The order of the president of Warsaw Rafał Trzaskowski to not place spiritual symbols in offices caused the expected reaction of right-wing and clerical communities with Ordo Iuris at the head. So we heard, as usual, hysterical cries about the persecution of Catholics in Poland, the spread of leftist ideology and the poisoned influence of Western Europe on the actions of current power. Doesn't surprise anyone, though it should. Something that has long been considered apparent in secular countries in the West, in Poland is inactive considered to be a manifestation of a cultural war in which the rights of believers are tried to restrict.
The peculiar rights of spiritual believers are due to the affirmative effects of religion that atheists frequently see. Liberal and promoter of the thought of enlightenment, Wolter, is the author of the celebrated phrase: “If God had not been essential to invent it”. In this spirit, Senator Marek Borowski, who first declared himself an atheist and then stated that the function of the Catholic Church in shaping moral attitudes in Polish society, was undeniable. It is unusual how easy people are convinced that morality requires a guardian, individual who “pays for good and punishes for bad.” For following the decalogue, we are facing heaven and for going against the commandments – hell. So can a man be honest only erstwhile he is afraid? If God’s panic had disappeared, if people had stopped being afraid to act immorally, there would have been chaos and widespread evil on earth. As Kaczyński says, without religion in God there is only nihilism.
Such a position, according to which a man must be forced to be good and honest under the threat of punishment, is dehumanizing. spiritual upbringing becomes akin to animal training, is simply a method of stick and carrot. It is simply a top-down formation of habits that, however, easy depart from erstwhile temptation comes, alternatively than the interior request shaped by itself. This was mostly the conventional upbringing of children and the exercise of power in the state, always under these authoritarian conditions.
In humanistic ethics, besides called universal ethics, it is crucial to tolerate views and different behaviours, by many incomprehensible and even repulsive, whose representatives do no harm, which means accepting pluralism of views and lifestyles. In the ethics of this basic criterion in the assessment of human behaviour is the concept of harm, not compliance with accepted standards and patterns of behaviour. In this direction, educational processes in the household and in school should aim, free from ideological raids and mindless duplication of cultural stereotypes. Education must so be geared to both ensuring control, protecting children from besides selfish and antisocial behaviours, as well as cultivating spontaneousity and individual expression. This means that educators request to abstain from excessive interference and embodiment. The intellectual tradition of the Western planet is liberalism, which is simply a coherent concept of man and society. John Stuart Mill – the creator of modern liberalism – made a close link between freedom and work for others. Freedom in Mill's view can be achieved through the education of an interior culture of individuality, which consists of prosocial moral principles. Mill proposes to take freedom as a challenge that encourages self-development and self-improvement. There must be no limitless freedom. For the freedom of others is the limit. Thus, individual freedom should only be limited to the degree that it does not harm another people. So yes, "do what she wants", but within these limits.
There is no reason to put Catholic or broader Christian ethics higher than humanist ethics, free from spiritual context. The end consequence counts, so individual who leads a fair life, based on the principles of Catholic ethics, is neither better nor worse than 1 who bases his equally honest way of life on another principles. It seems, however, that atheists and religiously indigenous people besides frequently underestimate the humanist ethics, which consists in internalizing the moral attitude from individual conviction alternatively than from fear of divine punishment or criticism of the environment. For a individual with a sense of individual freedom can be truly moral.
Another reason why unbelievers quit religion is due to traditions and customs that have spiritual inspiration. Often, the atheist baptizes his child, does not head receiving the first communion and – possibly in its secular way – participates in the Christmas rituals. There may be different reasons for this, specified as yielding to household expectations, or the belief that a kid should not be imposed on a worldview another than this, commonly known, before increasing up. Most often, however, it is about treating these rites as a social tradition to which attachment should be regarded as a origin of social cohesion. possibly this mainly makes it impossible to announcement the fast secularization in Poland. Thus, politicians frequently exaggerate the power of the Catholic Church. Most Polish Catholics are nominal Catholics who have small in common with the Church.
Acceptance, or more frequently indifference to the presence of spiritual symbols in public places, accompanies people unrelated to the Church from the habit of seeing them. After all, roadside crosses and chapels are an integral part of the Polish landscape. The fact that they began appearing in public institutions after 1989 did not origin major protests. All he had to say was, “What's your problem?” This argument is inactive bearable since Prof. Matczak in his article in the “Gazeta Wyborcza” dated May 25-26, claims that believers have much more sensitivity than atheists and deficiency of a cross in a public place hurts them much more than people who do not believe his presence. And if so, the second should be more tolerant, especially if they are close to liberal values.
