Is secularism sinister?

[R_Daneel]

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?

Guess, what? the US is a purely secular society.

Read the treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the US Congress: stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

 

[reggieM]

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

The state cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

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.

I’m trying to derive some consistent ideas out of your opinion. Thus far, we have Sharia law with Muslims winning.

If you want to change the topic to what your preferences are, irregardless of the concept of secularism and the problems it entails … well, I guess that might be interesting for some people, but it wouldn’t really mean that much to me. Sorry.

 

[R_Daneel]

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.

Well, you could talk about the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. All are magical creatures, and they take pains “not to be there, when you are looking”. Just like the other examples, there is no evidence for their existence. Is it reasonable to conclude that they do not exist?

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.

Yet there is a common factor: the lack of evidence.

Search with your intellect **and **your heart, and you will find God. Anyone busy running the obstacle course of scientism will not find God.

My heart is too busy pumping blood. My intellect (and my house) is, however. open. God is welcome here.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

*Guess, what? the US is a purely secular society.

Read the treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the US Congress: stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html*

Depends on what you mean by secular. Of course the Constitution does not officially approve of any one religion. That’s guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. However, it specifically protects the exercise of all religion. I don’t think the founders were so secular that they didn’t want to protect religion. On the other hand, the Constitution does not go out of its way to protect atheism … the antithesis of all religion.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

*Well, you could talk about the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. All are magical creatures, and they take pains “not to be there, when you are looking”. Just like the other examples, there is no evidence for their existence. Is it reasonable to conclude that they do not exist? *

"All are magical creatures, and they take pains "not to be there, when you are looking"

Surely you jest. They are not magical creatures. They are imaginary creatures. How can “they take pains not to be there” when they are not there to begin with?

I’ve already answered this. Sorry you don’t see the difference. It is not reasonable to conclude that God does not exist just because He is by definition invisible to the senses. It would be reasonable to conclude that He may exist, even if you can’t find Him, as Democritus concluded about the atom.

The Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus are mental constructs designed for children. The idea of God (in one form or another) is ubiquitous on the planet since the dawn of human history.

Again, scientism is an obstruction to finding God. “The heart has reasons of its own that reason cannot understand.” Blaise Pascal

 

[R_Daneel]

Depends on what you mean by secular. Of course the Constitution does not officially approve of any one religion. That’s guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. However, it specifically protects the exercise of all religion.

Of course it does. The Pigrims came from a society where their particular brand of religion was persecuted, and the Founding Fathers explicitly wanted to avoid the same possibility in the US.

I don’t think the founders were so secular that they didn’t want to protect religion. On the other hand, the Constitution does not go out of its way to protect atheism … the antithesis of all religion.

I have to give you one thing, at least you do not say that atheism is “just another religion”. That is very commendable. No, the Constituition did not explicitly protect atheism, since that concept was not used very widely in those times. But the Constitution does not explictly protect property rights either, which were taken for granted back then. The Founders did not think it was necessary to include them explictly.

Today the US Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and includes the lack of religion (atheism) among the protected “worldviews”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

There is no Santa Claus?

Arrgghhh!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

*Today the US Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and includes the lack of religion (atheism) among the protected “worldviews”. *

Even so, the founders did not give atheistic secularism a second thought in their political priorities. Even the Treaty of Tripoli does not insist that we are an irreligious nation, or that atheism is our preference. It only says that we are not a theocracy, Christian or otherwise.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

No, the Constituition did not explicitly protect atheism, since that concept was not used very widely in those times.

That’s an interesting concession, as I’ve debated some atheists who think** all the founders** followed Tom Paine’s opposition to all organized religion.

 

[tonyrey]

Prominent academics do not make laws. They speak for themselves, no one else.

They do not make laws but they are a powerful influence when they proselytise like Dawkins.

Yes, some are hostile against religions, though I don’t see any evidence that they would be hostile against religious people.

If you believe religious education is child abuse you are inevitably hostile to religious educators.

And I don’t know what “facts” are you talking about.

Mexico and communist regimes like China…

 

[tonyrey]

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

Intolerance is not the monopoly of secularists…

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

Why isn’t it a fair measure?

Because the proportion of church-going legislators does not always reflect the proportion of church-goers in the state. Nor are they necessarily committed to defending Christian beliefs and values. Political success depends on compromise.

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/…s-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.

You think these are isolated cases? Many people conform for fear of losing their job.

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.

The very fact that discrimination has occurred and is occurring are signs of the times. The smaller a minority becomes the more likely it is to be victimised.

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.

