Interestingly, one of the BHA’s “Thought for the Commute” posters is Peter Tatchell saying:
“The Beatles were right, All you need is love.”
I couldn’t agree more. One of my long-running threads here on Psybertron goes by the tag #whatsofunnybout (peace, love and understanding).
It’s at root behind my three rules of dialogue – (Respect, Respect and Respect, in the footnote here) – which I often use to counter “no-one has the right not to be offended” being naively interpreted as therefore I have every right to offend you. That right to offend lies with the court-jester (Steve Fry or Frankie Boyle say), the cartoonist-in-residence (Martin Rowson say) and the fool-of-the-parish (Dick the Dawk say), but general debate and dialogue proceeds by conversation built on respect for fellow man. An obligation to understand, interpret and agree before criticise or mock and/or attempt to persuade change in the other.
However, what I find ironic is that “All you need is love” is profoundly religious statement of faith in humanity being touted by humanists who run a mile screaming at comparisons with religion.
Of course there are many organised religions, theist or otherwise, where love of fellow man is at least an important component, and even a few where it is the core component, or sole aspect. Organised religions, particularly those with archaic traditions of authority and hierarchy, ultimately with omnipotent causal gods overall, have well recognised downsides. Downsides we want to keep well away from secular governance of society.
But it feels like throwing baby out with the bathwater, to reject the shared value of love, the religious value shared with many religions.