Is secularism sinister?

[Leela]

Leela

I think we are on the same page as to what secularism means. Secularism is a democratic principle. Theocracy and militant atheism are anti-democratic.

I don’t see secularism as a strictly democratic principle. I see it as a principle that emphasizes living in the world, rather than living in God. And you can live in a world without God. Even atheists know that atheistic humanism can get out of hand and become hateful bigotry.

indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=16812

Secularism does mean that government is only concerned with living in the world, but individuals are free to have other concerns. They just don’t get to have those otherworldly concerns imposed upon anyone else.

 

[JDaniel]

Secularism is NOTHING like Communism, and Nazism.

Really? So they were religious, in the pro-God sense?

I noticed some people here mentioned Hitler. The book posted contradicts other documents such as Mein kampf which shows that Hitler was still a Catholic even during his time in power.

Note that Mein kampf was Hitler’s autobiography.

As I remember, Hitler himself wrote it. And, he was a a completely scrupulous man.

Secularism is the separation of church and state.

No . . . secularism means No Church.

Definition of SECULARISM
: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Look at places with Sharia Law for example. There is no secularism there. So you, as a Christian, most likely will be killed if you don’t convert, and you have no freedom of speech. The only difference between Sharia Law (Islamic Law) and a Christianity Ruled nation is the religion of the law.

That is without a doubt the most absurd conclusion I have ever read. I doubt that intelligent atheists would agree.

Secularism gives you your freedom of speech, religion and the rest of your freedoms that conflict with ideals from religions.

Not so. We were granted the majority of our Constitutional Rights while still a virtually completely religious nation. In fact, the Constitution merely enumerated what we already had. A right is accorded from one person to another precisely because it is reciprocated. Men did not need the Constitution to “give” us rights.

If this country was not secular, then all and any Christians could demonize and maybe even assault people they don’t like that conflict with their ideology,

We outnumber you guys significantly, right now. Am I just blind? Have we attacked you guys?

for example, gays, Jews, Muslims, atheists etc.

Please document this absurdity.

Secularism simply makes Christians have equal freedoms to everyone else. My personal opinion as to why some Christians hate Secularism is that they aren’t free to take away the freedoms of people they hate, under Secularism.

Once again, you’re badly mistaken. First, Christians are not allowed to hate. Not that some haven’t, but they are usually distanced from the real Christians very quickly, and shown to be the opportunists they are.

Separation of Church and State in the First Amendment, which forbids the government from respecting the establishment of a religion.Meaning, they cannot support one religion. They cannot prefer religion or non religion. They cannot interfere with the freedom of the person to choose to be religious or not religious, and of the religion of their choosing.

Well, at least you got some of it right -

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion”, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. - Wikipedia

This does not “separate Church from state.” It authorizes the state protection of free access to religion, among other things not in any way related to the separation of anything from anything.

Anyway,
God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Again with the Nancies and Ruskies. Have a look at this and then tell me again how Christians have always been pure as snow daddy. :kiss4you:
*As Pope, he officially made public apologies for over 100 of these wrongdoings, including:

… For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating “the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions”. (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologies_by_Pope_John_Paul_II*

And, the US has made blanket apologies at least equaling that, but, it has only been around for 200 years. Don’t get me wrong. I am not defending the Catholic people that might have sinned in this fashion, but, unfortunately, a Church is, after all, merely made up of people. Fallible people at that.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Well put youngster, if you replace “Christians” with the ungainly phrase “fundamentalists of all kinds”.

Inocente:

You have to add one more word, “radical.”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Oh, boy, you are paranoid. If that happened, then it was wrong, I would agree to that. But to draw such far-reaching conclusions from one (or maybe a few) incidents of this kind is seriously overreacting.

Would you say the same thing if there were only 10 incidents like this?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Well, I like drinking, I like sex, I like masturbation and

Remind me never to shake your hand.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Maybe. But there are also powerful and influential religious people, who are openly hostile to secularism, and somehow you don’t seem to mind that. Billy Graham, Pat Robertson come to mind, who have a much bigger influence that Dawkins can ever hope for.

Whew! thank goodness they’re not Catholics!

“Hate the sin, but love the sinner?”

Exactly.

God bless,
jd

 

[Windfish]

Maybe a book recommendation might be helpful. There’s no doubt that the Church has been terribly persecuted in the past by secularism. However, I think some people here have a point when they say that the situation is totally different in secular democracies. I’m sure there are books on this. Any recommendations?

As for me, I tend not to look at things in a grand sense, but on an issue by issue basis. Abortion is obviously evil. We should try to persuade others to work in and through the system to change and/or mitigate its practice. If you guys really want to change the situation, bone up on your arguments and skills, put on your boots, and go door to door. God *is *real, we can prove it, and we can prove that we’re right.

