Within Reason - #8 — Andrew Copson | What Is Secularism?

Episode Date: August 28, 2019

Andrew Copson is is Chief Executive of Humanists UK and author of Oxford University Press' Very Short Introduction to Secularism. He speaks to Alex about the meaning of secularism, its distinction from humanism, liberalism and atheism, and how it might be achieved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode of the Cosmic Skeptic podcast is brought to you by you. To support the podcast, please visit patreon.com forward slash cosmic skeptic. So welcome back, everybody, to the Cosmic Skeptic podcast for a time, the number two philosophy podcast in the United Kingdom. And I'd like to remind you again that the reason for that is because of your ratings on iTunes. So if you wouldn't mind going over there, it only takes a second, get us to climb those accolades once again. These podcasts are an opportunity to have more long-form conversations than usual and usually with interesting guests. And joining me today in the studio is Andrew Copson, who is the chief executive of Humanists, UK, as well as the author of Secularism, Politics, Religion and Freedom, a book I'm currently holding

in my hands and hoping to discuss today. So thanks for being here. Thank you for having me. Yeah, so it's going to be fun. I'm not sure how familiar people who are listening will be with secularism. Everybody, I think, has heard of the concept, and they probably see it as a virtue, at least my audience does. But I think a lot of people fail to understand the actual nature of what it is and how it relates to other concepts like humanism and and uh liberalism which are other views that that often kind of come out with it you know they kind of come as a package um is secularism something that you identify with i don't think it's a matter of personal

identity i mean the sort of secularism i'm talking about in the book and the way in which the word is mostly used in uk english which is a bit different from u.s english and internationally is to describe a certain approach to politics a certain approach to the ordering of the affairs of nations or communities or states. So being an approach to how we order our political life, I don't think it's something that you couldn't feel a great personal affinity with, but I certainly am a supporter of secularism. Yeah, I found it interesting.

I looked at your Twitter account, and in your bio you mentioned that you're a humanist and you mentioned that you're a liberal, but you don't say that you're a secularist. And it seemed as somebody who'd kind of written a book on the subject and made a case within the book for it that perhaps it would be something that you would want to have

at the top of the list of things that you are kind of in favour of it. There's only a certain number of characters, I suppose. I do link to the book in my Twitter bio. So the word secularism is there. But perhaps it shows a prioritisation. Well, I think it's interesting that you mentioned the link between secularism and liberalism.

So I think that in a way, secularism is just the application of liberal principles to religion and the state. right so if you think that secularism is made up really of three parts it's inherent to a definition of secularism is the idea that religion institutions and state institutions will be separate but also inherent to the idea of secularism is the idea that you will try that a state will try to maximize freedom of religion and belief for all its citizens and everyone within its borders up to the limits of the rights and freedoms of others and that the states is the third part of secularism will try and and treat people equally and impartially, regardless of their religion or belief. Well, those are liberal principles applied to the matter of religion and non-religious worldviews too.

So in a sense, secularism is a type of liberalism. And in fact, that's the way it's where it features in academic studies, largely of politics. You say that lots of your listeners would be familiar with the word secularism and that maybe most people will be. I'd be very surprised if that's true, because it's not a very well-known word or concept. And it doesn't appear, for example, in any, in the UK,

any A-level politics, for example. And in very few, yeah, none at all. And in very few undergraduate-level politics degrees, apart from as a variety of liberalism. So you might get a sort of footnote in liberalism. And, of course, the liberal state when it comes to religion, rather than the theocratic one or the multiculturalist one or the, you know, dot-dot-dot one,

takes this approach, which is secularism. But is that a problem in the sense that, for me, I'd like to say that anybody that I meet, I can express to them why secularism is so important, why it protects everybody's rights. And there's a lot of talk about how religious people should be secularists, because they should care about the protection of their religious freedoms. But if you have like a conservative Muslim who is not a liberal, is it possible for a non-liberal to be a secular, to be a secularist? So when you say, is it a problem,

I mean, is it a problem that secularism is a type of liberalism? Yeah. Because you want non-liberals to assent to it as well. Is it the case to the extent that a non-liberal can't really call themselves a secularist? No, not at all. I don't think so. I think that, for example, let's say the example of a conservative religious person that you raise, such a person could support secularism because it was in their best interests. And that, of course, is the way in which most religious advocates of secularism have tended to pose the argument.

Whereas most liberal advocates of secularism pitch it at the notion of the level of what's right and what will produce fairness and what will produce justice and what will produce, you know, civil peace, civil and social peace, and approach it often in a very academic way, principled and pragmatic as well, but also quite academic. What most religious advocates of secularism talk about it as providing is their own ability to pursue their own religious. ends and I think that to that extent um can uh secularism is the best friend of conservative religious people in the world because if we're living in a unless you're living happen to live in the state that completely agrees with you um then um you'd rather that your state were secular um so that you could pursue your own religious freedom i remember being on a panel with a quite an orthodox uh rabbi and we were talking about secularism and i said you know secularism is good for fairness and peace and for freedom

and then it was his turn to talk and he said, yeah, I'm in favour of secularism too because when I look at history, I notice that secularism has been good for the Jews and his point, you know, was that in the centuries of Christendom, Jews of torture and persecuted around the world today, it's very uncongenial to be Jewish

in any of the religious states of the world, but secularism has provided from Napoleon onwards a way of Jews living in peace and freedom and pursuing their religious aims. So although secularism is a type of liberalism, its adherence and supporters don't have to be liberals to recognize

that pragmatically it's in their best interest to support this political settlement. Although I do, there is something of an argument to be made here and it comes into the distinction between secularism and atheism, which is a strange one to make because they are two completely separate concepts. Completely separate. Especially because atheism is essentially a non-concept. Right. And yet there are some important points that I think make it such that these things are justifiably lumped together.

