brought the notion that there is one God--rather than competing gods. Only then did the study of the world a a coherent whole make sense. It was God's rationalism that they were initially studying.
2. In the final analysis, there is only one alternative to God: might makes right. Yes indeed, look at China, and the horrors of Communism and Nazism. He applauds rationalism: by what authority? If it is his personal preference, then the irrational and powerful can legitimately destroy him. But if we are to be rational because God has given us reason and we are answerable to God, well now we have something that has a chance of working.
3. The problem with rational secularism is this: it assumes, rather than proves rationally, that it is rational to put God aside.
Steve, Manassas, USA/VA
I agree with everything you said in your article. It is a reasoned humanist and Pragmatic approach to
World Politics.
Mike Ryan, Christchurch, U.K.
What good is secularism without freedom to determine one's own individual, political and religious future?
Big deal! So you got a bunch of engineers running communist china. So what? What about freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of religion, free elections? The soviet empire was secular. Ask the Eastern Europeans (those same Eastern Europeans who were sacrificed for decades for "containment," "detente," and "peaceful coexistence") how they liked secularism under the Evil Empire.
A secular government without democracy (preferably a democratic republic or a republican democracy) is a sham.
zqll, Dallas, Texas, USA
By the author's logic there is no ultimate reason for decency, other than good manners.
" that the political process proceeds by rational means, by argument, by persuasion, and is based on knowledge that is as objective, as scientific, as one can make it. The objective knowledge has to come first"
Global Nazism is as reasonable an outcome of secular logical planning as any. It takes religious inspired benevolence to be charitable on a international level.
kris, Pass,
As Andrew of Cambridge, UK, hints, this is a silly article. Many forms of "progress" took place through religious belief: Wilberforce and slavery, anyone? The idea that all religious belief is a force for evil and all secularisms are a force for the good is beyond foolish: as Eric Hobsbawm, a Marxist historian, points out that in the 20th century, the most destructive ideologies were secular, enlightenment ones: Nazism and Stalin's communism. These combined to kill many, many millions in an unprecedented combination of science, engineering, and secular ideologies.
For starters, Mr. Watson should have made some distinction between fundamentalisms and religious belief as such. Then there's also distinctions to be made about forms of secularism: it's not as if the French revolution was all warm and fuzzy and nice, and it represents a dawning of secularism.
Peter Moore, Los Angeles, California, USA
All very well, but the proposal is fundamentally unsound and unfeasible. It's hard enough trying to export democracy, in view of our own uncertainty as to what it means. (In the UK, apparently it allows us peasants to choose, once every 5-7 years, between two parties whose policies are very close to identical). Early in my own life, I spent several years living in countries ruled by three relatively benign dictators, and for 99% of people it was no different from living in Britain or any other democracy.
With democracy, at least, there are only two basic beliefs: that it is appropriate, or that it is not, for a given country at a given time. With religion, there are dozens of plausible views. You may be atheist, agnostic, Deist, theist, gnostic, Catholic, Protestant, Sunni, Shia, Hindu, Sikh, Mahayana Buddhist, Zen Buddhist, Taoist... and on, and on, and on. The devotees of some of these beliefs will heartily seek to convert, suppress, regulate, or even kill the devotees of others.
Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,
The establishment and cultivation of the best ‘soil’ for the advancement of our world is of utmost importance to our future. Studies, such as Peter Watson’s ‘Ideas: A History’ (Orion Publishing, 2006), and his contribution in The Times (1 December 2007) make an important contribution in the search for a suitable formula.
What is the best soil, the best under-girding philosophy, for global, including scientific and technological, growth and development? Is it democracy (hardly a philosophy), or secularism, existentialism, humanism, or rationalism? Is religion best excluded although is has been significant during, and in, most of mankind’s history? These are the questions he needs to ask.
Peter Watson’s error is to follow the current fashion and merge all religious positions into one, to conclude that this vast amalgam has inhibited true science, and then consign them to the waste bin. This approach is counter to a rational and objective consideration his championing of Aquinas should demonstrate.