 

[JDaniel]

“Majority rules” is one use of the term democracy, but not the relevent one here. Democracy as a form of government means that political power lies with the people and that government exists to serve the people. Secularism is part of how we try to ensure that political power gets shared equally and is not in the hands of the bishops. “Majority rules” is a very simplistic and not very accurate understanding of how a democracy functions, but it does get to the point that priests and royals don’t get any extra votes that others don’t get. All people are meant to share equally in political power in a democracy. Theocracy is a grave threat to democracy since theocrats want political power to be in the hands of god’s representatives on earth. Theocrats want God’s anointed to dominate the rest of us. Democracy is opposed to all domination including domination of the majority over the minority.

It is extrememly important that we get past this debate about theocracy, becuse though it is a grave threat to democracy it is not the self-proclaimed vice regents of God but the wealthy who are dominating and explointing the people today. We are much more likely to be dominated by the economically lucky than by the Pat Robertson’s of the world. In fact, this whole discussion is a mere distraction from the real and present danger that unchecked corporate greed poses for democracy.

By the way, though unborn children are not people in the eyes of the government, corporations are! Unfortunately, voting “pro-life” on the conservative platform hasn’t done anything for the unborn. Ironically, the legacy of the pro-life movement is life for corporations and concentartion of wealth and political power in the hands of the economically lucky at the expense of the rest of us.

Wow! RDaneel, talk about paranoia.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

We can be wrong about what rights we have, but rights can’t be changed by definition. Where rights come from is something that people are allowed to disagree about in a democracy so long as we agree that we have them and respect them. You seem to be conflating secularism and atheism. The Founding Fathers were not atheists, but they were secularists.

Conservatives have been good at controlling the terms of debate these days. I was amazed at how they were able to sell the “death tax” terminology to prevent the super rich from being taxed. In a similar move, the potestant theocrats have been trying to redefine secularism.

To rally support for secularism, it will be important to re-claim the term from the theocrats who frequently use it as a pejorative amounting to militant atheism. Given that theocrats do not want religious diversity but rather dominance of the rest of us by their particular religion, it suits theocratic purposes to oppose secularism and it furthers their political ends to try to paint secularism as a movement trying to rid the world of religion. Prominent Christian Pastor of the Saddleback Church and author of A Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren may not be a theocrat but nevertheless buys into the theocrat’s usage of secularism. Speaking at the National Cathedral, he noted that, “The future of the world is not secularism. It’s religious pluralism.” Indeed the future and the present do seem to be religiously pluralistic. But why think of secularism and pluralism as necessarily in opposition? They are not. A militant atheist may be opposed to religious pluralism as part of opposition to religion in general, but secularism is entirely consistent with such. In fact, religious diversity could not possibly flourish as it has in the U.S. without the secularism of the establishment clause. Secularistic insistence upon separation of church and state protects the free exercise of religion.

The only thing I can see that prevents all religious people from embracing secularism in America is the lack of imagination for what it must be like to be part of a religious minority. Though the majority of Americans are in some sense Christians, every denomination is a minority religious sect, so the religious have as much an interest as the rest of us in maintaining a state affairs where no particular religion can take control of government and dominate everyone else. Therefore, it seems a worthy goal to reclaim the concept of secularism as the Jeffersonian compromise which protects religious freedom and diversity from the militant sense of the term applied by the theocrats where it is portrayed as a desire to stamp out all religious. We ought to be able to remind those who have forgotten why the establishment clause was there to begin with. Whether atheists ought to be theists or theists ought to be atheists is a separate conversation. We should all agree that all Americans committed to freedom and democracy ought to be secularists.

Leela,

Boy am I with you on this one! I think we should slaughter the super-rich, in fact, let’s start over there in Hollywood, California.

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Secularism does mean that government is only concerned with living in the world, but individuals are free to have other concerns. They just don’t get to have those otherworldly concerns imposed upon anyone else. *

That’s true. Catholic views are never imposed on anyone in this country and never have been. So what “imposition” are you talking about? Persuasion is another matter. I think you are conflating the two.

The Founders clearly did not want to separate government and religion to the extent that religion was to be excluded from the public affairs, except so far as taxes would be levied to support religious groups, or a dominant group, such as the Church of England.

Again, if religion is denied any say, or is persecuted as it has been in Germany, Russia, and China over the last century … that is because atheistic secularism has overtaken the original secular impulse.

Atheists today in America are not persecuted by Christians. But if the numbers were reversed, what would prevent atheists persecuting Christians? What divine mandate is to hold them back? Whereas a human mandate, such as “God Is Not Great: Why Religion Spoils Everything” could be the rallying cry for the massacre of Christians.

