How did Secularism overthrow Christianity?

[reason]

How exactly has christianity been overthrown? It’s everywhere in the west (particularly in america). You can’t hear any politician or businessperson speak without hearing something about thanking god. You can never listen to any news about a natural or other disaster without hearing about the “miracle” which saved that one person (and let maybe a thousand or thousands of others die mercilessly). You can’t have anything good happen to you without people thanking god for you in some way. You can’t have anything bad happen to you without every other person you know saying they will pray for you.

Atheists are still the ones being defined as “not” something. In our society, try being an avowed, known atheist and see if you can progress in the corporate world, in public service or in politics without going along with things as a pretend christian.

 

[junk]

I fully agree it is not the most conducive environment for any religious education, but then that is also not its purpose. Why would you or I or anyone else want to trust the State in teaching religion to our children? That is the reason I belong to a religious organization and do so at home, so that I can pass on my religion to my child. Even if the public schools were set up to teach Christianity, it most likely wouldn’t be Roman Catholic Christianity.

You are correct that neither private school nor homeschooling is a viable option for many. It is for precisely that reason that the public schools exist, so that all children have an opportunity to receive an education, not just those of the right religion, the right socioeconomic class, etc. This is not the case in many areas of the world and we should be grateful that it exists, even with all its problems.

I largely agree with your observations. I was merely pointing out that I agreed with Syele that it may be part of the problem, and I did not go so far as to propose a solution. I support the State subsidising education so that all children have the opportunity to learn, though state-subsidised education need not necessarily be done entirely through state-operated schools. It seems unfair to me that children who are homeschooled or educated in private schools and do not burden the state system are not entitled to the State’s support. A child seems to be entitled to a free education, but only if it is within the state system. If you wish your child to bypass the state system, for religious or academic reasons, you lose out on this subsidy. This probably contributes to private school or homeschooling not being a viable option for many, and makes state education unduly attractive from a financial perspective.

In addition, I may be wrong, but I doubt many Catholics would now object if Protestant Christianity were being taught at schools, seeing as Protestants make up the majority of the US population. From a Catholic perspective, it seems better than the alternative.

KarenNC:

Given this, in a country with a state religion (Anglican Christianity) and state-supported churches, why in the world does anyone think intertwining Christianity and politics (more than it already is in practice) in the US would be a good thing for Christianity, or especially for Catholicism? The US has twice the number of non-Catholic Christians as Catholic Christians according to adherents.com/rel_USA.html.

I did not say that I support there being a State-supported church. Nevertheless, there is a difference in these Protestant churches, since they are subordinate to the State and not entirely independent of it.

 

[junk]

How exactly has christianity been overthrown? It’s everywhere in the west (particularly in america). You can’t hear any politician or businessperson speak without hearing something about thanking god. You can never listen to any news about a natural or other disaster without hearing about the “miracle” which saved that one person (and let maybe a thousand or thousands of others die mercilessly). You can’t have anything good happen to you without people thanking god for you in some way. You can’t have anything bad happen to you without every other person you know saying they will pray for you.

Atheists are still the ones being defined as “not” something. In our society, try being an avowed, known atheist and see if you can progress in the corporate world, in public service or in politics without going along with things as a pretend christian.

Well, you may have many more practising Christians in America than here. You might have to wait a few more decades, reason. “Oh my God” is an expression of surprise, and “Thank God” is an expression of relief when used by most people here, agnostics and atheists inclusive, and it is highly unlikely you’d hear a politician or businessman talking about God or even using those expressions here, which are now becoming idiomatic. I’ve never, ever in my entire life met a person who said he’ll pray for me. I have heard the expression “I pray that” used instead of “I hope that” but again, without an literal religious belief behind it. Try saying you believe in Jesus Christ as God here and see if you can get away with anything less than condescending looks.

An atheist doctor may refer to an unexpected recovery as a “miracle” but he doesn’t mean that it is a supernatural event inexplicable through science. Instead, he means that it’s an unlikely and very fortunate event. By your puritanical standard I could say that paganism hasn’t died out because our days of the week are still named after Germanic deities. I can imagine secular/cultural Muslims might still use phrases such as insh’allah. In Spanish, the word ojalá, meaning “if only” comes from a similar Arabic phrase. By your standard, Islam is everywhere in Latin America. The words we use do not necessarily denote any sort of belief.

