Is secularism sinister?

[reggieM]

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.

It will be lawful and can be considered morally correct also in atheistic terms.
In the Catholic moral system, however, it cannot be a just law or morally correct. It will always be a violation of God’s law.

That’s a major difference with a secular-based system.

 

[R_Daneel]

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!

Not in a democracy. In a constitutional republic, you are right. But the two are worlds apart. Yes, in the US there are far too many lawyers. An interesting trivia: in the US lives about 6% of the world’s population, but approximately 60% of the world’s lawyer’s population.

Let’s have some fun: “What is the difference between a lawyer and a flounder? Answer: one of them is a scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, disgusting creature; the other one is just a fish…”, and "What do you call one thousand lawyers on the bottom of the sea? Answer: “a promising start”.

 

[R_Daneel]

It will be lawful and can be considered morally correct also in atheistic terms.
In the Catholic moral system, however, it cannot be a just law or morally correct. It will always be a violation of God’s law.

It depends on who “interprets” God’s law.

That’s a major difference with a secular-based system.

There is no difference. In a theocracy anything goes that the people believe “correctly” represents “God’s law”.

 

[reggieM]

It depends on who “interprets” God’s law.

There is no difference. In a theocracy anything goes that the people believe “correctly” represents “God’s law”.

There’s an external reference point that anyone can review. Interpretations and applications of the law can vary. But the government cannot cite Catholic moral teaching to permit a reasonless slaughter of people as in the example you gave.

 

[Leela]

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.

“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.

 

[Leela]

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.
…
Again, there’s nothing absolute about that in a secular system.

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.

 

[reggieM]

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.

Ok, but I don’t think you’ve shown how persecution of religion is not something to fear in a secularist model. Again, secularism is oriented against-religion. It establishes “non-religion” as the baseline. Religion is “tolerated” in a secularist model. Religion is not seen as a positive good in itself, but as something to be controlled.

The suppression of all religious expression is not incompatible with secularism. Millitant atheists could use secularism as the weapon against religion (they already do) and if they had a majority, they could create an atheocracy.

It can be argued that religion itself – any religion – threatens secularism. Many atheists are waking up to that argument.

Even something small like the removal of tax exemption from religious bodies would have a strong, persecuting effect. It would close many churches and destroy many social outreach programs.

But if someone felt, in the name of secularism, that no public support at all should be given to any religion – then that would be the result.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*We should all agree that all Americans committed to freedom and democracy ought to be secularists. *

How do you define secularists? The term has come to be odious in many quarters. A secular government as opposed to a theocratic one is certainly preferable. But secularism does not repudiate religious principles, whereas atheistic secularism does. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. If secularism means to repudiate **all **religious influence, then it is godless, not exactly what the Founders had in mind. So when the Catholic bishops, for example, repudiate abortion on demand as evil, they have a right to do so, and the government has a right to be influenced by the wisdom of the Church. This does not amount to a theocratic government, because the bishops have no political power, no power indeed beyond moral persuasion. We have a secular government now that has condoned the slaughter of the unborn. I believe this policy is rooted in a godless secularism that repudiates even common sense in refusing to see and protect the humanity of the unborn.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

reggieM

Even something small like the removal of tax exemption from religious bodies would have a strong, persecuting effect. It would close many churches and destroy many social outreach programs.

By the same token, it would release the Churches from the requirement not to participate in political elections. The churches would have the same right any corporation and every citizen has, to back candidates of their choice. Losing tax exempt status would be a mixed blessing, one I don’t think atheists would like to see.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

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.

I don’t think you have top worry about theocracy in this country.

However, democracy by its definition does not oppose the domination of the majority over the minority. What good is a democracy if the minority can dominate the majority. On that basis, the decision of Roe v Wade could never have been reached, because the minority of the Supreme Court opposed it.

However, it is very typical of atheists, who are a minority, to want to prevent religious expressions in the public square, thereby upsetting the will of the majority to have them there.

 

[reggieM]

reggieM

Even something small like the removal of tax exemption from religious bodies would have a strong, persecuting effect. It would close many churches and destroy many social outreach programs.

By the same token, it would release the Churches from the requirement not to participate in political elections. The churches would have the same right any corporation and every citizen has, to back candidates of their choice. Losing tax exempt status would be a mixed blessing, one I don’t think atheists would like to see.

True, especially if that loss woke up the Catholic people to a greater support of the Church.
1st, they would have to support the parish enough to pay property and employment taxes.
2nd, if they responded faithfully to the message of their pastors.

Then there could be a cultural change, especially where Catholics are a majority.

By Catholic teaching (Dignitatis Humanae), we are not permitted to establish a Catholic State. But that doesn’t mean that many Catholic moral principles could not be encoded in the civil law.

I don’t know if atheists would have that much of a problem with it, except that our parishes could be used for political rallies, etc.

