Is secularism sinister?

[inocente]

Here comes your revisionist history.

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*

 

[inocente]

Excommunication is recognised in an individual (most of the time it is automatic) to encourage that individual to repent; and to encourage people not to follow that person in their crimes.

On satellite yesterday there was an item about an eccentric 19C minister who made a mock excommunication of his cat for the crime of “mounting on the Sabbath”.

 

[inocente]

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.

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

 

[tonyrey]

BRITISH Airways suspended a Christian woman from her work for wearing a tiny cross. She lost three months’ pay while suspended and an employment tribunal later ruled that she had not suffered religious discrimination.
A sign of things to come in the secular society…

This happened in the UK.

Cite the article for this story?

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1159863/Appeal-Court-set-rule-British-Airways-workers-crucifix.html

Because I have heard of these accusations of religious discrimination, but I always find that they were prosecuted for reasons that weren’t discriminatory to their religion.

The fact that it is being taken to the Appeals Court by the civil liberties pressure group Liberty shows that it is a case of religious discrimination.

I prefer Secularism because I would not be silenced nor threatened when I say something the people of the government’s religion do not like. I prefer secularism, because many people like me receive death threats from Christians and Muslims alike, although usually Christians these days.

Do you think religious people in secular states never receive death threats?

I fear that if secularism fell, the stoning to death of gays, adulterers, and disobedient children would become legal. Because never in the NT did Jesus remove the OT Laws, in fact he restated them.

How do you explain the case of the woman taken in adultery? How do you explain the substitution of forgiveness of your enemy for “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”?
How do you explain the abolition of animal sacrifice?

Of course, never have I met a Christian who didn’t try to deny the OT and NT laws, which gives me a sign of hope that they don’t take these horrors literally. I guess this is where you guys say “thank god!”

Your interpretation of Christ’s teaching is misguided.

P.S: Don’t mean to be offensive, but Secularism is the reason why you have religious freedom. The only difference is that you cannot take the freedoms of other people away. Gays, jews, atheists, muslims and everybody else that will disagree with your beliefs have the same rights.

In theory but not in practice. Secular states have often persecuted religion - ranging from Mexico to China.

 

[R_Daneel]

BRITISH Airways suspended a Christian woman from her work for wearing a tiny cross. She lost three months’ pay while suspended and an employment tribunal later ruled that she had not suffered religious discrimination!

A sign of things to come in the secular society…

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.

 

[inocente]

In theory but not in practice. Secular states have often persecuted religion - ranging from Mexico to China.

This keeps coming around, but no one has demonstrated sufficient persecution in secular democratic states as opposed to lack of persecution by undemocratic countries with a state religion.

You could argue the opposite – the secular USA and South Africa appear to have a higher proportion of church goers than democracies with a state religion like the UK and Spain.

nationmaster.com/graph/rel_chu_att-religion-church-attendance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

Wow - secular states encourage religion.

 

[tonyrey]

Oh, boy, you are paranoid. If that happened, then it was wrong, I would agree to that.

It is absurd to doubt whether it happened when the case is being taken to the Appeal Court.

But to draw such far-reaching conclusions from one (or maybe a few) incidents of this kind is seriously overreacting.

In view of the evidence of persecution in secular states and the denunciation of religion and religious education by prominent academics like Professor Richard Dawkins you are obviously prejudiced and refusing to face the facts.

 

[reggieM]

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.

It might be overreacting, but it could also be a warning.
Again, the topic of this thread is whether secularism could be interpreted as anti-religion.

What prevents that from happening?

In the incident cited, by the rules of secularism, wearning a cross was punished. That means, “no religion is favored over another”.

How would that be different than an oppressive atheistic rule which banned all religious expressions?

That’s the persecution we’re discussing, and it could be inherent in secularism.

What religious expressions should be allowed and why?

Prayer in one’s own home – offends the neighbors, and therefore is banned and punished by law. Churches – offend atheists in the community and therefore must be closed.

Etc.

 

[tonyrey]

This keeps coming around, but no one has demonstrated sufficient persecution in secular democratic states as opposed to lack of persecution by undemocratic countries with a state religion.

You could argue the opposite – the secular USA and South Africa appear to have a higher proportion of church goers than democracies with a state religion like the UK and Spain.

The state religion in the UK is as outmoded as the powerless monarchy.
The proportion of church goers is irrelevant to religious discrimination >>

Wow - secular states encourage religion.

Tell that to Christians in the UK suspended for wearing a cross and Muslim women in the US dismissed for wearing a head scarf.
usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-14-headscarves-muslim_N.htm

 

[reggieM]

Students in the U.S. suspended for praying for sick professor
speakupmovement.org/content/pdf/MTDOrder.pdf

Fortunately, the case was settled in favor of the defendants.