For example, I remember going to talk by the former president of American atheist, David Silverman, who made the point that religious people can't really be secular, like they cannot be secular for the reason that if secularism is about the separation of church and state, what extent are we talking about here? If you are religious and you believe your religion to be true, then you will vote with that in. mind, you will, all of your political affiliations and all of your political endeavors will be predicated on those religious beliefs because there'll be the most important thing to you. Well, there might be. I mean, that's not the evidence, I think, of how religious people behave. Really? Well, I don't think so. I mean, I know plenty of religious people whose religion is not of great salience to them, who have religious beliefs, but also have other beliefs. And at different times, one belief is in play or another. I mean, religious people are human like everybody else,

and they have the same sort of confusion in their minds, different identities, different beliefs, different preferences, different experiences. After all, religious people don't agree, do they? Otherwise, we'd be in lots of trouble because they'd be a much more united front than they are in the world. At the moment. So I don't think Dave's entirely right about that. And of course, it is very possible for some religious people

to have a theology of secularism. I mean, some of the greatest secularists in history, some originators of the modern concept of society, secularism of the Baptists, you know. And what Jefferson says about the Baptists and their role in the origin of the secularism of the United States, constitutional secularism in the United States, is worth revisiting because the point about baptism is they believe really that God is a secularist and that he wants human beings to be free in order to make their own minds up and to come to their own realization of the truth in that, they hope, of the truth of God. But

faith is only faith if it's if it's enforced in that way and so they want secularism that's a fair point I mean there are Muslims especially in the age of the various Islamic states within the subcontinent of India who similarly practiced a secular political arrangement because of on Quranic grounds on the grounds that there should be no compulsion on the grounds that God if you

there's a good bit I say a good bit in the Quran where you know God says I could have made you all Muslims if I'd want to. And that's often cited by Islamic secularists as saying, look, you know, God could have made us all Muslims, but he didn't. So, you know, what God didn't do, it's not our business to ensure through the state. Of course, other Muslims and other Christians, Christians are on the Baptist will take quite a different view and say absolutely not. You know, it's the, we've got a chance to save souls here. Let's use the state to do it. But many religious people will take a secularist line. And good. I mean, most, probably most secularists in the world today are religious. You can, you can strike a balance there. Like, you can, you can have a religious state that doesn't involve compulsion. You can have something that isn't what you've referred to in the book as a true theocracy. Yes. And yet still be a religious state because yes. I think it would be a hard point to sell. If you convinced me tomorrow that Christianity or a certain version of Christianity, let's say, is correct. Yes. And I became wholeheartedly convinced

of it. Then I could imagine myself being in a position where I'd want nothing more than the state to be reinforcing that. I mean, if people are going to be suffering for eternity and the best way to make them informed or to force them to understand the concepts and force them, not to believe, not forced faith, because like you say, that's kind of a contradiction in terms, but to... Well, not everyone believes it is, of course. Well, not everybody, but I think we can agree that it is. But to compel them to, at the very least, engage with... Take seriously and think about it very hard.

It would be difficult to convince me not to do that if I really believed that these people were going to go to hell. Maybe. I mean, that must be your personality type. I find it hard to think of anything that I would be so zealous in my belief for that I would go and try and enforce everyone no matter how correct I thought I was. What about secularism? Oh, I would argue it, but I wouldn't want to use the power of the state to compel everyone to be a secularist in their hearts. Right, but I mean, you're essentially wanting to get the state to be an expression. of secularism.

Not to be an expression of secularism. I mean, you can have a, you could imagine, for example, an activist secularist state, which I suppose is sort of what the Turkish Republic under, you know, at the beginning, might have been trying to be a sort of a state that is actively trying to persuade everyone of the benefits of taking religion out of almost every aspect of life, not just public life, but private life as well, and not just public life in the sense of the state, but all communal life. And that would be a sort of activist secularizing state, I suppose. But the secular state that I'm talking about and, you know, that most secularist

constitutions and campaigning groups and academics talk about today, the principle way they use the word, is of a state that simply guarantees freedom. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or non-religious worldview, freedom expression, up to the limits of the rights of others, and an equal treatment for citizens regardless of their religion or belief. So I don't think that that's, and that is a secular state, I suppose you're sort of suggesting that you might also have, as well as having a secular state, have a secularist state that sort of goes out and tries to... Right, and you see this as two different things.

I don't personally, but I wouldn't put it in those terms, I'm just trying to sort of give a sense to what you've, the question that you've asked. Let me try and clarify. The reason I'm asking is because it's very easy for someone to turn around. And this often happens with liberalism, I think. The liberal will make the case that the whole point of our position is that we want everybody's views to be equally considered and equally expressible. And someone will respond to that by saying, but hold on, you want to enforce this view that

you have. The view should be equally expressible. Yes. And it seems like a kind of circular contradiction. Oh, I see. And so in the same way that you say it would be a bad idea for governments to compel a certain religious view, somebody would see in the same way that people see atheism as a type of religious view. Right. They might see secularism as a type of kind of religio-political view that you're trying to enforce.

I don't think it could be cast that way and they might do. People don't usually express their critique of secularism in that way. They usually say something like whether it's not really objective or it's not really neutral or that, you know, that sort of line they don't usually say it's a sort of religion I think that secularism is a, is firmly a political

approach and I think as witness to that fact observe that people of all different religions and beliefs have supported and do support secularism. But you see it as a political goal that you're trying to absolutely. So to that extent

the same sort of question criticism objection that is made to liberalism could be made to secularism. But I don't view that style of criticism of a political idea as having much validity because implicit, sort of at the implied in this criticism is the idea that there is such a thing as a perfect, you know, totally principled, 100% cast iron political idea. Well, there isn't.

I mean, the whole point of politics is it's the pragmatic meeting the, you know, pragmatically meeting the necessities of social life, which is messy and humans in society with each other are messy and complicated. And, you know, there's no such thing as a perfect principle.

That's quite a humanist idea, of course, that there's no such thing as a perfect principle. You know, you can't go around just saying, look at my shining, you know, perfection. It tends to be monotheistic religions that believe in perfection. And you utopia and the idea that something is completely, you know, achievable in this way. That's not a practical, political idea. And so the objection to liberalism or objection to secularism that seems strong when you voice it that way, I think can be relatively simply responded to

by saying, well, we're just doing our best. I mean, is this approach to politics better or not than the alternative? If yes, let's do it and try to improve on it. But because it's not perfect or because it might have some inconsistencies. Well, that's what makes, you know, they're the hallmarks of anything of human creation and politics is completely of human creation. Sure, yeah. But then that level of impracticality or that criticism of impracticality could perhaps apply to secularism. But it's not a very severe criticism, I don't think. I don't think in practice it's a particularly severe one. I think we should we should make clear that the secular state that you're kind of talking about or let's say striving for has never

existed. It's never, it's never, it's never been an actual reality. Probably the United States has come closest to it in the history. In terms of its, in terms of its constitutional settlements, rather than its actual behaviour. Well, there have been moments when its behaviour hasn't been as bad as it has been at other times in its constitutional settlements, yes. Although I think you'd be, I think you'd be hard pressed to think of a society, it's all relative terms again, obviously, but I think you'd be hard pressed to think of a society where the average human being has been as free in religious belief terms as in the United States. Yeah, I can see how that would be the case politically, but at the very least culturally,

and since politics is downstream from culture, it's important. You know, I've spent time... Is it? I mean, that's a bold claim. Well, I would say that... It may be. It makes sense to view it in that lens. And I've spent time in the United States and times in the UK. The only time that I felt that my religious views are like thereof have actually mattered

in any sense has been when I've been in the United States. Sure. It seems like... But you haven't really suffered for that. You've suffered some social harms And we're comparing it to every other time And every other place in the world Sure, but then you don't really face

You don't really face If you're talking about like social harms As opposed to political persecution You don't really face that much in the UK Or do you? Do you think that there is a third Of our state funded schools Operate religious discrimination

I mean try having children in areas In South Oxford Where we are, we're not going to be in South Oxford A bit further out in that In South Oxford where every school's a church school You know I mean and then try and every school. Every primary school, I know that where I'm staying this weekend, my friends, children, all the local primary schools within the catchment area of church schools, yeah. That's not unusual. I mean, that might surprise our American listeners that in the UK, we have state-funded schools with an official religious affiliation.