One thing is sure, it wouldn’t mean that the Church would necessarily die. We would have to sacrifice more to support it. Plus, persecution brings out greater loyalty and devotion. That happened in Mexico during the Masonic persecution there in the early 20th century.

So, it could be a very good thing, as you say.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Will there eventually be an “Unholy Inquisition” in Western democracies which imprisons believers in the name of freedom?

This is almost guaranteed; at least it will happen in those countries where religion does not have a powerful presence. Those countries which do have a powerful presence might find themselves dodging bullets.

 

[Leela]

Leela

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.

I don’t think you have top worry about theocracy in this country.

However, democracy by its definition does not oppose the domination of the majority over the minority. What good is a democracy if the minority can dominate the majority. On that basis, the decision of Roe v Wade could never have been reached, because the minority of the Supreme Court opposed it.

The minority is not supposed to dominate the majority either. Groups are not supposed to dominate other groups. Ideally, they are supposed to persuade them. What I mean by freedom from domination–what democracy means- is that the majority gets to conduct the business but it does not get to prevent the minority from peacefully trying to become a majority. If the government endorsed a particular religion, it would prevent other religions from trying to become more prevalent.

However, it is very typical of atheists, who are a minority, to want to prevent religious expressions in the public square, thereby upsetting the will of the majority to have them there.

Religious expression in the public square is entirely welcome. It is just the government rather than individuals that can’t have the appearance of endorsing any particular religion.

 

[Leela]

Leela

*We should all agree that all Americans committed to freedom and democracy ought to be secularists. *

How do you define secularists? The term has come to be odious in many quarters. A secular government as opposed to a theocratic one is certainly preferable. But secularism does not repudiate religious principles, whereas atheistic secularism does. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. If secularism means to repudiate **all **religious influence, then it is godless, not exactly what the Founders had in mind. So when the Catholic bishops, for example, repudiate abortion on demand as evil, they have a right to do so, and the government has a right to be influenced by the wisdom of the Church. This does not amount to a theocratic government, because the bishops have no political power, no power indeed beyond moral persuasion.

We have a secular government now that has condoned the slaughter of the unborn. I believe this policy is rooted in a godless secularism that repudiates even common sense in refusing to see and protect the humanity of the unborn.

Yep, the government sees the unborn as nonpersons and corporations as persons. The conservatives are not serving the interests of Christians. Vote them out.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

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.

You must be unaware of the oppression of Christians…

.
In Mexico? I sure am ignorant of that.

“As Mexico entered the mid-twentieth century the more violent oppression of earlier in the century had waned, but it (the Church) remained severely suppressed. By 1940 it “legally had no corporate existence, no real estate, no schools, no monasteries or convents, no foreign priests, no right to defend itself publicly or in the courts, and no hope that its legal and actual situations would improve. Its clergy were forbidden to wear clerical garb, to vote, to celebrate public religious ceremonies, and to engage in politics,” but the restrictions were not always enforced.” (wikipedia)

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.

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 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…

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

 

[Charlemagne_II]

reggieM

So, it could be a very good thing, as you say.

I’m just now thinking about the early Church. I don’t know if the Romans taxed the early Christian churches or any other religious groups. Taxed or not taxed, the Church grew by leaps and bounds in four centuries to drive paganism underground and become the religion of the empire.

If it could do it once, it can do it again.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

*In Mexico? I sure am ignorant of that. *

In Spain during the 1930s 13 bishops were executed, along with about three thousand priests and nuns. That’s what you can get from a godless secular government.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

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

 

[JDaniel]

Oh, brother. Do you really believe that? If you ever get persecuted for your beliefs, you can count on me

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

(and many others like me) to hurry to your side, and do our best to protect your freedom to worship according to your most cherished beliefs.

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 firmly believe that your freedom to worship is exactly as precious as my freedom not to worship, moreover, the two cannot be separated.

Precisely.

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.

But there is no danger of that in a civilized, secular Constitutional Republic

“Constitutional,” interesting qualifier.

no matter what any idiot thinks in their paranoid fear of a “vast, left-wing conspiracy”. I wonder, if I could count on you in a theoretical Catholic theocracy?

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! )

Somehow I am not sure. But then again, God does not grant any “rights” to religious freedom.

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

It is there in the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt love God, thy Lord with all your heart and soul” - demanded, mandated and commanded.

You could always say, “No.”

God bless,
jd

 

[Leela]

reggieM

Even something small like the removal of tax exemption from religious bodies would have a strong, persecuting effect. It would close many churches and destroy many social outreach programs.

By the same token, it would release the Churches from the requirement not to participate in political elections. The churches would have the same right any corporation and every citizen has, to back candidates of their choice. Losing tax exempt status would be a mixed blessing, one I don’t think atheists would like to see.

Any church can can opt out of their tax exempt status and start endorsing political candidates at any time they choose.