Is secularism sinister?

[Moonstruck888]

You guys are always quick to produce guilt by association with the Inquisition. The terrors of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were greater than a thousand Inquisitions.

You can’t get around it.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Abu Hamza, Gerry Falwell and the Church Inquisitors all have one thing in common. They all promoted, using coersion when it suited them, the blind unquestioning adherence to a fundamental dogma that had to be accepted on faith.

Faith is not a laudable quality in human beings. It is an incapacitating failing that makes people blind, weak, and easily led. It allows the Hitlers and the Van Impes and the Falwells and the Bin Ladins of the world to make normal people do terrible things.

What about the Conquistadors? They practiced genocide in the name of God. Why did God allow that? Why did he not intervene?

 

[R_Daneel]

You are changing the meaning of suppression which I used in the context of the suppression of religion in Mexico and other countries. Civilised legislation does not constitute the forceful suppression of the practice of all the beliefs of a particular group of people.

The suppression of the practice of some Indian tribes, who use halluciogenic mushrooms in their religious rituals. Is that forceful suppression?

It is directly related to the question of the justifable use of force by a government as opposed to the oppression of believers and the suppression of religion.

I already answered that. Why keep on bringing it up?

 

[inocente]

I look sometimes at the “Moral Theology” forum and get very sad when I see all those poor teenagers who simply respond to their normal hormones and then get depression from their guilt doing it. That is the poison I am referring to. An unnatural commandment prohibiting them to learn about themselves, and sometimes they may get suicidal from the guilt inculcated by the teachings.

We may not agree on much, but I’m with you there.

Twice I’ve posted on threads where everyone before me had replied “sin-guilt”, pointed out that it sounded like a medical problem, and both times all following posters agreed and said no, that’s right, it’s not sin-guilt at all, go see a doctor.

Moral relativism in action.

 

[inocente]

Speaking for myself only, children can survive a divorce. Heterosexual boys adopted by two gay men is patently absurd. What are you thinking? Have you lost all common sense?

That’s been legal here for donkey’s years. Before 2005, the adoption could only be in the name of one partner but since the reform of the marriage law it can be in both names. (I’m only stating this to set icky glands a throbbing, as I know some Catholics enjoy it.)

One of the reasons why the marriage reform got passed was exactly Layla’s point – the Catholics who opposed it so vocally hadn’t said much at all previously when Prince Felipe married a divorcee, and this type of inconsistency back fired.

Differences in moral attitudes between democracies don’t seem to rely that much on religion. I’ve seen the Pope has made a call against aggressive secularism, but not on how he will replace it. Anyone know the detail?

 

[tonyrey]

Oh, I try to eradicate ignorance by teaching - among other things, by teaching by example.

Of course it does. It suppresses anything and everything it declares “unlawful”.
You are changing the meaning of suppression which I used in the context of the suppression of religion in Mexico and other countries. Civilised legislation does not constitute the forceful suppression of the practice of all the beliefs of a particular group of people.
No response!

It is directly related to the question of the justifable use of force by a government as opposed to the oppression of believers and the suppression of religion.

I already answered that. Why keep on bringing it up?

You implied that every government must sustain itself by the suppression of minorities - which is clearly false.

Neverthless since you regard all religion as a poisonous plague you have an obligation to protect and warn others against it. Surely you would not let fanatics preach sedition…

Peacefully is the word. Not, definitely not enticing a pogrom or violence against anyone. The freedom of speech does not protect words which will lead to violence. You cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theater.

Secularists on this very thread have argued that religion promotes intolerance and fanaticism. The notion that religions are composed of irrational superstitions justifies the argument that they must be strictly controlled and ultimately eliminated.

No response!

Did he not teach: “those who live by the sword, will perish by the sword?” And: “Do not resist evil.” And “turn the other cheek”. All you proved is that Jesus said many things, so people can pick and choose whichever they want to…

On the contrary. Each injunction applies in a different context. “Do not resist evil” obviously does not mean “Never resist evil”. To turn the other cheek is an attempt to avoid further violence if there is a reasonable prospect of success. To live by the sword is to use the sword to achieve your own ends by force.

No response!

[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[R_Daneel]

You implied that every government must sustain itself by the suppression of minorities - which is clearly false.

You are really far out. I did not “imply” anything of that kind. Whatever you smoke… stop it. And I answered all your reiterated points. Of course, if you think that I “implied” the suppression of minorities, then you need some serious advice on comprehension. All I said that every goverment is based on force. Nothing implied here.

 

[R_Daneel]

We may not agree on much, but I’m with you there.

Every little bit of agreement is to be celebrated and cherished.

 

[tonyrey]

You are really far out. I did not “imply” anything of that kind. Whatever you smoke… stop it. And I answered all your reiterated points.

You can deceive yourself but not everybody else!

Of course, if you think that I “implied” the suppression of minorities, then you need some serious advice on comprehension. All I said that every government is based on force. Nothing implied here.

I suggest you reread the posts before you commit yourself…