 

[ManOnFire]

I am pointing out that you do not believe something (actually many things) for which there is no evidence. You do the same thing as I do, and yet you want me to accept ONE particular claim without evidence. Do you see the problem now?

You’re refusing to see the point. IF you’re an Atheist (I don’t know if you are), you ALREADY believe in ONE particular claim (that God doesn’t exist) that has no evidence. It’s perfectly fine to have this belief, but this belief is equal to a religious person’s belief. “Why” there’s no evidence is inconsequential. Atheism still has no evidence, by definition. Agnosticism might be a more accurate label. There are plenty of people who believe that life exists on other planets despite zero proof of it.

 

[R_Daneel]

It might be overreacting, but it could also be a warning.

It is at best a “crying wolf” (when there is none) type of “warning”.

Again, the topic of this thread is whether secularism could be interpreted as anti-religion.

Well, “secularism” is a concept. A concept cannot be either for something or against something. People who hold that concept can be for or against something. Some secularist individuals may be against religion, some may be for it, some may be neutral about it. What individuals hold is not relevant unless it is reflected by the society’s laws they live in. So the only relevant question is to look at the current secular states around the globe and check what their attitude might be and see if there is any trend toward outright hostility against religious people. I see no such trend.

But even if you would find that there is a growing trend of hostility against religion, to blame the concept of secularism for it, would be exactly as misguided as blaming Christianity for the misdeeds of some Christians.

What prevents that from happening?

In principle? Nothing. The only safeguard is a properly formed Constitution, which gives no preference to any religion or lack of it. The state should be neutral, not encouraging nor prohibiting any religion over the other. That is the ideal behavior of the states. And it is funny (and very dumb) that in the US with the strict “wall of separation” it is a very sizable portion of Christians, who want that wall to be taken down. They are too dumb to see that the “wall” protects them against a different type of theocracy (maybe a Muslim one?) to emerge, and really start to persecute them.

Make no mistake about it. All religions are hostile toward the others, no matter what they publicly declare and proclaim. It is the quintessential “us” versus “them” scenario, where each side claims that they and only they have access to the “absolute truth” and the other side is either misguided and wrong (best scenario) or straight in bed with the “devil” (worst case). Religion is never inclusive, it is always divisive, no matter what they say.

 

[R_Daneel]

In view of the evidence of persecution in secular states and the denunciation of religion and religious education by prominent academics like Professor Richard Dawkins you are obviously prejudiced and refusing to face the facts.

Give me a break. Prominent academics do not make laws. They speak for themselves, no one else. Yes, some are hostile against religions, though I don’t see any evidence that they would be hostile against religious people. And I don’t know what “facts” are you talking about.

 

[inocente]

The state religion in the UK is as outmoded as the powerless monarchy.

Noticing you didn’t include the Catholic state I mentioned, that sounds like state religion is fine as long as it’s your religion, or how can I put this, sinister.

The proportion of church goers is irrelevant to religious discrimination >>

Why isn’t it a fair measure?

Tell that to Christians in the UK suspended for wearing a cross and Muslim women in the US dismissed for wearing a head scarf.
usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-14-headscarves-muslim_N.htm

Hang on my man, we started this conversation with “Secular states have often persecuted religion - ranging from Mexico to China” and the best you’ve got is a couple of isolated ongoing cases involving dress codes? The Nadia Eweida/BA case may go to the UK Supreme Court, and according to the article you posted the Hani Khan/Abercrombie & Fitch case hasn’t yet gone to court.

Plus, from that article, “In 2004, the company [Abercrombie & Fitch] agreed to pay $50 million to people who alleged in an EEOC lawsuit and two class-action suits that the retailer discriminated against minorities and women.” This in a secular state.

Compare if you will with the article I posted earlier. I’m not arguing that bad stuff doesn’t happen in the course of history, or that heads must roll, but that a sense of balance may come in useful.

 

[ManOnFire]

Would you explain the bit about inbreeding? For that matter the “Reduced people”?
It’s obvious to me that people have been reduced when the true love, romanticism, and the beauty of innocence have been removed in favor of addiction to casual sex and drugs. I can’t tell if it’s intentional or if they are surrounded by too many like-minded people to see it. I gave an “either” because I don’t know which or both.

One billion Catholics are powerless, and none ever once thought to grab a microphone? Try going up and just grabbing their microphone. Call me from jail and let me know how it worked out. The only theories I can come up with are:

1. 
   *]Catholics in the media are OK with how things are.
   *]Catholics in the media aren’t very good at getting the message across.
   *]Catholics never work in the media as it is a grievous sin.
   *]There’s a worldwide conspiracy to suppress Catholicism.
   
