É invulgar receber um texto de Inglaterra em que a distinção entre anti-religiosidade e anticlericalismo (ou laicismo) seja tão clara como nos parágrafos que se seguem.
- «Secularism is about living together in peace and harmony, without exploitation and without coercion. It isn't primarily about attacking religion or religious believers. Although we may have a lot of sympathy with the rationalism of Dawkins and Hitchens, we realise that the argument about the truth or otherwise of religion is separate from the struggle for secularism. Whatever we may feel about religion – and I know that many NSS members have very strong anti-religious instincts – we have to be pragmatic and understand that religion is not going away. So, secularism tries to create a shared space where no-one can dominate. The veracity or otherwise of religious belief is a legitimate argument, but not one that is central to the creation of a secular society. Secularism is about listening to other people's point of view, but sometimes agreeing to differ. It goes like this: you do what you want (within the law) in your space (temple, mosque, church, home), and we'll do what we want in our space (likewise within the law), and we'll agree not to interfere with each other while within those spaces. But in the space that we have to share – the public square as it has been called - there can only be democracy, equality and individual human rights. The direction and shape of our society and culture must be agreed between us, believer and non-believer alike, not imposed by divine right or by superior strength. In that way, we all participate. We don't always get what we want, but at least we have the opportunity to lobby to change things by argument and persuasion, rather than by force and fiat.» (Recebido por correio electrónico da National Secular Society.)
1 comentário :
E que direitos têm as crianças? De ser como os pais quiserem?
Penso que há alguns pontos de divergência onde não se pode simplesmente concordar em discordar...
Enviar um comentário