Well, it's surprised most people. I mean, we're one of only four countries in the OECD that allows it state-funded religious schools to select on religious grounds. Ireland, Israel, Estonia and also. And we should be fair, it's not like a, it's not a 100% discrimination. There is a 50% cap. No, that's only on new schools. Only on new schools. Yeah, only on new schools. So if they've been going since 94 to 4 and doing it since then, they can carry on.

So you're saying that there are schools in this country that are funded by the state that can completely and utterly choose their students, admit their students, on the basis of religious belief alone. Absolutely. A very substantial number, almost a third. So there's a map you can go on to see, actually, on the Fair Admissions campaign website, which we found at Humus UK, which shows you how, what percentage each school allows itself to select on the basis of, and also the effects on social inclusion and racial diversity in those schools as a result, which, of course, is completely destructive. Then the argument can be made that, okay, it's not very secular to have. have a state church funding schools and picking children on the basis of that religion. But it's not just the state church that's doing that.

It's there are a multitude of religious schools, of faith schools. Yes, there are now. I mean, that's one of the ways in which established church states have tried to, as it were, secure their position, defend themselves against any sort of secularisation is by a sort of attempt to level up for other religions, the privileges that they've enjoyed for various decades or centuries. The UK is, or England specifically, is probably the best example in the world, by which I mean the worst example in the world, of a state where that is, that is, you know, being done.

So it's not a step in the right direction. Well. To say, to say, well, we've got Christian schools. Yeah. So let's try to secularise this by having Muslim schools and Jewish schools. I think that it, I mean, there are, there are arguments both ways that, you know. Hey there, you know, Mrs. Secular. what do you say about this, right?

You know, don't you think that it is a plausible way of maximising freedom of religion and belief in the country and, you know, ensuring non-discrimination if you provide different schools for different people? So everyone has provided a school on an equal basis, but they just have different ones. Okay, maybe, possibly. And I think some people would say that,

especially many Indian secularists would say that, that you know, as long as there's provision across the board. That could be secular. I think that it breaks down when you start to think about the rights of children. Because if you think that the state has obligations to ensuring freedom of religion and belief all of its citizens and everyone within its borders, and you believe that children are human beings, then you start to be more, you start to be concerned about what, what sort of schools the state should be providing for children to guarantee their freedom. You went up with situations like, what was it, Birmingham?

Was it, was it Birmingham? Yeah, lots of situations in Birmingham. Where the recent one where Muslim parents were taking their children out of school for trying to teach them about LGBT issues. Yes, that's right. And so children come into it. I think there's also the state itself has a sort of has an interest in this matter. Because if it is trying to ensure civil peace, which is a legitimate object of the state,

is it a sensible way for it to do so to allow religious choice and separation in the state system? Or is it a better way for it to operate its schools at least? We can't do much about private schools, but its own state schools along secular lines. And I think that probably in terms of, for me, the interests of the children and the interests of the community at large do trump the interests of individual parents who might want to choose religious schools for their children. So I think although you can make a case for the legitimacy of state-funded religious schools if they're provided across the board in a secular state, I don't think it's a very strong case. And also observed that it's quite an impractical one because theologies and religions are almost as diverse as individual parents and you can't go around providing a school for every individual family

with their own particular special beliefs being taught every morning. So it seems like we should take a step in the other direction instead then and... Yes, I think in general steps that lead you from an established church state which is what we are towards a multiculturalist state which somewhere like, you know, Indonesia or something is, are to be resisted and the right steps to take, a steps that take us from an established church state towards a more secular move.

And I don't think that the multiculturalist direction, structurally multiculturalist direction, is a road to secularism and equality. I think it's a road just to division and communalism. Yeah, see, I would agree with you there. It's just people would perhaps on the surface think that it looks like the UK is doing something to move towards secularism.

If anything, we're making it more difficult. It's making it much harder to ever get there. So our listeners might not quite understand what it means, especially if they're Americans, to have a state church. So perhaps... It's difficult to say what it means, really. One area in which it's clear that the UK is not a secular state is in the issue of schools and state-funded schools,

what are the other kind of principal areas that you point to to demonstrate the fact that the UK is not, the secular state that it might appear to be on the surface, given how little people seem to care about religious belief. Right. I mean, it's difficult, isn't it? Because we're undoubtedly one of the most non-religious societies in the world. And in fact, we're probably the country

where the mismatch between the non-religious nature of our society and the religious nature of our state is the greatest. That's probably true, yeah, that's probably right. And the US is probably the other way around. Yeah, exactly. So we're like a, as in so many things, unfortunately, the UK is a sort of mirror image of the US in this respect. So the UK and England is important to point out that Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are not established church states.

England is an established church state and the UK by sort of extension of England is an established church state. And the establishment in England and the UK, unlike the establishment in places like Denmark or Norway when it's on a much firmer constitutional footing, is like everything in the UK, rather difficult to pin down because there's no written constitution or the law. There never was an establishment of the Church of England Act. Yeah, we don't have a document. There's another thing that Americans might, it might be completely alien. Right, we don't have a codified constitution.

You can't go and read it. No, you can't. So what does the establishment of the Church of England, therefore, consist of, you can only really answer in practice. Yes. So the head of the Church of England is the sovereign, the monarch of the UK. But does that matter? I don't want to kind of...

Well, I'm about to start a long list. Yeah, I was going to say, but like it's important to perhaps sort of unpack these because... Do you think it matters if the... I mean, take, for example, assume for the moment you believe in monarchy, maybe you do. Maybe you don't. Absolutely not. Okay, nor do I personally. But if you did, this is a bit...

bit like your thought experiment from earlier, really. If you did, you might think it was a bit of a problem that if the queen tomorrow changed her mind about God, she'd have to abdicate, or if Prince Charles, you know, became a Muslim, he'd have to, like, not be king. You might think that was an odd way to, you might think monarchy is odd anyway, but certainly to require a personal confession from your head of state. I mean, it is a, I don't mean it's not a problem in that sense. What I mean by it's not a problem is that our country, the monarchy, is a bit of a joke at this point. Nobody, I mean, people, people culturally care about it.

