Proceeding contribution from Lord Harrison (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 18 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on British Humanist Association: Reports.
British Humanist Association: Reports
I am afraid I will not accept any intervention because this is a timed debate and I prefer to use my time to say what I have to say. It provides fairness to those who might otherwise have to bend their strongly-held views to those who hold very separate and equally strongly-held views. Finally, there is a pragmatic consideration that in such a society governed by tolerance, that where inimical views spill into the public from the private domain, they may still be accommodated by some reasonable give and take exercised on all sides. I give as an example the debate over religious symbols. Sometimes I think we get in a muddle by denying someone the right to wear a preferred religious symbol; if it does not interfere with health and safety or offend other people, we could exercise a little more tolerance. Sometimes it would be helpful in this debate on the secular state if some of those who oppose humanists and atheists did so with a less shrill voice than is occasionally heard, where typically we are termed "aggressive secularists", for instance. It would be helpful if they learnt a little more about humanism, atheism and, indeed, secularism, because they are not all the same. It would also be helpful if they understood that the basis for our thinking is that we simply do not believe in something which does not exist. There are many reasons why we should try to find what one Member of this House talked about when describing himself as a wishy-washy liberal—the common elements that we share, religious or otherwise. I give as a practical example the preservation of our wonderful churches, which represent some of the best architecture in the land. That is typified in the case of Liverpool—the subject of our next debate—which is home to two of the finest and most interesting churches. I make this plea: if we do not come together with a consensus—I think that a secular state would help in providing that—there are those of us who have reason to fear that the common liberal values most of us enjoy will be threatened by forces outside that can overwhelm us if we fail to take the opportunity to achieve a united front.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 718 c677
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Church of England Bishops Church and state Finance House of Lords House of Lords composition Faith schools Discrimination Religion Religious freedom British Humanist Association Humanism
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-05 11:18:20 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_632256
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_632256
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_632256