没有任何一种世俗主义是它自称的那种中立空间。一旦我们接受这一点，就能转向更有成效的讨论。

No version of secularism is the neutral space that it claims to be. Once we accept that, we can move on to more productive conversations.

2015年，英国圣公会牧师贾尔斯·弗雷泽（Giles Fraser）在一篇专栏文章中谈到世俗主义的历史：

In a 2015 op-ed, Anglican priest Giles Fraser wrote on the history of secularism:

18世纪末，法国对天主教会的战争以血腥的方式告终。到1794年复活节时，那场曾经宣称信仰自由的大革命，已强制关闭了法国4万座教堂中的绝大多数。起初是没收教会财产、砸毁十字架和圣杯，最终却演变为强迫皈依，以及神父和修女在断头台上遭到屠杀。

“At the end of the 18th century, France’s war against the Catholic church reached its bloody conclusion. By Easter 1794, the same revolution that once proclaimed freedom of conscience had forcedly closed down the vast majority of France’s 40,000 churches. What began with the confiscation of church property and the smashing of crosses and chalices, ended with forced conversions and the slaughter of priests and nuns at the guillotine.”

“正是在这一时期，即所谓的恐怖统治时期，现代英语单词 terrorism（恐怖主义）——源自法语 ‘terrorisme’——有了它的起源。‘恐怖无非是迅速、严厉、不容通融的正义；因此它是美德的产物，’罗伯斯庇尔如此主张，这在今天听来，就像是一份出自 ISIS 的病态新闻稿。在旺代，那些依然忠于其已有数世纪之久信仰的人遭到屠杀，历史学家马克·莱维内称之为‘现代种族灭绝的原型’。法国系统性的去基督教化，并非宗教僵化之后的自然且必然的崩溃，也不是启蒙理性自然且必然的兴起。它是一场残酷的、由国家支持的镇压。”一个极好的例子，说明世俗主义在依据特定的形而上学信仰向公众强加其道德规范方面，与神权政治同样具有强制性，这个例子来自比利时。

“It is in this period, the so-called Reign of Terror, that the modern English word terrorism – deriving from the French, ‘terrorisme’ – has its origins. ‘Terror is nothing but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue,’ argued Robespierre, in what now sounds like a sick press release from ISIS. Over in the Vendée, those who remained loyal to their centuries-old faith were massacred in what historian Mark Levene has called ‘an archetype of modern genocide.’ The systematic de-Christianisation of France was not the natural and inevitable collapse of sclerotic religion and the natural and inevitable rise of Enlightenment rationality. It was murderous, state-sponsored suppression.” A great example of how secularism is just as imposing as theocracy in enforcing its moral prescriptions on the public based on specific metaphysical beliefs comes from Belgium.

2017年,比利时的瓦隆大区投票通过禁令,禁止屠宰未经致晕的动物,从而禁止了清真和犹太洁食肉类。截至今日,已有七个欧洲国家禁止了犹太洁食和清真屠宰:挪威、瑞典、丹麦、斯洛文尼亚、奥地利、冰岛和比利时。1

In 2017, Belgium’s Wallooon region voted to ban kosher and halal meat by outlawing the slaughter of unstunned animals. As of today, seven European countries have banned kosher and halal slaughter: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Slovenia, Austria, Iceland, and Belgium.1

“禁令的理由是：未经击晕的动物会遭受痛苦，这是不人道的，因此禁止不击晕的屠宰。但我们凭什么知道这些呢？没有任何动物能够见证自己的内在状态。没有任何动物能告诉我们：‘嘿！这真的很疼，请停下来！’我们只能对动物在屠宰过程中可能经历的感受做出推测。很难说清楚，颅骨被射入螺栓或遭受电击，与割断喉咙相比，痛苦程度会更低。相反，前者似乎更加痛苦难熬。但我们无从判断。”

The justification for the ban is that animals that are not stunned suffer and that that is inhumane, therefore slaughter without stunning is banned. But how do we know any of that? No animal can testify to its internal state. No animal can tell us, “Hey! This really hurts, please stop!” We can only make assumptions about what an animal may experience in the slaughter process. It is far from clear how a bolt blast to the skull or electric shock is less painful than a slit throat. If anything, the former seem much more agonizing. But there is no way to tell.

尽管如此,这些国家的立法者都是依据他们自认为道德上正确的观念作出决定,然后强迫他人遵守这些信念。这是无法避免的,这就是法律的本质,无论是在世俗国家还是神权国家。然而,伊斯兰国家却因为允许自身的道德立场和信仰,即伊斯兰教,来指导法律,而被单独挑出来指责其没有维护"宗教自由"。他们高呼:"立法以伊斯兰教和沙里亚为基础,就是野蛮的神权统治!"可是,当立法以他们自由主义唯物主义的信念为基础时,他们却说这是公平和中立的。这种虚伪显而易见。

Nonetheless, the legislators in these countries made a decision based on what they believe to be morally correct and then forced others to abide by those beliefs. This is not something avoidable. This is the nature of law, whether in a secular or a theocratic state. But Islamic states are singled out for not upholding “religious freedom” when they allow their moral positions and beliefs, viz., Islam, to inform the law. “For legislation to be based on Islam and the Sharia is barbaric theocracy!” they shout. “But for our legislation to be based on our liberal materialist beliefs, that’s fair and neutral.” The hypocrisy is clear.

所以，以“种族主义”“偏见”“反穆斯林”“伊斯兰恐惧症”等说法来反对这项清真屠宰禁令是无效的，尽管这些偏见可能确实影响了这些禁令的出台。这种论证无效，因为世俗立法者只需辩称自己是出于减少伤害、痛苦等理由而立法，便可为自己辩护。

So, it is ineffective to argue against this halal ban by saying it is “racist,” “bigoted,” “anti-Muslim,” “islamophobic,” etc., though these biases probably did factor into the bans. It is ineffective because the secular legislators will simply defend themselves by claiming to be legislating on the basis of reducing harm, pain, etc.

更有效的论证思路是这样的：

A more effective line of argument would be this:

一方面，我们不能因为比利时人依据其最深信的是非观来立法而责备他们。然而，我们可以批评这些信念本身。我们可以说：“你们在这件事上错了，而我们是对的。”我们可以说：“我们在这一问题上的信念源自牛、羊、鸡，以及你我的创造者，而你们的信念不过是建立在空话之上。”这将是一场有意义的辩论，能够展开并富有实质内容。遗憾的是，如今实质性的辩论已不在人们的关注之中。如今，启动许多人道德推理引擎的唯一火花，许多人能够理解的唯一道德论证，就是：“这是偏执！”与此同时，世俗主义的欺骗在无人察觉中悄然推进。

On one level, we cannot fault Belgians for legislating according to their deepest beliefs about right and wrong. We can, however, criticize the beliefs themselves. We can say, “You are wrong on this, and we are right.” We can say, “Our beliefs on the matter come from the Creator of the cows, sheep, chickens, and you and me, whereas your beliefs are based on nothing but hot air.” That would be a meaningful dialectic that could develop and be substantive. Sadly, substantive dialect is not on people’s radars nowadays. Nowadays, the only spark that starts the engines of many people’s moral reasoning, the only moral argument that they can wrap their heads around, is: “That’s bigotry!” Meanwhile, the deception of secularism proceeds undetected.