But its political power is practically nil at this point. I mean, yes, the queen has to sign off on laws, but if she just refused, it's not like that's just going to, it's not like people would just turn around and respect the will of the sovereign there. Like, I don't think the political power of the sovereign is enough to really be worried if there's kind of a religious attachment. Certainly, they're very English, aren't you?

You take this attitude toward the Constitution, that it's sort of old just a little thing just don't worry about that. I don't know I share your concerns about both religion and the monarchy I hate having to be expected to sing our national anthem God save the queen neither of which I believe in

it's not a comfortable position to be in but I also don't want to overstate the danger well it's by no means the most important thing about the establishment of the Church of England obviously but yeah do continue but the fact that the head of state is confined to one particular region and also that the members of

that particular religion have the head of state put over them in that way. I mean, you imagine equally if, you know, everyone of one particular variety of Islam had to have as the head of their particular denomination, the king, or whatever. I mean, it's a problem both ways. It's not a simply a problem for the state. And this is generally true about secularism, is there's the state on the one hand in its interest, but there's also the interests of religious organizations on the other hand in their freedom. So there's that.

that obviously leads to our state as a whole having a Christian character and that cascades through of course all our national life all our national ritual from the way we honour the dead of wars to the ceremonies that we hold that try to give a shape to our experience as a country you compare for example the way that the UK does that and with the way that constitutional more secular republic do so, then you see, I think, that an established church state immediately places an entirely

unnecessary barrier to one's identity with one's political community. In India, for example, this is the strongest argument for secularism that has frequently been made in the past, and it's the aspect of secularism which leads some people to argue that states that aren't secular can never really even be democratic, because, you know, You cannot be equal citizens together if one of you is the religion of the political community and the other isn't. You know, it creates a perpetual outsider status. The Church of England likes to refer, and this is our language as well. The Church of England likes to refer, for example, to the fact that it being established makes this country more hospitable,

hospitable to others of different religions. And just that idea that, you know, here we are Christian citizens hospitable to others. Right. Like, no, they're not your guests. We're equal citizens of a political community. So that whole, that's written deep into, I think, the way that a lot of people encounter their Britishness and their sense of identity. But then, I mean, you say compare that to secular states like the United States. I mean, it's...

I didn't say that, I said France, actually, but... Oh, but you said compare it to secular states and I'm adding, like, the United States, for instance. Yeah, well, that's an awkward example. Because that's what I mean. it's like can that really be put down that the problems that you're that you're outlining there of the kind of cultural importance of religion and how it's encountered can that really be put down to the fact that the UK isn't secular if you take a secular state like the United States that still has those problems still has God it has the much less oh yeah but okay okay

but that's a that's a that's a that's a very recent and possibly temporary um phenomenon I mean uh on the currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance that may or may not uh continue um and And, you know, there are many other ways in which to be part of a state, which in the case of the United States talks about it, secularism more often under the language of religious freedom, right? That's like the phrase that would have meaning and affection for Americans. I think that that's a remarkably important part of the consciousness, especially of immigrants to America of recent American citizens

far more than it would be in a Christian state for non-Christians. I think it is far more. I mean, you just, I don't believe you could get the sort of political rhetoric you get now. Let's look at, you know, think of some, you know, rising democratic stars. You might not agree with everything they think

and I certainly don't. But you wouldn't be able to get this rhetoric of belonging of Americanness. I think if America were explicitly a Christian, date. Sure. Okay. So I'm starting at the top and going down. It gets more important as we go down. Yeah, yeah. So then we've got, so we've got the ceremonial aspects which are important because they're constitutive of national character and national experience and your experience as a citizen, especially if you're more recent citizen than one of longstanding.

We have all the, you know, smoke and mirrors and incense around the position of the monarch, invidious for the church of which they're the head also invidious for the state after all the pledge that our head of state takes is not to us but is to god every time that they are anointed with you know with chrism as it's called at their at their coronation in england and the UK of course then the church wing has a particular role raft of legislative and government privileges. So, for example, obviously unique in the democratic world, we have bishops sitting in our legislature as of right, claiming expenses, speaking on laws, voting on laws, not just speaking on laws, but having precedent over all temporal lords if they wish to speak. They have one else to sit down and so on and so forth in our parliament. With that, of course, comes extraordinary access to government and to the corridors of Pat, literally. This is true also at a local level where the local authority in England, the local authority board is making decisions about education in the local area,

including new schools, always have to have someone from the local church of England and in many cases Catholic diocese on their committee in many parts of the country. That one vote has been decisive in setting up new religious schools rather than community schools. So there's all that influence that one particular, church increasingly buttressing itself, as you've said, with the support of other religious groups that it tries to cozy up to. There's all of that. Then there's, of course, the provision of schools which you've touched on, so a third of our 100% state-funded, publicly funded schools are run by religious groups, mostly by the Church of England. The established church, also by statute, has a total

dominance of things like pastoral care in prisons and hospitals, which are all state-funded. There in all of our schools, not just our religious state schools, but in all community schools as well, there is by law, as you know, to be a daily act of Christian worship. Again, we're alone in the world in having a law that requires that. That's a consequence of established. even if it isn't a direct manifestation of establishment. And then Parliament governs the church. So Parliament makes laws for the church, legislative measures for the church,

go through Parliament, the commissioners of the church, sit in Parliament. MPs are nominated to be church commissioners. There's a church, of course, literally in Parliament, a chapel where MPs can get married and so on and so forth. and every day in Parliament begins with prayers and if you go in and sit down while the prayers are going on

then you keep that seat all day and if you don't you can't get a seat so I mean written through everything I mean our public services our constitutional law our national rituals our legislative chamber the whole of our constitution

has this Christian establishment running through it does that make it something of a lost cause? Well, I never say never. Stronger establishments have fallen in human history than the Church of England. That is true. I mean, if there is a strong cultural element, it's like, it can be the case that perhaps... I don't think there is a strong cultural element actually. No, I don't. I think the Church of England is something of a zombie. I think that it's the cultural affinity

that people felt for it in the past has to a large extent been hollowed out. It keeps going because it's propped up with power and privilege. And I don't think that if you compare it with something like the established church in

Norway, which has a weaker in many ways, a weaker legal establishment, but is much more, decreasingly so as churches are everywhere, but is much more prominent in cultural life because, for example, it still performs the vast majority of funerals. Well, even that now, the Church of England doesn't have, you know, it doesn't have

funerals, weddings and so on. These are all majority non- Anglican affairs. And so I don't think there is a strong cultural element to the support of the Church of Church. Why is it proving so difficult to change these things? I mean, it can't be... Well, because England is a very conservative political economy. So that's what I mean. It's like there are certain political climates that are just perhaps not easy or not right to try and secularize. It's like what happened in Iran when it was all going so well, but then the cultural revolution in the 70s just showed that people just didn't, people just didn't want it. Well, it was going quite well if you were an elite in Iran previously. I mean, it was going

quite well from, you know, for secular elites. I don't think we should sort of sign up to a history where it was, you know, all amazing. And part of that is part of the answer, I think, of why it did go the way it went, is because it was going all right for secular elites, but not for other people. In relation to the UK, I think that it is very difficult in England. After all, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, you know, have done it within, you know, very recent history. The next year is the 100th anniversary of the disestablishment of the Church of Wales, right? So it is possible in the UK, you know, in these islands, to disestablish churches.