This submission to the force created by spiritual fundamentalists assisted by the Church has nothing to do with liberalism. Their hysteria, that unsettling attempts to limit their dominance of public space are a conflict against religion, prompts us to ask a simple question: what kind of religion is this that requires a constant view of its symbols? Without their constant presence in public places, are believers incapable to practice it? It is apparent that fighting for crosses is simply a conflict for a spiritual state in which the Catholic Church imposes its rights on the full society. The multitude of spiritual symbols in public space is to be an argument that Catholic religion should have state religion status. Unbelievers are a margin that must comply with the expectations of the majority. This conviction clearly resounds in the speeches of bishops and right-wing politicians. This is always the case erstwhile religion becomes a public substance and its guidelines affect state policy.
This is contrary to the principles of liberal democracy, in which religion is simply a purely private matter. There are no spiritual wars here, for both believers and nonbelievers do not search dominance to impose their principles on others. No 1 here prohibits believers from wearing spiritual symbols, placing them in their home or on their property. However, public space must stay free from them, due to the fact that it belongs to everyone and everyone must feel at home in it. respect for human rights means freedom of religion, namely the right to belong to a spiritual community, to participate in spiritual ceremonies and rituals, and to act in accordance with the principles of its religion. On the another hand, it is not possible to favour a peculiar planet view at state level. This is what pluralism and tolerance are all about, the basic features of liberal democracy. Anyone who wants to usage in vitro fertilization, and who doesn't, don't. Anyone who wants to have an abortion should enjoy the right to abortion, and whoever doesn't, don't. Who wants to live in a relation and who doesn't, don't. Therefore, let us not yield to the Pharisees ’ argument that the cross does no harm to anyone. Yes, it does harm to dominate 1 religion, even though the majority of its followers are vast. In liberal democracy, the majority decides, but always respecting the rights of minorities. The Church is not a supporter of liberal democracy, due to the fact that it has been fighting for power and wealth for centuries. He is so opposed to the privatisation of faith, which does not let him to accomplish a dominant position in the state. Thus, accusations will always flow from the Church towards those who, in accordance with liberal values, will search to transfer religion or disbelief to the private sphere.
However, the issue of crosses has a much more crucial subtext. It's about the relation between conservatives and progressives. The erstwhile are right and nationalists, and the second are left and liberals. These environments disagree in relation to national identity. Supporters of social liberalism believe that the only decisive origin in the sense of belonging to a nation is the individual conviction of a person. Unlike them, the extremist right puts out a full list of conditions that must be fulfilled in order to admit individual as a “real” associate of a given nation. In addition to ethnicity, the most common condition is belonging to a peculiar religion. Thus religion loses its private character and becomes a national trait. We know all these slogans – “Poland – Catholic”, “Only under this cross, only Poland will be Polish and Poland will be Polish” – perpetuating the conviction that Polishness and Catholic religion are closely connected. The tendency of many Poles to usage plural numbers in protests against the removal of crosses shows how much this is stuck in the consciousness of many Poles: “Why should we be ashamed of the cross and our faith?” "Poland is simply a Catholic country and our identity is unambiguous". "We feel bad in a city without crosses, with in vitro refunds and equality parades". Always “we” and never “me”. This collectivismHe doesn't let religion to be treated as a private matter. Catholic religion is simply a public matter, due to the fact that it has long been written on our national banners.
This identity character of the attitude towards religion dares the Church and spiritual fundamentalists to demands that make Poland a spiritual state. It is besides the origin of indulgencefor these demands from atheists. Apart from the dominant function of the Church in the state, the nationalist-clerical nature of the national identity is the origin of many prejudices and discrimination against Polish citizens who do not fulfil the spiritual condition of national affiliation. It is adequate to remind you that hatred has arisen for immigrants from the mediate East and Africa. The reason for this hatred was the openly expressed fear that settling them in Poland would lead to cultural change, consisting in spreading Islam. This fear that dominant religion may be threatened clearly indicates the treatment of Catholicism as an crucial component of Polish identity. This is why Jews were treated as a abroad or even hostile component before the war, due to the fact that despite their Polish citizenship they were Jews, and their ancestors murdered Jesus Christ, who, incidentally, was besides Jewish.
Such attitudes are the aftermath of spiritual wars during the mediate Ages, erstwhile confession was a major origin in national communities, deciding on national separateness. In the 21st century, this attitude is completely incomprehensible in liberal democracy. Citizens are required to accept liberal values, specified as respect for human rights, social pluralism and egalitarianism, tolerance and regulation of law, alternatively than the fidelity of religion or any ideology. In Poland, due to the established position of the Catholic Church, we are inactive far from liberal democracy. Still, accusations of persecution of Catholics by ban on hanging the cross in offices meet, if not with support, with indifference of arms. This inactive means a long way to privatise faith, which only then becomes an in-depth and real faith, not a political demonstration. There is no uncertainty that the Catholic Church in Poland will never agree with the transfer of religion to the sphere of private feelings of the faithful. It would rapidly lose its influence on the functioning of the state and the associated profits. However, possibly the faithful themselves will find that privatization and the associated individualization of their religion will satisfy their eschatological needs to a much greater extent. In the state of liberal democracy, secularisation is not about atheization of society, but about privatization of faith.
