Is secularism sinister?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
For the reasons already mentioned. Because the Founding Fathers acted in the name of freedom, which includes the freedom of religion, which also includes the freedom from religion. Religious tolerance is a very new concept (historically speaking). So it needs to be spelled out.
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?
That is a contradiction, all right. And I happen to disapprove of it. I hope you know that the phrase “under God” was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the 1950’s when there was a general fear of communism. Also the phrase “In God we trust” was not placed on the currency since the inception. Unfortunately the US is a very religious contry and the lawmakers do not care too much about the constitution when it comes to grabbing votes. So they pander to the widest possible audience. Which is despicable, but there in nothing about politics that is not despicable.
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.
In theory, yes. But religions do not want the same treatment, they want to have “special” treatment for themselves. See the story about the uproar against the Wiccans proselytizing.
 
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.
Actually I would welcome to teach about religions. Objectively and equally about all kinds of it. And I have nothing against private schools which are upheld and paid for by churches. They are more than welcome to proselytize and discriminate against “unbelievers” both among the teachers and students. I may not like them, but I support their right to do whatever they want.
You must be unaware of the oppression of Christians…
In Mexico? I sure am ignorant of that. Yes, unfortunately there are countries where some religions are persecuted. They are tyrannical in some form. And I would agree that a tyranny is bad, be it secular or religious.
I object to intolerance of any description.
Well, at least there is one thing where we can totally agree. At least I hope we can agree, since the Christian God is sure intolerant against believers of “false gods”, or unbelievers…
 
As Pat Robertson, Leader of the Christian Coalition put it, “Our aim is to gain dominion over society.” Exactly how that was to be accomplished was revealed when he told the Denver Post in 1992 that his goal was to “take working control of the Republican Party.” Robertson’s Christian Coalition has 1.7 million members and his television program, 700 Club, boasts 7 million viewers each week. He wields a $27 million annual budget with which to work to try elect “Christian candidates” to public office (though he would lose his tax-exempt status if he were to explicitly endorse any particular candidates.) Another example is D. James Kennedy, pastor of the 9,000 member Coral Ridge Ministries. Until he died of a heart attack in 2007, he reached a weekly viewing and listening audience of over 3 million people every Sunday. At a “Reclaiming America for Christ” conference in February, 2005, Kennedy stated the duty of every Christian is as follows:

“Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors—in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”

Kennedy preached a theocratic vision where Christians dominate everyone else as God’s representatives on earth. In his 1994 book, Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, Kennedy specifically attacks the notion of secularism and its church-state separation:

“If we are committed and involved in taking back the nation for Christian moral values, and if we are willing to risk the scorn of the secular media and the bureaucracy that stand against us, there is no doubt we can witness the dismantling of not just the Berlin Wall but the even more diabolical ‘wall of separation’ that has led to increasing secularization, godlessness, immorality, and corruption in our country.”

Note the implicit claim of victim status in the Kenedy quote above. Christians are risking “scorn” from “those who stand against us” merely for being committed to “Christian moral values.” In a country where the vast majority of Americans are Christians, it is a wonder that anyone would try to take the tack of playing the persecuted martyr, but it is a common maneuver.

In a speech for a gathering of Roman Catholic legal professionals in Darien, Connecticut in 2005 Bush’s controversial Federal Judicial nominee (later confirmed) Janice Rogers Brown said:

“These are perilous times for people of faith, not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud.”

Who are the persecutors? As you can probably guess, it is the subscribers to “atheistic humanism,” who have “handed human destiny over to the great god, autonomy, and this is quite a different idea of freedom. Freedom then becomes willfulness.”

Former Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay helped raise money for an organization called the Traditional Values Coalition to fight back against the “war on Christianity” and “stop the all-out assault on Christians being waged by our government, by America’s educational institutions, by the media and throughout popular culture and, according to a fundraising letter,” to help [TVC founder Reverend Lou Sheldon] show America how the liberal Democrats have hijacked America’s courts to push a radical anti-God, anti-family agenda on America.”

