Secularism is Ideal because it is inclusive?

[Zatzat]

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

There isn’t a contradiction, not in the least.

Secularism allows for people to worship whomever or whatever they want.

Secularism would not allow religious convictions to drive public policy.

Take for example, Muslim women who choose to wear the Niqab. In a secular society, they are free to wear the Niqab, but they aren’t free to dictate that all women must wear the Niqab.

 

[JRKH]

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?

A politician should act upon his or her convictions, religious or otherwise. If a person running for office is a practicing catholic and the voting public knows that, the voting public, by electing this person knows (or can easily find out) what catholic convictions are. Same with any other religion whether it is Muslim, Wiccan or whatever.

In the US our constitution does NOT say there should be a “seperation of Church and State”. It says that,* “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”*
Free excersize of religion, like free speech means that I, or any politician, has the right to act upon their religious convictions just as much as an atheist has.

As I said earlier, sinnerdexter’s premise is that “secularism” is best because it is inclusive. You demonstrate that, at least from your perspective, secularism should NOT be inclusive. It should exclude religious thought.

Peace
James

 

[Timbothefiveth]

In a secular society, they are free to wear the Niqab, but they aren’t free to dictate that all women must wear the Niqab.

Or the flipside of the coin: In a secular society, Catholics are allowed not to cheat workers of their wages. They are not allowed to keep others from cheating workers of their wages.
Tell me why that couldn’t happen.

Ideas should be evaluated on their merits, not whether or not they are religious.
There is indeed a contradiction here.

 

[Zatzat]

Or the flipside of the coin: In a secular society, Catholics are allowed not to cheat workers of their wages. They are not allowed to keep others from cheating workers of their wages.

In the secular society in which I live, it is laws, not religious convictions, that prohibit people from being cheated of their wages.

 

[edwest2]

There isn’t a contradiction, not in the least.

Secularism allows for people to worship whomever or whatever they want.

Secularism would not allow religious convictions to drive public policy.

Take for example, Muslim women who choose to wear the Niqab. In a secular society, they are free to wear the Niqab, but they aren’t free to dictate that all women must wear the Niqab.

You don’t seem to understand the idea of worship. It doesn’t consist of going to some religious building, performing a ritual and going home. You name the religion or belief system and you have to take those beliefs and put them into action. It doesn’t matter if you belong to Krishna or follow the teachings of Buddha; in that sense, it’s all the same.

The version of inclusive being described here boils down to believe whatever you want but keep your beliefs away from the government. Obviously, the idea of secular humanism is being promoted here. And by the way, I know people who have such views but what am I supposed to do? Say nothing? Do nothing? How am I included?

Peace,
Ed

 

[sinnerdexter]

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”.

Legalize abortion is totally different than contraceptives issues. This is a continuation of Help in answering a NFP query from the Philippines against the provisions on RH Bill, right? I may agree with Catholic Church if they are against the legalization abortion in the country.

But discouraging people or opposing the commercialization of condoms is like telling us not to masturbate! I bet, most of these Priests does masturbate once awhile.

Now, as of condoms is immoral for them. So, masturbating is also immoral?

 

[sinnerdexter]

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…

Remember, I am only arguing in favor of the passage of HB 5043 (REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND POPULATION DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2008) which DOES NOT LEGALIZE ABORTION. (Unlike most countries, abortion is illegal in the Philippines except if the mother’s life is at stake). HB 5043 includes though the use of artificial birth control methods which the Catholic Church opposes. I believe that passage of the bill is a good start for a national population control policy that will slow down or decrease the rapid population growth that is negating the improvements in the economy and excessively burdens the meager economic resources of the government and thus further aggravates poverty. I believe that HB 5043 is good for the state and is good for the people.

Separation of CHURCH and STATE (US) says no law shall be passed respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.

SECULARISM means that what is good for the people must take precedence over religious considerations in civil affairs. (Of course, I’m not in the legal field so somebody check me on this.)

Let’s say, I am a Catholic legislator and HB 5043 is up for a vote. I know and I believe that HB 5043 is good for the people but some of its provisions are against the teachings of my Catholic faith, and my parish priest is hot on my tail telling me to vote NO. But as a state legislator, I am duty bound to be SECULAR, that is, I must see to it that the good of the people must take precedence over my religious considerations.

I will vote YES to HB 5043 because it is good for the people (secular vote), and also because voting NO on the grounds of my religious beliefs means I am favoring my religious beliefs over the good of the people (non-secular or religious vote). So, YES to HB 5043.