   Or, Catholics will be “excommunicated” from the media mafia for dissenting.
   I’m (genuinely) interested in this but couldn’t find it by googling either Social Contract or Rules for Living. Are you capitalizing randomly in that Curious Style adopted by some Catholics, or are they documents I could read? I’m capitalizing in a curious style because my interpretation is, as difficult as the rules are, that the Catholic Church’s rules are a social contract between man and woman. Naturally, independent individualists want things their “own” way. The Church’s rules provide a bridge between man and woman. Not “my” way, not “her” way, but the Church’s way. We use the Church’s Way as a standard for discernment for our family decisions and behaviors. That way it’s not my way or her way.
   
   Who’s committee decides? Your’s or mine?

1. 
   Individually based on what’s healthiest for us, the sum of which detemines public opinion.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel
*
Well, that is true, in general. Lack of evidence does not - in and by itself - make anything credible or incredible. The devil is in the details. So let’s get to the particulars. There is lack of evidence for Russell’s teapot. There is lack of evidence for the Loch Ness monster. There is lack of evidence for Little Green Men. Do you say that just because there is lack of evidence for these it not reasonable to disbelieve their existence? What do you use as a guiding line to separate the credible and the incredible claims, where there is one thing in common: “the lack of evidence”? That is the cruical question here. *

The teapot, the monster, and the little green men, if they are claimed to exist, ought to be able to be found in this world. If they cannot be found, it is reasonable to conclude that they do not exist. Aristotle could not find atoms, so he regarded them as non-existing. Yet they are there. Democritus found them by searching with his intellect, rather than with his senses.

God, a supernatural being, by definition is not to be found in this world. God is not in the same category as teapots, monsters, and little green men. God is closer to the invisible world of the atom, which men found by searching with their intellects. Search with your intellect **and **your heart, and you will find God. Anyone busy running the obstacle course of scientism will not find God.

 

[reggieM]

Well, “secularism” is a concept. A concept cannot be either for something or against something.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing for here, but how about this:

“Theocracy is a concept. It cannot be for or against something.” ???

But even if you would find that there is a growing trend of hostility against religion, to blame the concept of secularism for it, would be exactly as misguided as blaming Christianity for the misdeeds of some Christians.

Again, I can’t follow this. If we argue that the concept has problems, that has nothing to do with particular individuals. If we can’t argue that there are any problems with the concept, then how about this … “Theocracy is a concept, and we should accept it because some people are good and others bad.”?

In principle? Nothing. The only safeguard is a properly formed Constitution, which gives no preference to any religion or lack of it. The state should be neutral, not encouraging nor prohibiting any religion over the other. That is the ideal behavior of the states. And it is funny (and very dumb) that in the US with the strict “wall of separation” it is a very sizable portion of Christians, who want that wall to be taken down. They are too dumb to see that the “wall” protects them against a different type of theocracy (maybe a Muslim one?) to emerge, and really start to persecute them.

Ok, but I think you’re not adding any precision to the topic. If the state cannot prohibit any religion against another, then it cannot forbid the exercise of religion in the state or in any publicly funded venue.

Make no mistake about it. All religions are hostile toward the others, no matter what they publicly declare and proclaim. It is the quintessential “us” versus “them” scenario, where each side claims that they and only they have access to the “absolute truth” and the other side is either misguided and wrong (best scenario) or straight in bed with the “devil” (worst case). Religion is never inclusive, it is always divisive, no matter what they say.

If that’s true, then secularism cannot possibly work since all religions are expected to be on equal par. If religion, by its nature, is non-inclusive, then the law shouldn’t expect religions to be inclusive.

This is an argument in favor of theocracy – may the best religion win.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Black Angel

Secularism is NOTHING like Communism, and Nazism. 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.

Not true. Mein Kampf was written while Hitler was in prison, long before he got into power. Also, do you believe Hitler was a truthful man? Then his idolization of the atheist Nietzsche while he was in power was truthful. So how could he be a Catholic in good standing with the Church?

Learn some history.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

1st Amendment

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Unites States Constitution specifically protects the free exercise of religion. In a purely secular society, this will be a hard nut to crack … though I don’t doubt someone will find a way to crack it. Perhaps by amending the Amendment?

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m not sure what you’re arguing for here, but how about this:

“Theocracy is a concept. It cannot be for or against something.” ???

Correct observation. The concept itself is not the same as action based upon the concept.

Ok, but I think you’re not adding any precision to the topic. If the state cannot prohibit any religion against another, then it cannot forbid the exercise of religion in the state or in any publicly funded venue.

I am talking about the US Constitution here. The state cannot favor any religion over the other. The state cannot establish any religion.

This is an argument in favor of theocracy – may the best religion win.

Do you really advocate a “jihad”? The Muslims would win, since they could recruit more suicide bombers. On the other hand, if you advocate a peaceful exchange of ideas, or some form of a public dialog, I would be in favor of that.