Delay’s home state is Texas, where the State of Texas GOP platform of 2004 stated that, “The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation.” Lest anyone think that theocracy is merely an extremist concern that we need not worry about, let’s read on:

“Our Founders expected that Christianity—and no other religion–would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples’ consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference.”

I think that last sentence is probably true and that the one preceding it then is probably false for that very reason. The Founding Fathers would not have sought any governmental favor for Christianity, if only because no other religion was on their radar any more than radars were on their radar. They didn’t imagine a country where Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and atheists resided together any more than they could fathom blacks and whites on equal social footing. That last sentence is only true in the way that it is true that most of the Founding Fathers apparently thought of “all men are created equal” as applying only to land-owning white males. Nevertheless, we now take the Constitution as ensuring that all people regardless of sex, race, or land-owning status are all deserving of the same protection under the law, and of course we all agree that we should. Likewise, we ought to regard all religions and the lack of religious belief as equally respected in terms of the establishment clause.
 
The modern theocrats are attempting to use democratic means to achieve anti-democratic ends. They claim that in a democracy, the majority rules, and the Christians have always been the majority; however, The Bill of Rights is there to ensure that democracy is not the tyranny of the majority. Maintaining majority status can only be done through the peaceful non-coercive means of remaining the most convincing position within the democratic exchange of ideas. Separating government and religion was one way in which the Founding Fathers tried to ensure that any religious majority may not establish dominion over the minority by using the coercive power of the government to enforce adherence to one religion’s other-wordly vision and limiting the ability of minority groups, religious or otherwise, to try to convince enough others so that they may become a majority. In other words, the majority does rule to an extent, but that extent is limited. The Bill of Rights is there to help ensure in various ways that the majority may not use the coercive power of government to prevent a minority from peacefully trying to become a majority. It guarantees freedom of speech and assembly and imposes a separation between the government and the press as well as the government and religion as two institutions which if allowed to be colluded with government would make democracy nothing more than the tyranny of the majority.

What seems to be missing from some of the majority/minority talk of many Christians on the issue of secularism is the ability to imagine being in the minority. Catholics and Protestants and lots of particular denominations have been in the minority position in the past and suffered politically for it, and they could find themselves in that position again. In fact, if the theocrats win their current war against non-Christians, the focus of the Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell-types will switch from domination of non-Christians by Christians to domination of Protestants over Catholics. Count on it. Once that is achieved it will start to seem necessary for one brand of Protestantism to dominate all others. (“First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up…”) Therefore, it is in everyone’s interest, theists and atheists alike, to defend the governmental secularization and religious pluralism. The wall of separation serves to protect Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Evangelicals, Muslims, Jews, and atheists from being dominated and coerced into following whatever the dominant religion of the day happens to be. As philosopher of religion Jeffrey Stout said,

“Wherever theocracy [the desire to have God’s representatives on earth dominate everyone else] catches on, even among a sizable minority, democracy is in trouble. Sooner or later, theocracy disintegrates into conflict over who God’s earthly representatives really are. Each band of theocrats takes itself to be God’s elect, claims for itself the right to hold earthly power over others, and declares its opponents deluded by sin.”

…And perhaps by Satan himself. Obviously at that point, the democratic process of exchanging reasons to try to reach a consensus has broken down. People deluded by sin or Satan cannot be persuaded, only marginalized and dominated. Therefore, everyone who is committed to democracy and freedom from such religious domination—that same desire for religious freedom for which, as we were taught in grade school, drove many of the original settlers to the New World—has a stake in opposing theocracy.

Theocracy has become a real threat today. Consider the Texas Republican Party’s platform of 2004 in its resolution that “Our party pledges to exert its influence to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and to dispel the ‘myth’ of the separation of church and state.” The myth of the myth of separation of church and state seems to be gaining traction, and we therefore ought to be prepared to argue for secularism as a way of ensuring religious freedom.