As a civil servant, I have played my separation of Church and State card right, and I proved that my love of country takes precedence over my religion. That is patriotism. As a legislator and a state citizen, I am in a WIN-WIN situation.

Of course, as a Catholic, my parish priest might tell me that my YES vote to HB 5043 might send me to hell, but then again, I, like Abou Ben Adhem, can always ask my guardian angel to “Write me as one who loves his fellow men (and women).” That is my ace in the hole. DEAL!

 

[sinnerdexter]

In the US our constitution does NOT say there should be a “seperation of Church and State”. It says that,* “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”*
Free excersize of religion, like free speech means that I, or any politician, has the right to act upon their religious convictions just as much as an atheist has.

As I said earlier, sinnerdexter’s premise is that “secularism” is best because it is inclusive. You demonstrate that, at least from your perspective, secularism should NOT be inclusive. It should exclude religious thought.

If you vote yes on HB 5043 (REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND POPULATION DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2008, standby for heavy rolls from the Philippine Catholic Church (though not necessarily from the Vatican). You will not be given communion or perhaps threaten you with Excommunication. There is no clear and distinct separation between Church and State in the Philippines. It’s obvious, the Church meddles too much in the affairs of the State.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Eventually the Vatican, including the Philippine Church, will soften its stand on birth control. It is just slow to change. It took the Vatican 25 years to exonerate Joan of Arc, heroine of the Hundred Years War, and 489 years to canonize her. It took 359 years for the Vatican to admit that it did Galileo Galilei a lot of wrong and was wrong in convicting him, and 65 years to apologize for its role in the Holocaust. So it can change.

Also, once HB 5043 is made into law and the Filipino Catholics are empowered, they will be like most Catholics in the world, especially the Italians.

 

[centurionguard]

Eventually the Vatican, including the Philippine Church, will soften its stand on birth control. It is just slow to change. It took the Vatican 25 years to exonerate Joan of Arc, heroine of the Hundred Years War, and 489 years to canonize her. It took 359 years for the Vatican to admit that it did Galileo Galilei a lot of wrong and was wrong in convicting him, and 65 years to apologize for its role in the Holocaust. So it can change.

Also, once HB 5043 is made into law and the Filipino Catholics are empowered, they will be like most Catholics in the world, especially the Italians.

**Poor analogy if you ask me, if your inferring that the Catholic Church will relent its stance on birth control methods used in modern society. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church will never soften its moral stance on birth control. **

 

[sinnerdexter]

**Poor analogy if you ask me, if your inferring that the Catholic Church will relent its stance on birth control methods used in modern society. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church will never soften its moral stance on birth control. **

Italians use every form of contraception known to man. They are sexually active (specially the teens), yet their population remains relatively low. The last time I was in Italy was back in the 90’s. I’m sure a lot has changed over the years. I remember I was in Naples (Napoli) and me and my shipmates were doing some “EYEBALL LIBERTY” and enjoying the scenes and we ate at this fancy restaurant by the beach which the locals use as ‘lovers lane" at sundown. Curiosity strikes so we stroll down the beach after dinner just to see if it’s true. Jeez, sure enough, we thought we saw a bunch of seals mating. They use newspapers, sleeping bags, plastic bags, cardboards for concealment and some are just bold enough not to conceal at all. The space between couples were littered with used condoms. We were grinning from ear to ear. On dimly lit back roads, it’s fairly common to see small cars parked on the sidewalk with newspapers draped over the windows and windshields, yet the car is rocking violently and making weird sounds while parked. You heard the old saying…If the car is rockin’ keep on truckin’. We did. Now we know Chastity is something the Italians are not keen on doing. They enjoy “LA DOLCE VITA” every chance they get. Perhaps we should blame Marco Polo for bringing Noodles to Italy. After all, they were never the same after sampling that exotic pasta from the Far East.

 

[JRKH]

Legalize abortion is totally different than contraceptives issues. This is a continuation of Help in answering a NFP query from the Philippines against the provisions on RH Bill, right? I may agree with Catholic Church if they are against the legalization abortion in the country.

Actually no this is not a continuation of the other thread you mention above. It is a new thread based on your premise that secularism is the ideal because it is so inclusive of all views. A premise that, at least in the opinion of Zatzat, seems to mean that secularism is incluse, exclusive, of religious views.

But discouraging people or opposing the commercialization of condoms is like telling us not to masturbate! I bet, most of these Priests does masturbate once awhile.

Now, as of condoms is immoral for them. So, masturbating is also immoral?