 

[KarenNC]

**I It seems unfair to me that children who are homeschooled or educated in private schools and do not burden the state system are not entitled to the State’s support. A child seems to be entitled to a free education, but only if it is within the state system. If you wish your child to bypass the state system, for religious or academic reasons, you lose out on this subsidy. **

We are fortunate enough to be in an economic situation that allows me to stay home to homeschool my child, even if it requires a number of specific and not always comfortable economic choices to do so. Personally, I have no desire to receive a public subsidy for it, because with money come strings. I prefer to have control over my choices of curricula, etc, in large part because I think I can do a better job of it for my particular child than the state can.

As a taxpayer, I subsidize lots of things that I don’t personally use–programs for the indigent, senior citizens, for roads on which I will never have occasion to drive, for fire and police that I will hopefully never have to use, etc. They, along with access to a free public education, are part of things that do make our society more viable, so I don’t begrudge the money we pay for them.

In addition, I may be wrong, but I doubt many Catholics would now object if Protestant Christianity were being taught at schools, seeing as Protestants make up the majority of the US population. From a Catholic perspective, it seems better than the alternative.

I don’t know. I might have said so before participating in these forums, but I have run into an entirely different set of Catholic opinions here than I have IRL, many very virulently anti-Protestant.

 

[kellie]

I just want to respond in general to the thread topic.

I don’t think Christianity has been overthrown as such, it is still very prevalent in society.

However it is true it isn’t as prevalent as it was in say 100A.D

I think however that was inevitable.

The world has expanded immensely since that time.
Countries have been discovered such as my beloved piece of land down here.
With countries being discovered comes population booms.

People have discovered scientific marvels, through merely being curious as to something such as that thick black liquid that they found when digging a hole (oil).

Curiosity led to it being discovered that oil can be used in a variety of ways that the Apostles could only dream about.

Then of course there are all the other discoveries such as cars, planes, computers, DNA, IVF, medicine, the list is enormous.

In my opinion, all these things have given mankind something else to think about, occupy their time with, other than thinking about Jesus.

Back in 100A.D, there wouldn’t have been too much to do during the day, so I think they would sit around marvelling at the wonder of God.

Nowadays we don’t due to so much the world has to offer.

That is why we must consciously make an effort to remember Jesus in our daily life.

Also, someone said that Christianity is still very prevalent as people say things such as “Thank God”. However I think some people tend to use “God” as a generic word to mean “thanks to whatever made this thing happen”.

As a poster said, if we were to say out loud “Thank Almighty Jesus for that”, people would think we are religious, whereas saying “Thank God” doesn’t sound religious.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

However it is true it isn’t as prevalent as it was in say 100A.D
.

Christianity was NOT very prevalent in 100 AD.

If you mean within the borders of present day Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq; then yes, it was growing and prevalent.

The Church really sprouted when the pagan emperor Constantine (at the urging of his Christian mother and his purported vision at Malvern bridge) made the Catholic Church the official state religion in 312 AD.

Even then, most of Europe was still to be evangelized (not to mention Asia -beyond St Thomas’ efforts in India) in the 1600 through 1800s. And the Americas.

Heck, Las Vegas is still waiting for its St Patrick!

 

[R_McGeddon]

There were soldiers-Conquistadors
and there were priests/missionaries.

One represented the crown.
One represented the Church.

One went to conquer their hearts and one went to conquer the land.

So the priests stood by and let it all happen, effectively condoning it.

If they were “forced” to convert it was for the benefit of the conquistadors’ mission and it was the conquistadors who used the religion for their end.

Such arrogance on their part, anything that is forced is of benefit to nobody.

But as a tribute to both the efforts of the Missionaries and the truth and goodness of the Faith the indigenous population CHOSE to remain Catholic long after those horrible Europeans left.

Or maybe they were so traumatised that they didn’t dare do anything else.

 

[R_McGeddon]

And which religion offered human sacrifices to idols?

It was no business of the Catholic Church whatever they did.

 

[KarenNC]

Back in 100A.D, there wouldn’t have been too much to do during the day, so I think they would sit around marvelling at the wonder of God.

Nowadays we don’t due to so much the world has to offer.

I think you will find that the vast majority of people in 100 AD were a lot more engaged in the daily struggle to stay alive and provide for their families than “sitting around marvelling at the wonder of God” because they didn’t have much to do. Just the sheer logistics of trying to prepare enough food for the day without refrigeration or electricity, as well as work to store up enough to get one through the winter, spin the yarn and weave the material for clothes as well as sew them entirely by hand, keep enough fuel to keep the fires going for cooking and warmth, etc is a bit staggering to those of us in modern Western cultures.