The cultivation of optimum advancement is only possible within the fertilizer of a philosophy which most accords with reality. Has he proved beyond doubt that the concept of a created universe by a divine ‘watchmaker’ is myth, and therefore no basis for such a philosophy? If he has then he is right to explore further the hypothesis that advancement in science owes its origins to a secularist world view. If he has not he had better hold back just a little, along with the countless eminent scientists of yesterday and today.
michael underwood, Winchester, UK
An interesting question to ask is what do the BNP, The Catholic Church and Islamic extremism have in common. In my personal opinion it is Fascism. There a many photos and other evidence to show that the Catholic Church did not oppose the Nazis. Pope John Paul congratulated Pinochet on his Catholicism by calling He and his wife a 'Good Christian couple'. This was at the time that Pinochet was in the process of eliminating 100 left wing non Christians in an act of extreme Fascism.
One of the most popular books in Palestine is Mein Campf. It can be bought where the Bible cannot and is widely read.
The BNP appear to have moderated their views slightly but nevertheless I believe that if they were in power their regime would have all the elements of Fascism. In my personal view,all these three are a threat to civilised society and the progress of mankind.
Keith Budden, Rayleigh, England,
Good idea, as long as ALL forms of religion are attacked as well, like Socialism and Environmentalism.
Frederick Davies, Kidlington, UK
You can't 'export' something you don't yourself have Peter.
Richard, London,
Peter Watson is absolutely right. Democracy though is definitely over-rated. Insane to get rid of Saddam Hussein and replace him with mad mullahs in the name of democracy. The same in Pakistan. The same everywhere really. We should start by replacing our own government and only electing MPs who swear an oath of allegiance to the state and NOT religion. The whole apparatus of religion should be disbanded except as private worship. Start with the veil and outlaw it now. Dis establish the C of E etc etc
Emily W, Newmarket, UK
A timely and perceptive article. Remember also that Afghanistan's Communist government presided over a progressive state (albeit backed by the USSR)with high levels of literacy ,high standards of health and education and ready access for educated women to the professions. The neocons in the Regan administration preferred Osama Bin Laden to the Communists because at least he wasn't an atheist! They duly armed him to the teeth to fight their proxy war. The religious rot really set in when mysogynistic Christian fanatics took over the Roman Empire and began centuries of squabbling over dogma while the Empire and civilisation -which they despised for its earthly comforts- collapsed in the face of barbarian invasion all around them. Even then they didn't get it -see 'City of God 'Augustine's apologia for Christian responsibility for the fall of Rome! Religion ,progress and civilisation just don't mix.. As for bringing democracy -it would perhaps be a good idea to start with the UK
David, Uzes, France
The west's preoccupation with increasing its wealth and not wanting to share it with others ( Turkey is the prime example), driving those countries's governance into the hands of extreme elements.
Secularist in Turkey has been alarmed by the friendly attitude of West toward Islamist government of Turkey, whose only objective is to have God's book to rule the country rather than the parliment and secular institutions.
Wakey Wakey.
Iranians for years have been working very hard to dent the secularist Turkish establishment so that they can have their war againts evil west. They know Turkish army strong and well equipped.
Tekgoz, London,
The issue, Peter, is that the noisiest kid in the street, the United States, would have considerable difficulty calling for secularism, with an apparent mandatory requirement for all US politicians to proclaim a Christian religious belief. Without this brash, obese, bellicose kid bellowing over the play-ground racket, such a message is unlikely to be heard.
When common sense is suppressed, by political correctness, a call for 'democracy' is about a secular a call as conditions permit.
Stephen Davey, Sydney, Australia
Derek Smith says - ".. Britain was not a democracy before 1917. It was ruled by a king or queen, a group of the privileged who owed their position to the crown or their position in the state church, and the inferior house of commoners voted in by a minority of the public."
I think he overstates it a bit. The King's powers were considerably reduced from 1660 onwards, House of Commons elections were made much more democratic by the 1832 Reforms, & later in that century the franchise was extended further. Perhaps it depends on what 'democracy' means, but surely Britain was a democracy well before 1917?
Now for Secularism. Secularism is desirable, but it alone cannot correct the flaws of a religion that is utterly incompatible with, and implacably opposed to, both it and democracy.
Democracy works in Islamic countries only so long as secularism is guaranteed by a dedicated army, as in Turkey.
The truth is that neither democracy nor secularism can be secure while Islam exists.
Herbert Thornton, Victoria, Canada
Religion is like alcohol. Small doses ok, large doses affect the brain and cause death. It should be illegal in public places and illegal to expose under 21s to it.