This is not on topic. Sin remains sin whether it is “legal” or not.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Remember, I am only arguing in favor of the passage of HB 5043 (REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND POPULATION DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2008) which DOES NOT LEGALIZE ABORTION. (Unlike most countries, abortion is illegal in the Philippines except if the mother’s life is at stake). HB 5043 includes though the use of artificial birth control methods which the Catholic Church opposes. I believe that passage of the bill is a good start for a national population control policy that will slow down or decrease the rapid population growth that is negating the improvements in the economy and excessively burdens the meager economic resources of the government and thus further aggravates poverty. I believe that HB 5043 is good for the state and is good for the people.

Separation of CHURCH and STATE (US) says no law shall be passed respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.

SECULARISM means that what is good for the people must take precedence over religious considerations in civil affairs. (Of course, I’m not in the legal field so somebody check me on this.)

Let’s say, I am a Catholic legislator and HB 5043 is up for a vote. I know and I believe that HB 5043 is good for the people but some of its provisions are against the teachings of my Catholic faith, and my parish priest is hot on my tail telling me to vote NO. But as a state legislator, I am duty bound to be SECULAR, that is, I must see to it that the good of the people must take precedence over my religious considerations.

I will vote YES to HB 5043 because it is good for the people (secular vote), and also because voting NO on the grounds of my religious beliefs means I am favoring my religious beliefs over the good of the people (non-secular or religious vote). So, YES to HB 5043.

As a civil servant, I have played my separation of Church and State card right, and I proved that my love of country takes precedence over my religion. That is patriotism. As a legislator and a state citizen, I am in a WIN-WIN situation.

Of course, as a Catholic, my parish priest might tell me that my YES vote to HB 5043 might send me to hell, but then again, I, like Abou Ben Adhem, can always ask my guardian angel to “Write me as one who loves his fellow men (and women).” That is my ace in the hole. DEAL!

OK - Lets look at your duties as a legislator in a predominatly Catholic country. We must not forget this because it is important to what is “good for the people”.
Assuming you are elected from a predominatly Catholic district we can assume that the “will of the people” in your district generally aligns with the “will of the Church”. If this is the case then a YES vote violates the will ofthe people in your district and thus you have violated your SECULAR duty to represent the will of the people in your district.

Now lets say you go ahead and voth YES on this bill. Most of the people in your district, and in most districts, being catholic, refuse to use these ABC methods because they violate Church Law. You’ve gained nothing. No reduction in births etc.
So the Government (with your support) redoubles it’s efforts to “educate” the people and get them to use ABC to reduce the population growth in spite of the religious views of the majority of people.
As a result more and more catholics commit the sin of using ABC methods and as a result of this die in a state of mortal sin and go to hell. (seems that “eternal life” and the “good of the people’s souls” don’t figure much into “secular” politics) So just how do you think your “trump card” will play when you stand before God at your own judgement?

You wish to vote in favor of this bill because it is “good for the people”. Yet can it truly be “good for the People” if obeying such a Law violates their faith and sends tehm to eternal damnation? Do you wish to have such a thing on your conscience?

I am not judging you or anyone else here, but only placing these thoughts before you for consideration.

“Secularism”, in your view, is inclusive. It looks at all the options and picks the best. Yet you limit the options only to that which discounts religious views and looks only at the short term present. You ignore the long term (eternal) consequences of the actions even though your own faith, and the faith of a majority of your consituants, tells you there are grave consequences. Can you vote for a bill that you know will promote sin? That you know will cause people to lose their souls?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

If you vote yes on HB 5043 (REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND POPULATION DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2008, standby for heavy rolls from the Philippine Catholic Church (though not necessarily from the Vatican). You will not be given communion or perhaps threaten you with Excommunication. There is no clear and distinct separation between Church and State in the Philippines. It’s obvious, the Church meddles too much in the affairs of the State.

Why is this meddling too much in the affairs of state?

Is it your contention that a private organization should not be allowed to privately chastize it’s members for violating the private by-laws of the private organization to which they privately belong?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Eventually the Vatican, including the Philippine Church, will soften its stand on birth control. It is just slow to change. It took the Vatican 25 years to exonerate Joan of Arc, heroine of the Hundred Years War, and 489 years to canonize her. It took 359 years for the Vatican to admit that it did Galileo Galilei a lot of wrong and was wrong in convicting him, and 65 years to apologize for its role in the Holocaust. So it can change.

Also, once HB 5043 is made into law and the Filipino Catholics are empowered, they will be like most Catholics in the world, especially the Italians.

Should this ever happen than a Catholic politician would be able to vote in favor os a bill such as you are discussing. Until then - No.

Peace
James