Consider also the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 filed by Republicans Richard Shelby and Robert Aderholt sought to make explicit, in the words of Roy Moore, a drafter of the bill,

“the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government… The constitution of every state of the Union acknowledges God and His sovereignty, as do three branches of the federal government. The acknowledgment of God is not a legitimate subject of review by federal courts.”

The bill was originally introduced in 2004 and then was reintroduced in 2005. On both occasions it stalled in committee. That last sentence refers to part of the intent of the bill as to protect Christmas nativity displays in the so-called “war on Christmas.” Though it never had any chance to make it to the floor for a vote, the point of mentioning it and the Texas GOP platform is to point out that the theocratic movement is no straw man. It has some real state and national level appeal and is a real danger to furthering the cause of secularism. But it also enough of an extremist view that liberal and moderate Christians can be enlisted to help fight it alongside atheists so long as the defeat of the new theocrats is not allowed to be painted as an atheistic campaign. We need to fight theocracy not in the name of atheism but in the name of democracy. Fighting theocracy in the name of atheism will only result in more theocrats.
 
The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.
That is why the theocrats will have a problem in trying to us the government to enforce a particular religious view on others and why democracy is at risk from the theocrats.

Not only is atheistic secularism redundent, but so is secularist democracy.
 
The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.
That is why the theocrats will have a problem in trying to us the government to enforce a particular religious view on others and why democracy is at risk from the theocrats.
Not only is atheistic secularism redundent, but so is secularist democracy.
The theocrats want to exercise their religion. Government cannot prohibit the free exercise of their religion.
 
The theocrats want to exercise their religion. Government cannot prohibit the free exercise of their religion.
No, they want to force everyone to exercise THEIR religion, at the point of a gun. No thanks.
 
No, they want to force everyone to exercise THEIR religion, at the point of a gun. No thanks.
Exactly. The technology may have changed, swords and fire replaced by guns and electric chair, but the results of theocracy are the same.

You only have to look at Saudi Arabia or Iran to see how human rights are respected in a theocracy.
 
The theocrats want to exercise their religion. Government cannot prohibit the free exercise of their religion.
The government CAN and does prevent the free exercise of the common religious belief that other people ought be forced to practice THIER religion. It protects the right of people to practice their religion to the extent that such practice doesn’t interfere with other people’s rights to practice their religions or not to practice any religion.
 
Pope Benedict recently talked about the dangers of secularism.
Do you have a link to these comments? I wonder if the word “secularism” isn’t translating correctly. I wonder if he means something like “militant atheism.” Denouncing secularism sounds crazy to me since secularism (ensuring freedom of religion by separating church and state) is one of the best political ideas that anyone ever came up with.
 
R Daneel

*That is a contradiction, all right. And I happen to disapprove of it. I hope you know that the phrase “under God” was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the 1950’s when there was a general fear of communism. Also the phrase “In God we trust” was not placed on the currency since the inception. *

“In God We Trust” was placed on currency with Lincoln’s approval during the Civil War.

At the Constitutional Convention, 1787, James Madison recorded the following remarks made by Benjamin Franklin to the president of the Convention:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”

The motion was approved by the delegates.

Doesn’t seem to me that the Founders were against pledging allegiance to the United States under the protection of God.
 
The government CAN and does prevent the free exercise of the common religious belief that other people ought be forced to practice THIER religion. It protects the right of people to practice their religion to the extent that such practice doesn’t interfere with other people’s rights to practice their religions or not to practice any religion.
Right, and thus the topic of this thread.
The government can prevent the free exercise of religion if it interferes with what other people want. Thus, through secularism, religion can be persecuted.
 