I think one of the problems in England is that it is extremely conservative state, let's say, because I don't think it's a conservative population necessarily in social terms, but it's a conservative state. And I think that what that means is that there'll never be a big bang, secularisation of the state but there the state is already in practice much more secular than it was 300 years ago and much more secular than it was 20 years ago the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act in particular have begun what might be a very long drawn-out process but nonetheless is a process of secularisation of our

state institutions that unless it's interrupted I think we'll continue till eventually the job is done. Do you think that the process of secularisation of the UK would be made easier with some kind of codification of our constitution? Oh, undoubtedly. There's no doubt about that at all. Because, I mean, every time that one of these antiquated aspects of our public life is confronted and reviewed in the cold light of day,

it's reversed, you know, it's abolished. There's no doubt, for example, you imagine that if parliament was reformed so that the House of Lords was, let's say, elected or appointed or whatever, reformed in some way, can you imagine the part of the reformed house being keeping 26 bishops? It just wouldn't be. I mean, there's been no proposal for, for example, an elected house of lords in the last 30 years that proposed keeping the bishops. You know, the bishops always go as part of a wider reform, but they go, right? Because no one thinks that these are the things that you would do if you were starting now.

yeah um so you know that but there are powerful forces range the other the other way the church of england is the eighth richest NGO in the world you know it's in the top five landowners in this country it's incredibly rich and powerful which is why i refer to that land is empty i mean no one no one's showing up anymore well no that's true um and it's be interesting you know to see how they deal how they deal with that themselves strategically i think the new archibir of canjab is quite a clever operator in respect of this and it's clearly um pushing two things a sort of religious message, you know, an attempt to re-engage people in the rhetoric of Christianity and the sentiment side of it, which may or may not succeed. And also in the

service provision, you know, an attempt to make the church, if it can't be a religion, then be, you know, a big service provider that people rely on and has to therefore endure for the sake of social service provision. I mean, there are more children now, many more children, in the Church of England state schools on a Monday morning than there are worshippers in its church on a Sunday morning. Yeah, but that's another point that's made. It's like it's not just a case of the church. It's a case of what the church funds.

And if you get rid of the church's ability to help the state in funding these... But it doesn't fund those schools. They're 100% state funded. The churches don't pay any money towards them. People are concerned that the good influences of the church in terms of establishing these institutions is something worth keeping? They didn't establish a lot of them

in their state founded and state funded most of the, well certainly as we were discussing a moment ago new faith schools are obviously all state funded and founded. But the point that you're making is one that people do make and it's what John Stuart Mill, you know, critiqued 150 years ago. He said that lots of people have an honest aversion, was the phrase he used, people have an honest aversion

when they see sort of lofty sentiments and good behaviour, they don't like to do things that might dry up what they see as the source of those lofty things. And they have an honest diversion to doing so. But the answer now is the same as his answer then, which is, you know, that that's not really the cause of people's good behaviour. That's not where it's coming from. And so, you know, don't worry about that.

So when you wrote the book, this secular... Which is mostly not about England. Even though we've spent a lot of time talking about it just now. I mean, that's what I was going to ask. Like, what audience did you have in mind with this book? Like, who were you writing for? And what was the kind of purpose? That's a good question.

I mean, see, so it was commissioned in the Oxford University Press's very short introduction series. So when it comes out in paperback this year, it's one of those little introductions. Oh, sure. Yeah. I did think it struck me as one of those. I was surprised by that it wasn't right. And they decided to bring it out in Harvard at the year before. I don't know why.

And so it's a very specific. type of book, actually, because it's, it's, it has to be even handed and balanced and fair. Do they give you like a kind of list of rules with writing that kind of thing? They don't give you a list of rules, but they peer review at, you know, rigorously. Yeah. Um, both at the proposal stage and then at the text stage as well. I do wonder, you see, we have this, this, I don't know if, I know they sell them in the United States, but I don't know if they're as big over there. I think they're very popular there, yeah. But these little, the very short introductions to just just any topic you can think of and there's a book on it. And I look and I see like,

the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the introduction to, to Carl Marx. Yes. And I think, can that really be, is it fair in balance? Is it an introduction? Is it, is it, is it an argument? Like, I, did you, did you struggle to, because you're somebody who spent, uh, more than a decade of your life. Yeah. campaigning for this stuff. And now, I know, I know you're told to, yeah, exactly. And now you're told to kind of just write to it. Well, I think the chapter on the arguments against secularism is quite good, don't you?

Yeah. I was told off by one here, Mr. Voss, for getting it too good, the arguments against us. Right. But then... I mean, did you struggle when it came to making those arguments? Did you feel like you were kind of straw manning them? Or did you... No, I didn't really. I don't think I'm a particularly zealous sort of person. I think I find it quite easy to see both sides of the arguments. So I didn't feel particularly that it was difficult. And in fact, I enjoyed learning more about them, the arguments against secularism. Which was the most difficult to engage with in terms of the arguments against? Well, I mean, it, yeah, I did find the established church argument the hardest to engage with because it's sort of wispy and it's very nebulous. You know where you are

with a theocratic argument against secularism. We believe in God. Our God is right. Our God hasn't just given us rules for private conduct. Our God has given us rules for how we work as a society. Follow these God's rules. Because if we don't, we'll be in trouble. That's a very the Ayatollah Khomeini sort of argument, you know, very refreshing, simple clarity to it. And indeed the argument, you know, the argument that the liberal argument against secularism and the argument that it's a false neutrality, you know, that's very easy for me to engage with too because as a liberal myself, I can entertain doubts, you know, within the liberal tradition about secularism as well as anyone. So, you know, that was okay.

The multiculturalist argument I found quite difficult. Are you asking what I felt difficult to understand or difficult to... Difficult to engage with. Difficult in the sense that has there been anything... And you don't necessarily have to sort of pick an argument that you wrote for this book, but even just over the course of your career, especially your almost a decade as chief executive in the Humanist UK, have there been any either arguments presented to you or political occurrences

that have really made you sit back and think, you know, I might not be right here. Oh, I see. Challenging rather than difficult. Yeah. Well, in that sense, of course, the most challenging argument against secularism that's in the book is the liberal case against secularism, the idea that it's not objective, not neutral, that it encodes all sorts of Christian and humanist assumptions that aren't universal. It encodes Christian assumptions. Yeah, so the idea that religion and politics are in principle even separable, you know, the golden sees a point that, you know, can come from within Christian theology. So critics of secularism say, but isn't present in.

other, for example, in Darmic religions, where there's a unity of these things. But even in a case of, like, so, for instance, if I, if I convince you tomorrow that, that the events at Sinai were, were accurate, or I turned you into a, into a Muslim who believed the Quran to be the true revealed word of God, I mean, the Quran is more about orthopraxy than about orthodoxy. It's about, it is essentially just a book of law. And so if I convince you tomorrow that the Quran is, is an actual. accurate representation of the will of God, could you still be a secularist?

