Secularism is Ideal because it is inclusive?

[JRKH]

The following was posted on another thread and I was so intrigued by it that I felt is was worth it’s own thread.

Source Thread Here

While I agree with biblical commands to love, I think secularism is not a dangerous idea. It is in fact the most ideal because secularism is inclusive, it embraces everybody and everyone. It includes religion, science, philosophy… everything. Secularism promotes the competition of the best ideas.

This was in response to my suggestion that “compartmentalizing” religious from secular views (for example re: contraception) was extremely dangerous.

For definitions of “Secularism” I found the following:
Wikipedia
New Advent

So what say you. Is “secularism…the most ideal”??

Peace
James

 

[sinnerdexter]

Let me start with examples of countries with secular government: Vietnam, Japan, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea, Italy, Tunisia, Bangladesh, and Iran - all with different religions. What is common to all of them? A national population control policy! What else is common to all of them and is the more important? Each of those nations DID NOT and DO NOT let religion influence the adoption and implementation of its national population control policy. Italy even dropped Roman Catholicism as its state religion but Italians remain staunchly Catholic.

A nation’s population control policy is a STATE (the people) policy and it must be a SECULAR choice not a CLERICAL or religious one.

Not so in the Philippines. Since the mid 60’s, Population Commission (POPCOM) recommended a population control policy, but was never really implemented because successive administrations did not support it. Why? The Philippine Church, not the Vatican, hung a Damocles’ sword over the government’s head. During the Marcos years it was dubbed “critical collaboration” the administration could go its merry way for so long as it went by the Church’s teachings and policies. Marcos lasted until 1986.

The succeeding administrations, knowing the power of EDSA and the Church’s clout over the people, shifted to “critical solidarity” with the Church that is. Ss the Church goes, so does the State. Former Pres. Fidel Ramos, being a Protestant, tried to be more liberal when it came to birth control policy but got nowhere. I kind of wonder why a known womanizer replaced him. And President Gloria Arroyo, who admitted practicing artificial birth control, would not let her poor people practice it. Such is the power of the Church.

 

[JRKH]

Let me start with examples of countries with secular government: Vietnam, Japan, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea, Italy, Tunisia, Bangladesh, and Iran - all with different religions. What is common to all of them? A national population control policy! What else is common to all of them and is the more important? Each of those nations DID NOT and DO NOT let religion influence the adoption and implementation of its national population control policy. Italy even dropped Roman Catholicism as its state religion but Italians remain staunchly Catholic.

A nation’s population control policy is a STATE (the people) policy and it must be a SECULAR choice not a CLERICAL or religious one.

Not so in the Philippines. Since the mid 60’s, Population Commission (POPCOM) recommended a population control policy, but was never really implemented because successive administrations did not support it. Why? The Philippine Church, not the Vatican, hung a Damocles’ sword over the government’s head. During the Marcos years it was dubbed “critical collaboration” the administration could go its merry way for so long as it went by the Church’s teachings and policies. Marcos lasted until 1986.

The succeeding administrations, knowing the power of EDSA and the Church’s clout over the people, shifted to “critical solidarity” with the Church that is. Ss the Church goes, so does the State. Former Pres. Fidel Ramos, being a Protestant, tried to be more liberal when it came to birth control policy but got nowhere. I kind of wonder why a known womanizer replaced him. And President Gloria Arroyo, who admitted practicing artificial birth control, would not let her poor people practice it. Such is the power of the Church.

In the bolded section aren’t you seperating the “People” from “The State”?
If “the people” believe that a policy is a bad policy - and their reasons are religious, - should they ignore their religious convictions in favor of some other, non-religious “convictions” or arguments?

I see by your post that The Church has greater influence in the Philipines than it does in the US and there seems to be religious, social and political issues that are not being adequately addressed (corruption, education, catechesis, jobs etc) but you may be making the same mistake that some make here. That is the idea that religious beliefs should not enter into politics.
Some here in the US have the mistaken idea that “seperation of Church and State” should extend to the voting booth. That we should not vote for or against someone based upon our religious convictions (which are very “social” by the way). Even some of our Christian Politicians deny tenets of their faith (compartmentalizing faith from politics) with the claim they must represent “All” of the people.
Yet if these people are honest about their faith convictions in their campaigns and are elected they need not go against their beliefs. If they are honest and are NOT elected, then they can work outside of elected office and still not go against their beliefs. It is when such people are dishonest about their faith convictions that the trouble starts.
“…What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world but loses his soul…”

The church must teach that which is given her by God. Civil government must, likewise, act in accordance with what it believe is for the Good of the people. When either or both of these fail in these missions, to educate and to build community, the outcome is poverty, suffering, and sin.

Peace
James

 

[stuart12]

Secularism is the best choice? It includes everyone? Obviously not the unborn who are ruthlessly murdered in the name of human rights.