Rallying cries have been known to work for persecuting all people of religion, not just
Christians.

Hitler

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.”

Stalin

“We guarantee the right of every citizen to combat by argument, propaganda, and agitation all religion. The Communist Party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.”

Mao
“Religion is poison.”

 

[R_Daneel]

It is significant you have left a loophole with the word “about” - which suggests that genuine religious education should be avoided like the plague! Your second sentence confirms that impression because “all kinds of it” implies that all religions are misguided superstitions.

No, it does not suggest anything. I certainly consider all religions (and new age type of nonsense) misguided and dumb superstitions, but I do not want anyone to interfere your rights to bring up your children as you wish. I support your rights to have your beliefs, and educate your children accordingly. I support the existence of private schools, be they secular or religious. So don’t make hasty “assumptions”.

It is not a question of misfortune but of government policy. If men like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens (and all their supporters) had their way religious freedom would be severely curtailed. How can you act otherwise if you share the belief that “religion poisons everything”?

Don’t be so paranoid. I share the belief that religion is a “plague” and a “poison” but I do not want to forcefully suppress it. I am quite content to let it die a natural death, if and when that comes around. I have to emphasize: “I disagree with using force for anything and everything, except self-defense”. And self-defense is not extended to defend against hostile ideas - but it definitely contains to defend against actions based upon those ideas. As an example: I despise the KKK, but I would not interfere with their rights to have their beliefs, and express those beliefs in a peaceful fashion.

Aren’t you intolerant of those who put money and power before love and concern for your fellow human beings?

It depends. If someone accumulates a lot of money (and money is power) like a Bill Gates, and they do not want to share it (unlike Bill Gates), then I support their right to be as selfish as they want to. I would despise them for their selfish behavior, but I would accept it.

 

[R_Daneel]

Thank you, RD. And, you CAN count on me.

I was sure of that. (Now, you know that I like to ask tough questions. So what would you do, if the Pope would declare ex-cathedra a crusade against atheists? That would carry God’s approval, would it not? I know it will never happen, but think, what if…? )

I don’t know about others, though. You see, right is right and wrong is wrong. I would tend to think that more pro-theists would gather behind you and your freedom than anti-theists would gather behind me. I could be wrong, but, that’s the sense I get.

I would not know, but I fervently hope that neither will ever be put to test.

But, I have an affirmative duty and responsibility to try to convert you. You guys have no such duty or responsibility. So, I’m going to try.

Sure thing. You are welcome I don’t have a duty like that. But I like to try it myself, too.

“Constitutional,” interesting qualifier.

Why do you think so? A well formed Constitution is the best way to ensure that there will be no “mob rule”. And a mob can be a majority or a minority.

You certainly could. I think you’d be surprised at how many Catholics would come to your defense (even though we’d like to shake you! )

Let’s hope it will never be necessary. I have this strong conviction that the majority of people, religious or atheist are nice and well meaning. They want to peacefully coexist with others. The small, but loud minority of extremists is a different issue.

God doesn’t “grant ‘rights’.” Humans do. Reciprocity is the underpinning.

Indeed. But then there are no “natural rights”, are there? And if there are no “natural rights”, then there is no “natural law” either. After all the laws (all of them) prescribe and proscribe allowable activities: namely: “rights”.

You could always say, “No.”

How could I say no to the most powerful guy, who can inflict eternal torture on me if I refuse to obey? I would never be able to resist a command if my life or my family’s life would be at stake.

 

[inocente]

I certainly consider all religions (and new age type of nonsense) misguided and dumb superstitions, but I do not want anyone to interfere your rights to bring up your children as you wish. …

I share the belief that religion is a “plague” and a “poison” but I do not want to forcefully suppress it. I am quite content to let it die a natural death, if and when that comes around.

That’s very democratic of you, the Buddhists and Sikhs will be so grateful.

Did you arrive at your belief that religion is a “plague” and a “poison” via scientific inquiry, faith, indoctrination or some other means?

 

[inocente]

Secularism does mean that government is only concerned with living in the world, but individuals are free to have other concerns. They just don’t get to have those otherworldly concerns imposed upon anyone else.

Interestingly, most meat exported from New Zealand is now halal, as it’s more efficient to butcher it all one way. Globalization makes one-party theocracies moot.

nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/nzfsa-in-media/2010-02-food-tech-halal-standard.htm
guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/sep/20/halal-meat-the-truth

Your point that government should be about the world alone is excellent, or at least in terms of “god-on-our-side”. God-on-our-side leads “patriotic” loonies to try for stunts like Burn A Koran Day regardless of the danger to others, and other loonies to take it as far as thinking they are as gods - the Führer, the Great Leader Lim Il-sung, or Stalin as the Brilliant Genius of Humanity and Gardener of Human Happiness (bless ).