Any species that tolerates people more concerned with what happens to them after they die and that lets them freeload off the back of secular evolution to the point where they will eventually get nukes and use them in the name of their imaginary gods - ANY species that allows such a situation to develop deserves to go.
I just hope western Gvmts wake up and take the planet. If the oil is in the Mid-East, remove the squatters and take the resources. As for Africa, 'nuff said, what a mess, that lot clearly need managed.
In time Planet Earth will undoubtably collude with Mother nature to exterminate our entire species when good and ready, so we might as well make the most of the time we have. Religion should not be allowed to shorten our already short tenure.
John, London, UK
Secularism isn't the answer either. This word has too much baggage. Freedom is the correct word. The problem is that many religions mask themselves as secular institutions so as to make war on traditional religions. These secular religions such as: communism, socialism, liberalism, environmentalism, the religion Global Warming as well as the religion of atheism is a far greater threat to global prosperity. These secular religious institutions (an oxymoron to be sure) are the major threats to freedom.
W. C. Anderson, Salt Lake City,
This is a very good article, no doubt most respondees will either conflate atheism with secularism. Or claim that belief in rationality is still belief and therefore equivalent to belief in a bad tempered sky god.
Democracy without secularism has a problem; the will of the people may result in something really bad. The west didn’t like it when democracy with religion triumphed in Palestine. What is to stop a country of devotees ushering in a monster. Can anyone really say that the return of the iotulla in 79 was not the will of the people?
Secularists may often be atheists but sometimes they are not, some of them have a belief in their god but in deference to wider humanity they agree to keep it personal and out of the apparatus of state. Now that a Muslim, Christian Hindu or Jew I can count as a friend and not fear as a fiend
Tim Ellidge, manchester, uk
With due respect, I don t think a discussion such as you have attempted is going to make much sense as long as it leans so heavily on the word democracy. There can t possibly be anything that can properly described as democracy in a modern developed country, except perhaps at village level. This is important because the word democracy is thus effectively meaningless unless you are using it on the understanding that it means or implies the West European and American style of government, although even those are considerably different among themselves. So giving it general usage is pernicious because it is misleading. For example, there is, I am sure you will agree, a considerable difference in connotation between saying in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan that we will create a democracy, and that we will create a Western European style government.
Henry Percy, London, UK
Fortunately, we don't have to depend on politicians to accomplish the secularization of the world's more fundamentalist backwaters. The spread of information, and in particular the lure of western culture, high and low, through the internet will inevitably undercut the relevance of most religions -- at least in the public sphere. Of course we have to hope that we can survive the half dozen or so generations this will take.
Daniel Madisson, Fairfax, Virginia, United States
What an incredible bit of revisionist nonsense. America could never have been created if left to secularists. The erosion of western values and the demise of our democracy are taking place now as a direct result of the rise of progressive secularism. The Muslim world, while backward has enough sense to know that it wants no part of decadant and perverse western secular liberalism.
Keith, Minneapolis, usa, Mn
Unpersuasive. Democracy versus secularism is a false distinction in trying to account for the relative success of different political systems.
Republican democracy, the rule of law, and free market economics are the most prominent characteristics of the most successful, and most free, states: Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, UK, USA, Estonia (!), Australia, and Ireland, in top-down order, according to freetheworld.com. Similar listings are available from freedomhouse.org and Heritage. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, secular to a fault, doesn't rank quite so well, at dead last.
Freedom of religion is an important component of individual freedom, but freedom from religion, as Watson's use of the "secular" term implies, is not a primary determinant of anything.
Iago, Houston,
This had to be said and said out loud. In Egypt, my home country, the correct Arabic word for secularism "al'almania" is being avoided even by liberal and progressive writers. It has become taboo. Instead, they are trying to get around by speaking of "al-muwatana" "citizenship". The grip of religion, both Islam and Orthodox Christianity, is strangling thought. We cannot move forward before freeing ourselves of that grip.
D. R. Khashaba, Cairo, Egypt
Alex and Dr Findlater find no difference between secularism and atheism. Given the way the word 'secularism' is often used, this is understandable, but Peter Watson is using it in its most distinctive sense: the idea that the state should not favour any belief system - religious or non-religious - but allow free inquiry and freedom of belief. Marxism, Communism etc are beliefs - dogmas, indeed - just as much as religions, and states based on them are not secular or free.