It is hardly inclusive to religious people, who are hounded out and being told their views are out-dated and bigotted.

 

[HickmanJosh]

who says Christianity isent all inclusive?

 

[flyingfish]

What is the alternative? A religious government? Which religion? What if at some point the majority of people were Christian but later became Wiccan or Muslim and decide to change the state religion? If you have a Christian government, which variant of Christianity will it be?

America is mostly Protestant, if there was a state religion in America, it wouldn’t be Catholicism. Would you want to be made a member of some protestant denomination by the government? How far would it go? Would you be required to donate to said denomination? Attend their services? Would your children be indoctrinated into that religion in school?

 

[sinnerdexter]

Iran might be in the news now for its supposedly nuclear ambitions, but a few years back, the UN lauded it as the best example of a country which solved poverty through population control. And you know what, the Philippine clergy might even pick up a hint or two, if it really wants to alleviate poverty in the Philippines, from the Iranian religious leaders how the latter hastened economic progress by issuing fatwas (religious edicts) promoting population control.

Google , POPULATION CONTROL IN IRAN and then take your pick among among the links about the subject. It’s all there. Try this one:

earthpolicy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2001/update4ss

 

[hellopeople]

What is the alternative? A religious government? Which religion? What if at some point the majority of people were Christian but later became Wiccan or Muslim and decide to change the state religion? If you have a Christian government, which variant of Christianity will it be?

America is mostly Protestant, if there was a state religion in America, it wouldn’t be Catholicism. Would you want to be made a member of some protestant denomination by the government? How far would it go? Would you be required to donate to said denomination? Attend their services? Would your children be indoctrinated into that religion in school?

So true. On an ideal level, I think a religious state could work, but only if their laws and rules were things that made sense to everyone, not just people of that religion. But, on the ground, religious governments never seem to turn out well.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Secularism is the best choice? It includes everyone? Obviously not the unborn who are ruthlessly murdered in the name of human rights.

It is hardly inclusive to religious people, who are hounded out and being told their views are out-dated and bigotted.

There must be clear separation of the church and the state. For a very good reason. Religion itself is deeply divided and confused. If the state is to have a religion, which one? It will only invite endless debates, division and war. That is why the government is secular. Because secularism embraces the ideas of everybody and every institution. Science, religion, philosophy, arts, political science, economics… everybody can participate in the game of ideas.
It is impartial because the decision to choose the best idea as a matter of policy is based on merit, rationality and what is best for the people. Obviously, religion can always participate in this game, but it cannot dictate or use its power to maneuver the government to its ends.
Our leaders must always be reminded of this very important distinction. The church cannot interfere in the affairs of the state. The state is secular. We as a nation is often confused on our direction because religion is deeply interwoven in the fabric of our government and almost everything else. We collectively fail to understand that religion IS NOT the Only avenue of great ideas. It is just one of the many and it cannot stake a claim of superiority and exclusive morality over the others – science, philosophy, political science, economics,…etc.

 

[Mist]

The Asian countries listed are fine mainly because they still believe in their culture and way of life. The Western countries… however are not as fortunate in this matter. Secularism is good because it defuses tensions but doesn’t find a way to solve the problems and leads to more tension.

Secularism may seem warm and inviting but it merely devalues everything around it and proceeds to make everyone “equal” and by that measure, it is inclusive.

 

[centurionguard]

The following was posted on another thread and I was so intrigued by it that I felt is was worth it’s own thread.

While I agree with biblical commands to love, I think secularism is not a dangerous idea. It is in fact the most ideal because secularism is inclusive, it embraces everybody and everyone. It includes religion, science, philosophy… everything. Secularism promotes the competition of the best ideas.

This was in response to my suggestion that “compartmentalizing” religious from secular views (for example re: contraception) was extremely dangerous.

For definitions of “Secularism” I found the following:
Wikipedia
New Advent

So what say you. Is “secularism…the most ideal”??

Peace
James

**I particularly enjoyed the (“Criticism in the New Advent definition of Secularism”)
For me looking how Secularism places it’s own bias defined value on Human Life and with it’s emphasis on subjectivity, secular humanism, more and more today society, (“tends to equate personal dignity with the capacity for verbal and explicit or at least perceptible, communication”) This individualistic and functional view of life’s meaning arises out of a secular culture and society that no longer believes in a Divine Creator, a spiritual immortal soul, redemption or a unique divine origin and destiny for the human race. The academic community of human sciences and media today consider this humanistic approach to be self-evident. Assuming the goal-orientated of scientific reasoning and technology, humanistic ethics is utilitarian, situationist, and consequentialist.
A much different vision of life’s meaning and value for me handed down by Christ through Christian tradition far surpasses the humanistic views on the value of life. **

 

[JRKH]

There must be clear separation of the church and the state. For a very good reason. Religion itself is deeply divided and confused. If the state is to have a religion, which one? It will only invite endless debates, division and war. That is why the government is secular.