Being in England, you should have ready access to lots of historic reenactment sites from a variety of eras. Try talking to someone at one of those about what it took for the average person (not a wealthy one with servants) to meet the basics of life in the Dark Ages, Middle Ages or even into Victorian times.

 

[junk]

It was no business of the Catholic Church whatever they did.

What business is it of yours?

Have you heard of Our Lady of Guadalupe?

That’s a significant reason why many American pagans converted to Catholicism voluntarily.

 

[kellie]

Being in England, you should have ready access to lots of historic reenactment sites from a variety of eras. Try talking to someone at one of those about what it took for the average person (not a wealthy one with servants) to meet the basics of life in the Dark Ages, Middle Ages or even into Victorian times.

I’m not in England, I’m in Australia

 

[RobedWithLight]

I don’t think any of you know what the word secularism means. It doesn’t mean atheism, agnosticism, relativism or anything like that. It simply means the separation of church and state. It doesn’t mean that people within the state aren’t members of a religion. You’re confusing it with humanism.

You are referring to the clean, dictionary definition of secularism. But then in practice, committed secularists often tend to be agnostic and relativistic in their mindset, are skeptical of religious belief though many were probably baptized Christians.

An example of secularism would be that if adherents to a given religion oppose, say, abortion on demand, then what they should do is to not themselves get an abortion, but they should not force their religious view on the rest of the population by their control of the political legislative or judicial process. Or if you think as Christian that Sundays should be a day of rest, then rest yourself without forcing others to do the same against their will. After all, it’s your religion, not necessarily the other person’s.

**What you have stated is precisely what relativism is. What is right for you is not necessarily right for me… There are no objective moral values… You call it potato, I’ll call it poh -tah-toh… It is basically a denial of the existence of a higher, objective moral law, and in effect a denial of God. Do you still expect people to believe your proposition that secularism is really separate from agnosticism and relativism?
**

There are plenty of religious people, including Catholics, who think it’s a good idea for the general welfare of everybody to keep the church and the state separate, simply because throughout the history of civilization, some of the most nightmarish societies have been ones where religion controlled the state (we still see that today in the Islamic world). Inevitably, more extreme elements within the religion or religions start taking over. Christianity is not as extreme now, but it could be, as we know it once was in the past.

**No problem, as long as secularists likewise don’t seek to impose their whims upon the faithful. “Secular” states are hardly models of tolerance and humanitarianism either, as the record of Chinese Communist persecution of Chinese Christians and others eloquently show. **

As a secularist, if you tell me that abortion is wrong because God said so, I will probably dismiss you as not being worth arguing with. But if you tell me that abortion is wrong because you can demonstrate by reason that it is ultimately bad for society in general, then I will listen to you. In the former case, it can never be more than a weak position, because it’s based on superstition and fear of an imaginary god. In the latter case, if it’s based on reasonable arguments, then it ends up being a much stronger argument, not as easily dismissed.

**The fact that you called God as an “imaginary” God and religion as superstition reveals much about your attitude towards religion in general. I can safely assume now that you are an atheist, although your seemingly strong “faith” in the superiority of reason makes me wonder if you are in fact worshipping reason itself as a convenient substitute for God.

So much for this pretended “independence” of secularism. **

 

[RobedWithLight]

It was no business of the Catholic Church whatever they did.

So if someone were to offer human sacrifices to idols in your neighborhood, people, including you, have no right to protest about it ???

 

[Chancellare]

I don’t think any of you know what the word secularism means. It doesn’t mean atheism, agnosticism, relativism or anything like that. It simply means the separation of church and state. It doesn’t mean that people within the state aren’t members of a religion. You’re confusing it with humanism.

An example of secularism would be that if adherents to a given religion oppose, say, abortion on demand, then what they should do is to not themselves get an abortion, but they should not force their religious view on the rest of the population by their control of the political legislative or judicial process. Or if you think as Christian that Sundays should be a day of rest, then rest yourself without forcing others to do the same against their will. After all, it’s your religion, not necessarily the other person’s.

There are plenty of religious people, including Catholics, who think it’s a good idea for the general welfare of everybody to keep the church and the state separate, simply because throughout the history of civilization, some of the most nightmarish societies have been ones where religion controlled the state (we still see that today in the Islamic world). Inevitably, more extreme elements within the religion or religions start taking over. Christianity is not as extreme now, but it could be, as we know it once was in the past.