Well, I suppose it would depend what I thought the words meant in the Quran. Of course. Because there are plenty of people who have, in fact, interpreted the Quran as a text that gives support to secular government. Of course, there's a, there's a hadith that says you must obey the laws of the land that you're on. Is that right? Which seems to lend support to the secularist, to the secularist argument. But the end goal is still to set up a perfect Sharia state in which there is, the letter of the law is followed. Yes.

I mean, this isn't an argument I find particularly challenging because as in theocratic case, I just think it's, well, it's easy to answer if you don't believe in it. Yeah, so, I mean, it's not challenging to us as non-believers, but it would be challenging in the sense of trying to convince somebody. Yeah, trying to make somebody a secularist because that's essentially what we're trying to do here is to, is to. Well, there are two things aren't you can either argue, you can either try and persuade people to be secularists, or you can, as we said at the beginning, persuade them that secularism is in their best interests. Because, you know, at the end of the day, of course there are zealous extremists, well, not even extremists, zealots, who strongly and completely and comprehensively to the exclusion of all other beliefs and interests believe in their religion.

But they are such a minority in most societies at most times that if you can assemble a sufficiently broad coalition contra them that holds a liberal and secularist line then you can you know see them out there's no way

forever and that would be my preferred alternative of course my preferred alternative I'd like it if everyone became a secularist obviously

and that's to answer a question you know one of the reasons why I wrote this book which is the only now that it's published is the only short single volume introduction

of secularism in English the reason why I wrote it was because I don't think enough people know what secularism is and it's not a widely understood term and although it's under threat at the moment in the same way that all other liberal principles globally are under threat from human rights to the rule of law to everything else it's in even more vulnerable position than all of those concepts because it isn't even well known enough to be defended so that's that's why I wrote this particular book I didn't write it's particularly to persuade people now I think

I think that when you encounter the case for and against secularism I think the majority of people will end up if not believing in it completely then agreeing that it is the best available way of governing our politics that we currently have. You know, I've heard similar things said about the Quran. Well, maybe that's true too.

That's perhaps the problem. But I don't think, I think things are different because the Quran makes exclusive truth claims an argument for secularism doesn't make exclusive truth claims. But that's one of the criticisms that you said was challenging

is that it does make some... Yeah, but I don't... I still... I don't believe that argument. I say it's the most challenging. It's most difficult to argue against, but I don't believe that argument. So you don't think that your secular case does hold kind of exclusive...

Exclusively encoded. No, I don't think so, no. Such as the principle that equal treatment of different religious groups is a virtue. That it's a virtue. Hmm.

I don't think it necessarily holds that it's a virtue. I think it holds that it's either a virtue or a necessity or a way of achieving practical fairness. I think it, you know, if you don't like this thing, we have others. But it should be a secular argument, I think. It's not a bad idea, let's say. There are certain things you can exclude from the consideration. Even if you think it's a bad idea, you might think it's necessary.

I mean, I might say to, you know, this person that you've got in mind, Well, you know, I know that you think it would be far better if we all just believe the thing that you believe and that you think that, you know, instead of the state promoting this truth that you hold to that actually the state is doing this other thing that allows people to have different views. I know you think that's bad, but can't you just agree today at least, maybe also tomorrow that it's necessary? And from such fragile compromises, you know, that's what political people. consists of so yeah um there has to be some exclusion of if there's no if there's no part of the secular case that doesn't say we we cannot condone this then what can't we well i haven't said that we can condone lots of things i'm talking about whether or not individual people can assent to it as a political settlement so we're talking about the the criticism that secularism

has some implicit truth claims exclusive truth claims and surely the values i've i've heard the argument phrased in and whatever you take well surely but surely either way that has to be the case with any political with any political position if you don't exclude anything then then your view is all encompassing and then it's not really a view at all well what am i excluding give me give me a cast down example because so the the usually the critics of secularism that you're channeling as it were at this point um will say things like let's say they're mormons right you know they're mormons in the united states going this isn't secularism um this is a Protestant view of marriage, because I'm not allowed to marry more than me, this was

some of the earliest challenges to American secularism or Mormons. He said, why is it the Constitution says I've got my full freedom of religion, but I can't marry more than a woman as my religion says that I should. And if I do, I find myself prosecuted and convicted the crime of bigamy, you know, a law on bigamy that really just encodes a Protestant assumption about marriage, Catholic, you know, a mainstream Christian assumption about marriage. Muslims today in India are the same. Why is it that we should be subject to a law that encodes a Hindu idea of marriage on us? You know, we shouldn't, if we've got, if it's a secular state and we're free to, you know, have our own freedom, religion, and belief,

why shouldn't we be allowed to have polygamous marriages? That's usually the way in which the challenge comes. It says this secularism isn't really, um, objective, it has within it, at the micro level like that, certain assumptions, which make it not neutral. And then there are other people who would say, as perhaps this is more congenial to your way of arguing just now, that it's not just at that micro level

that secularism in practice encodes and values and assumptions that are non-objective, but also at the macro level, like, for example, that religion and politics can in principle be separated or holding that well that's enough isn't it because that's one of the one of the obvious ones what's the secularist response

well varied depending on the specific circumstance in the case of the first category of problem because you know it depends So is it really secularism that is responsible for laws in secular states that don't allow bigamy, or is it a concern for the human rights of women, for example? And if it's the latter, then that's quite a different objection than an objection to secularism per se. On the big level, I think we're just back to where we were at the beginning,

which is to say, okay, you may not believe that religion and politics are capable in principle of separation, that it doesn't make sense to you more or another. I would observe that in almost all societies that we're aware of across time and across this planet when people have sat down to think about politics. People have thought that it is possible, and political settlements in every time and place have perfectly not, of course, but imperfectly at least,

works towards this sort of separation. Even if you think it's not actually possible, can you not see that the benefits of making it, the benefits of implementing it as far as is possible are beneficial to you as well as to others? And I proceed in that way to try and make the case for why even if you don't. believe in it in principle, um, it's still good in practice. Right. And it's a, it's a strong case and it's a

cumulative case as well. Yes. It's not just one argument. There's no one knock down argument. Yeah. And so I mean, it's it's it's clear that there you've put forward quite some quite clear ways in which the goal would be considered to be achieved as in if we achieve these goals, then we could perhaps call ourselves moving in the right direction. Like if we remove the state influence on on schools and things like that. If we distinguish the head of the state from the head of the church, things like this are in the right direction. So these are goals to achieve. But one thing we haven't really spoken about, and I think would be a good way to kind of wrap up the conversation is the methods by which to get there. What can we actually do? And I mean on a state level, but also on a personal

level, if you're talking to somebody and they say, you know what, regardless of their religious views and perhaps they'd act differently accordingly, they tell you, you know what you've convinced me. I think that secularism is the best way forward, but what can I do about it? What do you say to a person? In this country? In this country, yeah. Concerned about the constitution of this country?