Right, and thus the topic of this thread.
The government can prevent the free exercise of religion if it interferes with what other people want. Thus, through secularism, religion can be persecuted.
Of course it CAN. If the Goverment is strong enough and so chooses, it can take away all your “rights”. In a “democracy” (which is rule of the majority) if 51% of the people decides that the other 49% should be sent into the gas-chambers, it will become a lawful endeavor. The definition of “democracy” is: “two wolves and one sheep are casting a vote about: ‘what will be the dinner tonight’…”.

But that is not the topic at all. Is it reasonable to assume that under a secular goverment the rights of free exercise of religion will be curtailed? Based upon the current examples it is not a reasonable assumption.
 
Right, and thus the topic of this thread.
The government can prevent the free exercise of religion if it interferes with what other people want. Thus, through secularism, religion can be persecuted.
I guess that is sort of true. Your religion can be persecuted under secularism but only if persecution is part of your religion. The liberal value of freedom of religion is akin to the liberal value of tolerance. We should be tolerant of all views except for the view that we ought to be intolerant. Even there, we give a lot of leeway.

It seems to me that the religious and nonreligious alike ought to cheer for secularism since secularism forbids religious persecution for all religions that don’t seek to dominate others. I don’t see why it ought to concern me that secularism may be regarded as persecuting religions that do seek to dominate others.

While secularism grants a lot of leeway for freedom of religion, we don’t need to push the idea so far so that anyone can claim a right to do anything whatsoever if she claims that her religion demands that she do it. No one has a right to refuse urgent medical treatment for their children in favor of prayer, for example. No one has a right to perform human sacrifices even if it is part of their religion. Is forbidding human sacrifice the sort of religious persecution in the name of secularism that you worry about?

Best,
Leela
 
Of course it CAN. If the Goverment is strong enough and so chooses, it can take away all your “rights”. In a “democracy” (which is rule of the majority) if 51% of the people decides that the other 49% should be sent into the gas-chambers, it will become a lawful endeavor. The definition of “democracy” is: “two wolves and one sheep are casting a vote about: ‘what will be the dinner tonight’…”.
That is not true. Democracy is a much deeper concept than “majority rules.” Democracy also includes protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority through recognizing rights of individuals such as freedom of religion.
 
Leela

Is forbidding human sacrifice the sort of religious persecution in the name of secularism that you worry about?

Yes. Over 40 million human sacrifices since Roe v Wade.
 
That is not true. Democracy is a much deeper concept than “majority rules.” Democracy also includes protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority through recognizing rights of individuals such as freedom of religion.
Let’s be precise. What you are talking about is a “constitutional republic” - where there is a constitution, which protects the “rights” of minorities. Democracy was invented by the Greeks, while the republic was invented by the Romans. Huge difference.
 
R Daneel

In a “democracy” (which is rule of the majority) if 51% of the people decides that the other 49% should be sent into the gas-chambers, it will become a lawful endeavor.

This could not be a lawful endeavor unless the 49% get a trial and are judged by a jury of their peers … guaranteed in the Constitution. That means you’ll need a lot more lawyers … as if we didn’t have too many already! :rolleyes:
 
I guess that is sort of true. Your religion can be persecuted under secularism but only if persecution is part of your religion.
Ok, but the problem is that religion can be persecuted and suppressed if someone claims that it “interferes” with their life. This is not a question of a “dominating religion” but of any religion that could offend a minority party. The religion doesn’t need to “dominate others” to be persecuted by the government. It can preach its own doctrine which can be considered “hate speech”. Even preaching this doctrine within the walls of its own church could be forcibly suppressed by the police under a secularist policy.
No one has a right to refuse urgent medical treatment for their children in favor of prayer, for example.
It depends where rights originate from. In secularism, rights cannot come from God but from the majority. So, rights are not inalienable or innate to human nature but are given by the government. They can change by political policy.
No one has a right to perform human sacrifices even if it is part of their religion.
Again, there’s nothing absolute about that in a secular system.
Is forbidding human sacrifice the sort of religious persecution in the name of secularism that you worry about?
I think I’ve answered this question for you already, but feel free to ask again if that would help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top