As a secularist, if you tell me that abortion is wrong because God said so, I will probably dismiss you as not being worth arguing with. But if you tell me that abortion is wrong because you can demonstrate by reason that it is ultimately bad for society in general, then I will listen to you. In the former case, it can never be more than a weak position, because it’s based on superstition and fear of an imaginary god. In the latter case, if it’s based on reasonable arguments, then it ends up being a much stronger argument, not as easily dismissed.

Secularism is actually a very wide subject. On one sense, it means freedom of religion which touches on separation of church and state. On another sense, it stands for belief in objective reasoning and facts in forming one’s opinion instead of one’s beliefs. The other sense talks about state secularism which holds that religion should not interfere in the affairs of society. All these seem to converge into the 15th century beginning of ‘Enlightenment’ movement which many historians say ‘when man killed the idea of God as a source of objective truth’. It began a movement that put more value on rational cum philosophical thinking instead of relying on theological understanding. The problem with this topic is that one tends to draw on his bias more than one can admit it. For example, Thomists have more philosophical and hermeneutical basis for explaining the reality of God and the foundations of Cathholic dogmas than any one in this thread can honestly admit. This assertion alone, if discussed here, can blow this thread wide open that the arguments may not fit in this thread.
So if we talk about philosophical and rational arguments from sanctity of life to abortion, the secularists may find it contrary to their bias.

 

[KarenNC]

I’m not in England, I’m in Australia

Sorry, right. I had been looking at the profile for another poster and got them mixed up. At least I got the non-US right rather than assuming everyone is American, so hopefully that counts for something.

 

[R_McGeddon]

What business is it of yours?

I never said it was any of my business, but I never took part in any forced conversions either.

Have you heard of Our Lady of Guadalupe?

No I haven’t.

That’s a significant reason why many American pagans converted to Catholicism voluntarily.

I’ll have to take your word for that.

 

[R_McGeddon]

So if someone were to offer human sacrifices to idols in your neighborhood, people, including you, have no right to protest about it ???

If it affects me or my family, I have every right.

 

[junk]

R McGeddon,
An overview on Our Lady of Guadalupe and the conversion of the Aztecs if you’re interested. The miracle led to the voluntary conversion of about eight million people in seven years. Quite impressive. It wasn’t just the native Aztecs who were subjected to injustices by the Conquistadors:

The Franciscan Father Antonio Ortiz delivered a spirited sermon on the Feast of the Pentocost on the subject [of mistreatment of Indians], and was arrested while preaching from the altar by de Guzman’s men and thrown into jail.

And the missionaries weren’t having much luck converting the natives, apparently, but the miracle changed all that:

The miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe led to a tidal wave of conversions. The few missionaries that initially were met with resistance became overwhelmed with baptisms, preaching, and instruction in the faith. An early missionary, the Franciscan Father Toribio de Benavente, recorded in his Historia de los Indios, published in 1541, that “I have to affirm that at the convent of Quecholac, another priest and myself baptized 14,200 souls in five days. We even placed the oil of catechumens and Holy Chrism on all of them.”

R McGeddon:

They either threatened to run them through with the sword or burn them at the stake. Quite persuasive don’t you think?

Well, apparently, the Indians were resistant to Christianity until the miracle, so, even if the Conquistadors did do that, they weren’t very successful.
R McGeddon:

You’re not wrong on that particular event, but what religion were the Spanish Conquistadors following and forcing on the native people of the Americas in the middle ages, while also stealing their gold?

You can’t judge a religion by the people who don’t follow its teachings.
R McGeddon:

It was no business of the Catholic Church whatever they did.

R McGeddon:

If it affects me or my family, I have every right.

Let me get this straight. You think that it is wrong for a person to be forcibly converted (and I agree), but you don’t think it’s wrong for them to be unjustly executed as a sacrifice to some gods, unless it affects you personally, right?

Please tell me what it is that you’re smoking. It sure sounds like potent stuff.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

True Christianity makes demands on its followers. Secularism, at least as it is practiced in the U.S., doesn’t. No one wants to be told that they have responsibilities. I would argue that many strains of Christianity today are just organized secularism. They make no demands, teach no values and require no sacrafice.

 

[R_McGeddon]

You can’t judge a religion by the people who don’t follow its teachings.

I can if they cite that religion as a reason for what they’re doing.

Let me get this straight. You think that it is wrong for a person to be forcibly converted (and I agree),

but you don’t think it’s wrong for them to be unjustly executed as a sacrifice to some gods, unless it affects you personally, right?

Participants of a religion usually accept all that goes with it, sacrifices included.

Please tell me what it is that you’re smoking. It sure sounds like potent stuff.

I don’t smoke, but I do like a few beers at the weekend.