Concerned about concern, just just... So not international, not looking... Yeah, so they've read... Well, we can touch on both, but someone who's read your book sitting in the UK and thinks, my God, you're right, you know, the country is far too dominated by religious influence.

This needs to change, but I have not. idea how to do anything about that? Well, I mean, that's the way of course of all political change, isn't it? They should join Humanist UK and start, you know, supporting the campaigns. And what kind of campaigns are you doing there, though? Like, what does it you actually kind of do practically if you've, to let our audience know and see if they want to come and go? Okay. What do you do? Well, I mean, so in terms of how we campaign, it's, it's the way that any advocacy organisation goes about it. So we work with parliamentarians, obviously,

in the, in the UK parliament in Westminster and across the country as well, in different devolved legislatures. There's an all-party parliamentary humanist group of 120 MPs and peers in Parliament that we work with, particularly but we work with all parliamentarians as well to attempt to amend legislation, bring forward private members' bills, scrutinise the government and push them more towards our way of doing things. We work directly with government departments as experts and advocates, both in terms of presenting them with our research and also lobbying them for our point of view. That, you know, at the moment, of course, the entire UK government is completely crippled with Brexit

and they're not doing anything about anything else and probably won't be for some time. But when normal business regimes, of course, parliamentary lobbying and direct work with government are the only ways to make your change, apart from the third possible route, which we also pursue, which is strategic litigation. So especially in the last couple of years,

we've taken far more legal cases. Now, this is much easier to do in countries like France or America that have constitutional courts in effect where courts are willing to strike down or amend or interpret statute according to the constitution in the UK where we're not quite in that position but we are in a position where courts are willing to either reinterpret or declare as incompatible various laws that are in conflict with the Human Rights Act so human rights set is a quasi-constitutional bit of law in the UK that is almost, you know, of almost as good as a constitution, as far as a court's concerned.

And we bring a large number of cases under that. So very recently, for example, our most prominent cases have been about the school curriculum, where we were successful in having it decided that schools couldn't teach only about religions. They had to teach also about non-religious worldviews in their curriculum time. We were successful in cases to do with abortion in Northern Ireland and the decriminalization of abortion in Northern Ireland. And we were unsuccessful in our cases about assisted dying, but we're bringing another case back quite soon. And we have cases running even now about to running even now

for the abolition of Christian worship, compulsory Christian worship in schools for the reform of marriage laws and so on and so forth. So all that work, of course, takes staff and funding, which is one of the ways people can help is that they can donate or they can join Humus UK to assist in that work. work the that's the way we do it the range of issues on which we engage in principle is very broad we've got 21 policy areas everything from schools and education to employment law and the

myriad ways in which human rights and the equality on the grounds of religion and belief and on other grounds is currently constrained in this country so it's a pretty broad platform of course we're not campaigning on all those issues every day at any one time we've probably got three or four things that we're pushing. What's the website? Humanists.com. Humanists.com. Simple enough. It is very simple. That's good branding, isn't it? Yeah, for sure. I mean, as I say, I think in the UK, that change will be piecemeal, because that's how things have changed historically. Yeah, it's the nature of the UK. It's the nature of the UK. But then, I think that has a lot to do with the, with the constitutional situation we have. And so, I mean, is, does humanists, UK have an

official stance on political, on, on, on, strictly political issues like the codification of the constitution does it we do actually have a policy on a written constitution yes we're in favour of written constitution yeah and does i mean do you kind of endorse political candidates or political parties and views no we don't every time there is a general election um or um elections for devolved uh governments yeah um we analyze their manifestos and policy and produce a sort of um assessment on where they are in our issues and we publish that and make it available. But there's quite strict electoral law in this country

that stops us from being able to endorse parties or candidates directly. But do you see that as kind of, is that what you're kind of trying to do with those analyses? It's tried to present a kind of, here's the people that line up most with our views, do what you will with that information. It's definitely do what you will with that information

because there might be people, of course, for whom these are not their most pressing issues. I mean, if you think, for example, of the major parties have very different views about the economy and you're someone who cares very much about what particular type of economic model that you want to see in this country or you know has a very particular view of our what our foreign policy should be in this country then you might think well I'm going to I'm interested in what they think about human rights and equality issues in relation to secularism and humanism but that's not the most salient issue

for me so i mean people just do with that information they wish and that's what we say we just say well here it is we've done it so you know precisely yeah um and you can make an assessment i mean i expect that i mean like every time we do it at least a handful of members getting touched saying i was going to vote for this person i've just found out his views on you know abortion or um a sister dying or you know uh faith schools yeah and now i'll not vote for him i will vote for this other third party yeah but but that's that's good even if even if Even if they end up voting against your interests as an organization, the fact that you've elucidated people's views to voters is something to be proud of, I think, and something to celebrate. So a great way to support the secularist cause is to support organizations like that.

And there are equivalents in the USA. I think there's a group called like American Humanists or something like that. There's the American Humanist Association. Obviously, there's other, I mean, America has a lot of organizations. American atheists has a lot of work in the same. It's a different... Yeah, and they're changing their work now quite a bit. I think it's quite interesting what they're doing.

And then there is... There's the secular coalition of America, which is an umbrella for various groups in the United States, which is also a lot of student bodies as well now that are propping up, of course. But also another way to get involved, I think, is things like writing to your MP. I've done that in the past.

I wrote a letter. So when the government was trying to abolish the 50% cap on the new state school, saying that now new state schools could, as many students as they liked on the basis of religious grounds. And I wrote a letter, I made it public, put it on the YouTube channel, in fact. And, you know, I don't think it was my letter that made them reverse that policy. I'm sure it was. I also don't know that it wasn't my letter that made that happen. So we'll leave it ambiguous.

Same way I don't know whether it was our campaign or not. Right. Well, whichever way it happened, it happened. And I think that's something to celebrate. And it's clear that the reason that happened is because of the kind of campaigning and activism that we're doing. I think that's exactly right. And very interesting for me, running that campaign, Human Shurkey campaign on that, I didn't run it, but I mean, you know, the staff of running.

