The Principles of Secularism

by George Jacob Holyoake

It is not desirable to accept persons of that class who decry parties—who boast of being of no party—who preach up isolation, and lament the want of unity—who think party the madness of the many, for the gain of the few. Seek rather the partisan who is wise enough to know that the disparagement of party is the madness of the few, leading to the utter impotence of the many. A party, in an associative and defensible sense, is a class of persons taking sides upon some definite question, and acting together for necessary ends, having principles, aims, policy, authority, and discipline.*

* In a school there is usually teaching, training,
discipline, science, system, authorities, tradition, and
development.—Times, 1846.

With respect to proposed members, it may be well to ascertain whether neglect, or rudeness, or insult, or unfairness from colleagues, or overwork being imposed upon him, or incapacity of others, would divert him from his duty. These accidents or necessities might occur: but if a society is to be strong it must be able to count upon its members, and to be able to count upon them it must be known what they will bear without insubordination; and what they will bear will depend upon the frankness and completeness of information they receive as to the social risks all run who unite to carry out any course of duty or public service.

Always assuming that a candidate cares for the objects for which he proposes to associate, and that it is worth while knowing whom it is with whom you propose to work them out; answers to such inquiries as the following would tend to impart a working knowledge and quality to the society:—

Is he a person previously or recently acquainted with the principles he is about to profess?

Does he understand what is meant by "taking sides" with a public party? Would he be faithful to the special ideas of Secularism so long as he felt them to be true? Would he make sacrifices to spread them and vindicate them, or enable others to do so? Would he conceive of Secularism as a cause to be served loyally, which he would support as well as he was able, if unable to support it as well as he could wish?

Is he of decent, moral character, and tolerably reliable as to his future conduct?

In presenting his views to others, would he be likely to render them in an attractive spirit, or to make them disagreeable to others?

Is he of an impulsive nature, ardent for a time, and then apathetic or reactionary—likely to antagonize to-morrow the persons he applauds to-day?

Is he a person who would commit the fault of provoking persecution? Would ridicule or persecution chill him if it occurred? Is he a man to stand by an obscure and friendless cause—or are notoriety, success, applause, and the company of others, indispensable to his fidelity?