Secular or bust

The UK is sinking under the spread of intimidation. It is no one's interest to enable those who seek to divide and rule to drive wedges into the once tolerant heart of British society.

One immediate effect of political and religious intimidation is to drive good people from the idea of public office. Chasing your ideological opponents away with threats will not end well. The British people are renowned for a sense of fair play, and it will not end well for those who bully and confront; so let’s consider what is involved in containing and removing the core of the problem and take all religious confrontation off the streets.

Secular simply means non-religious - but it immediately gets complicated - so let’s consider a useful definition from Phil Zuckerman: “What Does "Secular" Mean? | Psychology Today”

It should not be up to a (democratic) state which is supposed (obliged!) to mediate with an even hand for all its citizens to take positions on religious interpretation, and thus guarantee a basis for immediate visceral conflict. It should create a society in which any and all religious beliefs can be pursued - as long as they do not interfere with rights of others.

Let’s also introduce what was once held up as the example of how to evolve a state with a “rich heritage” of military conquest and conflict into a tolerant democratic society after centuries of intolerance and mischief … Constitution of the Republic of Turkey

It would not have happened without the leadership of Kemal Atatürk - but we are conspicuously short of leadership - worldwide, not just the UK…

“He undertook sweeping progressive reforms, which modernized Turkey into a secular, industrializing nation.[3][4][5] Ideologically a secularist and nationalist, his policies and socio-political theories became known as Kemalism.[3]

Comments and debate at the X account of @wote.uk please...