We could ask to what extent god-on-our-side was implicated in George W’s and Blair’s decision to invade Iraq, with the mayhem left in its wake. But more and more European kids are learning Chinese, and I guess that system of benevolent big brother may outpace US inspired religious conspiracy theories in its future impact on world politics.

 

[inocente]

Interestingly, most meat exported from New Zealand is now halal, as it’s more efficient to butcher it all one way. Globalization makes one-party theocracies moot.

nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/nzfsa-in-media/2010-02-food-tech-halal-standard.htm
guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/sep/20/halal-meat-the-truth

Your point that government should be about the world alone is excellent, or at least in terms of “god-on-our-side”. God-on-our-side leads “patriotic” loonies to try for stunts like Burn A Koran Day regardless of the danger to others, and other loonies to take it as far as thinking they are as gods - the Führer, the Great Leader Lim Il-sung, or Stalin as the Brilliant Genius of Humanity and Gardener of Human Happiness (bless ).

We could ask to what extent god-on-our-side was implicated in George W’s and Blair’s decision to invade Iraq, with the mayhem left in its wake. But more and more European kids are learning Chinese, and I guess that system of benevolent big brother may outpace US inspired religious conspiracy theories in its future impact on world politics.

 

[tonyrey]

I certainly consider all religions (and new age type of nonsense) misguided and dumb superstitions, but I do not want anyone to interfere your rights to bring up your children as you wish. I support your rights to have your beliefs, and educate your children accordingly. I support the existence of private schools, be they secular or religious.

In that case you are not representative of secularists who sincerely strive to eradicate ignorance and superstition from our society on humanitarian grounds.

It is not a question of misfortune but of government policy. If men like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens (and all their supporters) had their way religious freedom would be severely curtailed. How can you act otherwise if you share the belief that “religion poisons everything”?

I share the belief that religion is a “plague” and a “poison” but I do not want to forcefully suppress it.

Legislation does not constitute forceful suppression! If you are consistent you will do your utmost to root out evil by every other means at your disposal.

I am quite content to let it die a natural death, if and when that comes around. I have to emphasize: “I disagree with using force for anything and everything, except self-defense”. And self-defense is not extended to defend against hostile ideas - but it definitely contains to defend against actions based upon those ideas. As an example: I despise the KKK, but I would not interfere with their rights to have their beliefs, and express those beliefs in a peaceful fashion.

You support the right of the KKK, terrorists and anarchists to indoctrinate others?

If someone accumulates a lot of money (and money is power) like a Bill Gates, and they do not want to share it (unlike Bill Gates), then I support their right to be as selfish as they want to. I would despise them for their selfish behavior, but I would accept it.

You accept the right of others to put money and power before love and concern for their fellow human beings even when millions of people die of malnutrition and starve to death as a result of their selfishness?

 

[Leela]

We could ask to what extent god-on-our-side was implicated in George W’s and Blair’s decision to invade Iraq, with the mayhem left in its wake. But more and more European kids are learning Chinese, and I guess that system of benevolent big brother may outpace US inspired religious conspiracy theories in its future impact on world politics.

W told us that God wants him to be president and he claimed that God wanted him to invade Iraq. What is most scary is that some Americans liked the idea of a President who claimed to speak for God.

 

[R_Daneel]

In that case you are not representative of secularists who sincerely strive to eradicate ignorance and superstition from our society on humanitarian grounds.

I never intended to speak for anyone else. Oh, I try to eradicate ignorance by teaching - among other things, by teaching by example.

Legislation does not constitute forceful suppression!

Oh, but it is. Every goverment sustains itself by force and the threat of force. Isn’t the police called the “police force”?

You support the right of the KKK, terrorists and anarchists to indoctrinate others?

Yes, I do. Just as I support your right to indoctrinate others. Don’t jump to hasty conclusions. I do not place the CC and the KKK into the same basket. I disagree with the ideas perpetrated by the KKK much more vehemently than I disagree with the CC. I despise and hate the KKK, and what they advocate, but I do not feel the same about the CC.

You accept the right of others to put money and power before love and concern for their fellow human beings even when millions of people die of malnutrition and starve to death as a result of their selfishness?

Sure. I don’t condone that behavior. If I could persuade them by peaceful means, I would do my best to change their attitude. But not by force. Force is never the answer. Isn’t that what Jesus taught?

 

[R_Daneel]

Did you arrive at your belief that religion is a “plague” and a “poison” via scientific inquiry, faith, indoctrination or some other means?

By learning history and by observation of the present.