Very interesting to compare our experience with our experience 15 years ago. We had a lot more traction with the trade unions, even with, you know, with special advisors in Downing Street. You know, we had much more impact than what we were saying. at the second time than we had in the past. And I think any things that in the past would have just been automatically seen as virtuous like religious schools, you know, were problematized and it was seen as a complicated

and complex area of public policy and controversial, you know. And I think that's part of our job actually is because a lot of things in England in particular are seen as uncontroversial, which are incredibly controversial, incredibly weird actually.

You know, we are the area. only country in the world that has a law that says that all of our schools have to do daily Christian worship, like in the world, that's bizarre. One of only four countries, like I say earlier, in the OECD, that allows its state-funded religious schools to select. And yet most people in England would sort of be like, that's just how it is. Yeah, that's the thing. Like, enough repetition gives the veneer of normality. Yeah, exactly. Like, it feels normal to me. My memories of primary school are sitting in assembly, singing, he's got the whole world in his hands. And that's really weird. I did an international perspective. Yeah. And it took me a while to step

out of that and realize how weird it is. And you have to engage with people from other countries to really understand that that's even happening, that that's even a thing that should be considered. Obviously, you know, that there is the small point that I would wager that the reason, perhaps the reason why so many people in the UK are now atheists is because they were forced to go through such strife as kids and be sitting through this religious. Some people do say that. I mean, that might be true. I mean, it's still not good, of course, because you could have been spending your time doing something so much better. Yeah. I'm pretty sure something like scientific education can have a similar effect.

Yes, or just good, you know, moral and ethical education, you know, from a non-sictorian point of view. And even if it were the case that it was necessary or useful, like it's not the place of the education system to be doing it, right? I think that's something we can both agree on. But I think that's a good place to wrap up. We've got things that people can be doing. They can be supporting organizations. They can be writing letters. Every time you see an issue that comes up, I mean, a lot of the issues that you talk about like assisted dying and things, they seem like isolated issues, but they are, do you see them as like derivatives of the secularist case?

Not assisted dying, no. I mean, there's clearly a, there's clearly no particular secularist case. You see it as a derivative of the humanist case. But they're all, yeah, they're all aspects of the humanist property. I'll come back one day and talk about humanism instead of secularism. Yeah, that would be great. I certainly love to talk to you about assisted dying, especially after we were talking. just before we went on either, that I came to the debate that you did in Oxford. It was, what, a few weeks ago for the Oxford Literary Festival? And you saved my life. I lent you my pen. That's right, yeah.

We were strangers then, but... That's right. That was the first or second time we've met, because this book actually might be surprised to learn is signed when you were, you presented it in Blackwells, I think just after it was published, so I do have a four Alex written in the front here. So it's glad to actually have you sat down, but that debate that you did, um, it was interesting because as I was saying before we went before we started recording here the audience was very one-sided but but I was I was impressed with the with the demeanor of your

opponent who managed to put some some serious challenges to the to the assisted dying case nothing that couldn't be dealt with of course but it's again an issue that I don't think really gets as much debate as it's due well I think that's right I mean I think that one of the reasons of that is we're so far from legalization at the moment Yeah. But it's a problem because Parliament should, you know, government actually should be preparing us as a country for this much more than they are. You know, every time Parliament debates it, it's almost, they're almost trivially debate it, you know.

Yeah. And they've never, and they've allowed the courts to continue discussing it whilst taking their action themselves. So one day, assisted dying is going to be made legal in this country by the courts, by judges. And, you know, that will be an. incredibly controversial moment. Not with people generally because people, I mean, it's almost become 100% public opinion. A support for society is now over 85%. It's comparable with sort of support for, you know, being nice to people. It's really, it's so now, it's so overwhelming now. But there were all sorts of, as you say, all sorts of issues that come up that maybe people haven't thought of. And it's quite damaging if the first time they were exposed to

the arguments against your position is when the argument's over and everything's already happened. It's a bit like, well, we can all think, we can think of all sorts of social changes that have been accomplished by law ahead of the social consensus required to support them. And although that's not quite the position here because the social consensus is in favor of assisted dying,

because all the arguments against it haven't had their fair airing, you know, there might be a backlash, is what I'm saying, I suppose, afterwards. So I think it's a shame that that's the case. How long do you give it? uh well 10 years max really yeah 10 years i don't i don't think that's unreasonable um it would be it would be good to see but it's difficult to pin pin such things down but i think i think you might be right because like you say it's got the public support behind it uh it's just that the law

needs to needs to catch up but i think it i think it will happen and i think that one of the reasons it will happen um in a in a shorter time frame such as a decade is because of the works of organizations like yours. I mean, without that, I can't really think of many other organizations that take that as important and serious an issue as it is and really make it one of the focal points of their campaigning. I hope you're a member. Are you a member? I believe I am. Yes, I get all the emails. That doesn't mean you remember necessarily. And I get lots of people come up to me and say, oh, I'm a member. I get the emails. And then when I check them on my database on my phone afterwards, I'll do it when we're off. Yeah. I find that they're not. I'm not

Oh, no, that's what they say. What's what they say? When I say, I'll check my phone. But you know, at the beginning of the podcast, when I say, you know, when I ask people to rate on iTunes and I usually ask guests, guests who are like familiar with me or friends of mine that I've had on and I say, you know, have you done that? And they're like, oh, yeah, maybe. It's like I've got friends and family who aren't subscribed to me on YouTube.

That's shocking. And they're just like tapping for their phone. They should be surprised the number of friends from relatives of mine. I haven't read my book actually. It's the same sort of thing. Yeah, but it's a good. exciting though in a way because it means that people, if people like myself who are supportive of your cause enough to even have you on my podcast and try to, try to reach an audience

are not members, then it shows that there is, despite your large membership, there's even more people who would get behind your causes and still support what you're doing even not as members. That's a good way. Although I will check and if I'm not a member, then I'll have to become one. Certainly after this conversation because if I wasn't sold before then I think I'm sold now, at least on the secularist case. But yeah, so thanks again for coming in and doing that. It's been fun. And so the book, like I say, is available pretty much anywhere, right?

It's like Amazon, these kind of places. Paperback in July, very short introduction to secularism. But that much more attractive front cover is available. I do enjoy looking at this. Even now. The links, of course, will be in the YouTube descriptions. If you're listening on iTunes or Spotify, then you can just simple Google search. One of the few books currently available to be endorsed by both the former Archbishop

can to be Rowan Williams and Richard Dawkins. That's an accolade. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, well, if you want to be a part of that, then you can buy the book. And like I say, it should come up in a simple Google search section by Andrew Copson. But with that said, check out the things that they're doing

over on humanists.org, become a member, if you feel like it's something you can support. I have been Alex O'Connor, as always, with the Cosmic Skeptic podcast. And today I've been in conversation with Andrew Copson. Thank you.