To ALL - I am not promoting the idea of Government religion - I never have.

Because secularism embraces the ideas of everybody and every institution. Science, religion, philosophy, arts, political science, economics… everybody can participate in the game of ideas.

But does it really? That has not been the case here. For instance, every year there are huge “pro-life” rallies across the country culminating in a march, speeches etc in Washington DC attended by thousands of people. All of this to try and get the government to recognize the rights of the unborn. To repeal legalized abortion. Of course much of this is aimed less at the politicians themselves and more at changing public opinion. So far so good.
Except -
The major news outlets virtually ignored it. If it was carried at all it was only in brief mentions. Public opinion has no chance to be changed if the “powers that be” will not permit it - and that can be just as true for non-religious groups as religious ones

It is impartial because the decision to choose the best idea as a matter of policy is based on merit, rationality and what is best for the people. Obviously, religion can always participate in this game, but it cannot dictate or use its power to maneuver the government to its ends.

Which “merits” and who’s “rationality” and “best for” which “people”?
Such words are easy to toss out and they are just as easy to twist and distort.

Our leaders must always be reminded of this very important distinction. The church cannot interfere in the affairs of the state. The state is secular. We as a nation is often confused on our direction because religion is deeply interwoven in the fabric of our government and almost everything else. We collectively fail to understand that religion IS NOT the Only avenue of great ideas. It is just one of the many and it cannot stake a claim of superiority and exclusive morality over the others – science, philosophy, political science, economics,…etc.

When you say “deeply interwoven” what do you mean.
Are there actual Laws giving The Church authority in the Philipine Government?
I wish to understand.

Peace
James

 

[sinnerdexter]

Secularism is the best choice? It includes everyone? Obviously not the unborn who are ruthlessly murdered in the name of human rights.

If the unborn were ruthlessly murdered… this does it mean, all men are murderers? I mean, would you agree that about 99% of men are doing the masturbation
'n jol 'ol night?

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by stuart12
Secularism is the best choice? It includes everyone? Obviously not the unborn who are ruthlessly murdered in the name of human rights.

This is a poor argument to what was said. I believe that you are better than this response indicates.

You have made the argument that secularism is best because it gives equal right to all to be involved in the decision making process and looks at all of the options and chooses the best option to benefit the most people.
So do you, as a Catholic, believe that legalized, on demand, abortion of a perfectly healthy fetus is in the best interest of the people?
Has secularism made the best choice here?
Should those who oppose such slaughter simply sit down and shut up because the government has spoken on the matter?

Abortion is a very good example of how secularism does not always work for the “Good of the People”.

Peace
James

 

[Zatzat]

Let me start with examples of countries with secular government: Vietnam, Japan, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea, Italy, Tunisia, Bangladesh, and Iran - all with different religions. What is common to all of them? A national population control policy!

What about Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, Iceland etc…all secular governments, none have population control and by all definitions, all are free societies .

( United States is on paper, a secular nation, with a separation of Church / State, but religion has managed to seep into the pores of American politics)

Also, could you please cite a source that highlights that Japan has a national population control policy?

 

[JRKH]

What about Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, Iceland etc…all secular governments, none have population control and by all definitions, all are free societies .

(United States is on paper, a secular nation, with a separation of Church / State, but religion has managed to seep into the pores of American politics)

Also, could you please cite a source that highlights that Japan has a national population control policy?

Interesting how sinnerdexter’s premise about secularism is that it is so “inclusive” and by your statement (bolded above) you demonstrate that, at least by how you view secularism, it is not “inclusive” declaring that religion has no business in politics. That Politicians should not have and act upon religious convictions. hmmmm…

Peace
James

 

[Zatzat]

religion has no business in politics. That Politicians should not have and act upon religious convictions.

This is exactly what I believe.

Which religion is the politician going to listen to?

Should a politician who is a practicing Wiccan, should she act upon her wiccan religious convictions while in public office?

 

[JRKH]

This is exactly what I believe.

Which religion is the politician going to listen to?

Should a politician who is a practicing Wiccan, should she act upon her wiccan religious convictions while in public office?

Which “convictions” should a politician act on in public office?

Peace
James

 

[Zatzat]

Which “convictions” should a politician act on in public office?

Peace
James

For starters, in a stable and democratic society, convictions that are in line with an enshrined Constitution.

Now, back over to you;

Which religion should a politician act on in public office?

 

[Timbothefiveth]

It is impartial because the decision to choose the best idea as a matter of policy is based on merit, rationality and what is best for the people. Obviously, religion can always participate in this game, but it cannot dictate or use its power to maneuver the government to its ends.
Our leaders must always be reminded of this very important distinction. The church cannot interfere in the affairs of the state.

Anyone notice the contradiction here? Secularism is good because it allows the best ideals-unless one of those is religious.