History is often repeated. As I have pointed out, the majority tend to be intolerant of minorities. Governments cannot afford to ignore public opinion if they wish to remain in power. The scathing remarks about religion on this forum are a good indication of how secularists would act if they had the opportunity. After all, superstition is an obstacle to progress…

 

[Moonstruck888]

Now you’re being paranoid. Do what you want. Just don’t attempt to attract young people by reducing them into simpletons who crave brain pleasurism via love-less sex and drugs. Sex and drug addiction is dehumanizing. There’s a damned good reason why mom and dad warned against it.

Well, I like drinking, I like sex, I like masturbation and while I don’t use drugs any more, I don’t regret the experiences I had.

So, again, what if I want to promote these things? What would you do about it?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Yes, they sound like Hitler.

some Religious: “Infinity has no hope for a final cosmological solution and we’ll never prove that God doesn’t exist, so why would I want to be reduced to the perpetual pursuit of shallow amusements that don’t last?”
some Secularists: “Because I’m addicted to brain pleasurism and I said so.”

And you sound just like Abu Hamza my friend. Your zealotry, bigotry and fanaticism are absolutely horrifying. You should be locked up without limit of time.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Moonstruck

*Well, I like drinking, I like sex, I like masturbation and while I don’t use drugs any more, I don’t regret the experiences I had.

So, again, what if I want to promote these things? What would you do about it? *

Pray for you.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moonstruck

*Well, I like drinking, I like sex, I like masturbation and while I don’t use drugs any more, I don’t regret the experiences I had.

So, again, what if I want to promote these things? What would you do about it? *

Pray for you.

My question wasn’t addressed to you, but to ManOnFire.

Despite our disagreements Charlemagne, I have never noticed you to be a vicious, totalitarian or evil person in any way.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Moonstruck

*Despite our disagreements Charlemagne, I have never noticed you to be a vicious, totalitarian or evil person in any way. *

Then there’s hope for me yet.

 

[R_Daneel]

Even so, the founders did not give atheistic secularism a second thought in their political priorities. Even the Treaty of Tripoli does not insist that we are an irreligious nation, or that atheism is our preference. It only says that we are not a theocracy, Christian or otherwise.

The opposite of theocracy is secularism. By the way to call it “atheistic secularism” is superfluous. there is no such thing and “thesitic secularism”.

That’s an interesting concession, as I’ve debated some atheists who think** all the founders** followed Tom Paine’s opposition to all organized religion.

Then those people did not do their homework. The Founding Fathers were not a homogenous group, there were representatives of several religions amoung them. But they were very wise people and wanted to avoid the religious persecutions so prevanent in Europe back them. And that is why they formulated the First Amendment - which makes the US a secular country.

 

[R_Daneel]

They do not make laws but they are a powerful influence when they proselytise like Dawkins.

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.

If you believe religious education is child abuse you are inevitably hostile to religious educators.

To the practice, for sure, but not necessarily the people who perform them. “Hate the sin, but love the sinner?”

Mexico and communist regimes like China…

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

*The Founding Fathers were not a homogenous group, there were representatives of several religions amoung them. But they were very wise people and wanted to avoid the religious persecutions so prevanent in Europe back them. And that is why they formulated the First Amendment - which makes the US a secular country. *

If your definition of secularism is that it has nothing to do with religion, why does the 1st Amendment specifically **protect **the exercise of religion?

If your definition of a secular country is that it wants nothing to do with religion, why are religious images and slogans all over our currency, our public buildings, and the Congressional chaplain’s office? If secular means having nothing to do with religion, why are clergymen, rather than atheists, asked to give invocations at formal events such as the inauguration of a President?

A secular country may well choose not to favor any one religion over others (which was the problem in Europe), while at the same time be cordial, accommodating, and protective in its relations with all religions.

 

[tonyrey]

Prominent academics do not make laws. They speak for themselves, no one else.

They do not make laws but they are a powerful influence when they proselytise like Dawkins.
Yes, some are hostile against religions, though I don’t see any evidence that they would be hostile against religious people.
If you believe religious education is child abuse you are inevitably hostile to religious educators and those who support religious education. You welcome the opportunity to ban it from the curriculum.

And I don’t know what “facts” are you talking about.

Mexico and communist regimes like China…
I have no idea what you are talking about.
You must be unaware of the oppression of Christians…

But there are also powerful and influential religious people, who are openly hostile to secularism, and somehow you don’t seem to mind that.

I object to intolerance of any description.

Billy Graham, Pat Robertson come to mind, who have a much bigger influence that Dawkins can ever hope for.

Not in the UK and the rest of Europe.