David Pollock, London,
You could argue whether the 1917 Reform Act, which gave the vote to most men 21 and over and most women 30 and over, or the subsequent one in 1928, in which women were given the vote on the same basis as men, is when Britain became a democracy. What is clear, however, is that Britain was not a democracy before 1917. It was ruled by a king or queen, a group of the privileged who owed their position to the crown or their position in the state church, and the inferior house of commoners voted in by a minority of the public.
Watson is right: the ascent of Britain to rulers of one quarter of the world was well before the advent of democracy in this country.
Western progress started from the catholic church’s loss of control over education. James I’s bible and, later, the ability to print it for the emerging educated middle classes was the cause of the fall. Rather ironic when one considers the story of Adam and Eve. However, knowledge released the West.
I’m with Watson on the separation of church and state, either by constitution or, as in this country, by practice. But I would add education. It worked for us.
Derek Smith, Brighton, UK
I am in full agreement with Mr. Watson both in respect to his historical account and to his recipe for future. I would like to add that Athenian democracy (however limited) had a lot to do with the stroke of good fortune in a shape of a large silver mine. Material well being relatively large numbers of merchants etc.. so-called middle class should precede full-fledged democracy Pakistan, Palestine, Turkey, Iraq to name just a few are simply not ready because they do not have a required infrastructure, rule of law, vibrant business environment.
Secularism and full embrace of capitalism (not socialism as it is the case in some Arab countries) would do more for the proseperity of poor countries than any other ingredients and religion should be used only as a very last resort. Protestantism maybe played a role in development of capitalism and modern democracy but secular ideas ( American and French Revolutions) and scientific progress that resulted from those played a much larger role.
Dario Mutabdzija, Sacramento, USA
"The inconvenient truth is that the West should be exporting secularism around the world before it exports democracy. "
Ah the burdens and responsibilities of being the only cultured being among all us savage brutes in the East !! Please make up your mind quickly what's it going to be--democracy, secularism or ...?
My neck and back are really cramped and my tongue lolling, looking up at the Great Master, waiting to decide, what feed I should get today.
Ather, Lahore, Pakistan
Anything that inhibits the spread of theabsurdist superstitioun that is all religion is a good thing. I agree wholeheartedly.
Bruce L. Northwood, Washington, D.C., USA
To say "look what democracy has produced in Palestine" is a bad example to use in this argument. It totally overlooks the poisonous effect of 30 years under the British mandate, being sold down the river by the UN in 1948 that allowed Israel to be installed, 40 years of occupation by Israel, ongoing land theft with no intervention by the democratic West who still trade with the oppressor. etc.
The injustice of installing Israel without the consent of the indigenous inhabitants has helped disrupt the Middle East and converted what would probably have become a quiet Islamic/Christian/Jewish state into an area of Islamic fundamentalism that will stay a running sore until the Palestinians get justice, not a few enclaves in the West Bank and Gaza.
Discussing the niceties of political outlook, secular or religious, is pointless when you are talking about an imprisoned people
William Garrett, Harrow,
The over-secularisation of science in the west and religious fanaticism in the east have both brought our planet to the brink of disaster. We need to find common values, or virtues, independent of culture and unite enjoying all our rich diversity, as the Bahai religion teaches.
David Hoffman , Winchester, UK
The important factor is the divide between religion and the state. Unfortunately, in the unstable middle east (and in Muslim countries generally) the state is run by religion and religious leaders.
The best way of countering this is education - secular education. All the time education is provided by religious schools the situation won't improve.
This doesn't only apply to Muslims. The Catholic Church (and others) is equally implicated. The Catholic Church instructs poor Africans not to use birth control - with the inevitable result that they keep producing children they cannot afford and the explosion of AIDs.
We should be providing aid to these countries by opening and running free schools for every child on strictly secular lines. And in this country, we should stop state funding of 'faith' schools.
Donna Walker, Effingham, Surrey
How very true, true democratic leadership should be guided by the right decision not the religious decision.
wayne, Huntingdon,
Mr Watson's idea of secularism seems to be more accurately described as "non-Abrahamism" - the idea that a religion may be necessary as a spiritual medicine but should not define a political framework.
These ideas are not ours to export. Were they not current in Jainism and Buddhism centuries before they occurred to any European? Indeed, one might view the history of Christianity as an attempt to graft these ideas onto Abrahamism, followed by a demonstration of just how strongly it resists them.
Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK
A brilliant insight. It is a huge generalisation so will be easy for anti-secularists and democrats to find exceptions to the rule.
Steve Bush, Cirencester, UK
I live in a small government housing estate of a dozen houses or so..... we share ,we look out for each-other, but we certainly don't live in each others pockets. This works very well for us as a small community because its a relationship not based on greed. Every political system on this planet does and always will contain elements of corruption. Power attracts the greedy. Sharing attracts contentment..... Remember its up to you to decide whether your vote counts or not
Udo , melbourne, Australia
Brilliant article.
Democracy can not exist without laicism (secularity). Pluralism and rational thought is the foundation of true democracy that leads to sustained prosperity.
Ali Akademir, Herts,
George Orwell argued that communism was just another form of religion in that it demanded obedience and defined the way its followers saw the world. Do not confuse secularism with with any belief system that tells you what to believe, secularism doesn't say " believe this, believe that" it says "think for yourself"
Owen, Loughton,
Religion has often been used as a control mechanism and a block against progress. Even today the Catholic Church tries to interfere in the law-making process, for example by threatening American senators who do not vote according to their demands. In this country, it blackmailed the government over the introduction of regulations concerning adoption by gay couples. It took centuries for the West to shake off the control of the religious and make progress in science, technology and human rights. However, we are still required to be vigilant against religious power-seekers and against ideologies and cults which bear similarities to religion such as communism and fascism.
Stewart Ware, London, UK
This chap tries to befuddle us while dancing on the head of a pin: in an intellectual 'Strict;y Come Dancing' ; it would score badly.
Granted so much evil has come from the excesses of fundamentalist religious bodies but just as much, possibly more, horror has come from militant, domineering atheist/secularist (I don't think in practice theere is much distinction)
Watson looking at China reminds us of GB Shaw, HG Wells et al entranced by Communist Russia sayingf 'we've seen the future and it works'.
Dr j Findlater, Carnforth,
Communism was a good theory but was unfortunate in its practitioners, The passions of the leadership were almost identical to those of the Catholic church at the height of its power and Islam today. You conformed or died, dissent was
forbidden. If you were spared you were re-educated. The similarities between Nazism and Communism are striking, and Nazism claimed the support of god!
Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot all forced their peoples into
conforming to their fantasies.
leonidas, york, uk
It is odd that people and governments embrace religious sects that support racial discrimination,gender discrimination etc and yet lay claim to some sort of mythical worthiness.
You can educate anybody but intelligence is a rare commodity.
Ithamer, Toronto, Canada
Excellent article but surely there are other cultural factors in play to determine the prosperity of a country, Not just wether the people are religous or not. Take Jamaica for example, is religion a governing force? Not really, is it prosperous? Not really.
We have to keep think what these other factors might be to continue the debate. I hope we do.
Andrew O'Neill, Liverpool,
Finally, someone with some sense. Another way to express "the inconvenient truth", as Mr. Watson puts it, is to say that many Countries around the globe can't handle democracy. It's like suddenly being let out of prison without having learnt any skills to survive in the real world. Religion has historically always been a means to keep the masses down while a select few ran things. In the best case, most Western economies passed through this phase into a relatively safe democratic system (with limited damage) a century ago. Many are still not ready to make the jump (see most of Africa and Asia). While our Islamic brothers are taking the "head buried in the sand approach", thinking the world was a better place two thousand years ago lets keep it that way.
Neil, Dallas, Texas
As an atheist, I must say that the article is silly.
He hides or ignores the point that communism was a form of secularism an it lead to the death of hundreds of millions.
However, there is a glimmer of good argument in his piece, however obscured. We do have to export something other than just democracy: we need to export respect for individual human rights and a distrust for centralized control.
But secularism is neither necessary nor sufficient to have respect for individual human rights.
Alex, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
This article does not contain a serious historical argument. The obvious fact is that the foundationsfor the rise of the West were laid far earlier than the processes which we now refer to as 'secularisation' set in. Britain in 1850 was just as religious asit had been at any point in the last thousand years, yet it was the 'workshop of the world'. If the work of Thomas Aquinas (a Doctor of the Catholic Church) is an example of secularism, I should like to know exactly what secularism is.
I wonder what Max Weber would have made of all this - 'capitalism as the expression of the Protestant work ethic', anyone?
Andrew, Cambridge, UK