Secularism on the Rise in the West

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Atheistic rule is where those in power reject religion whatever the population believe.

Wrong here. First off being atheist has nothing to do with a system of government. Secondly secular systems take good ideas of governance from any group including religious groups. They care about good ideas of governance regardless of the person or group that presented them.

I agree with the secular definition. But my definition of ‘atheist rule’ is point out that even if those in power reject theism, such as the Stalinist regime did - atheism was the formal position of the communist party, it has no bearing on what the population believes.

 

[Freddy]

Now if you are saying that the political party that was in opposition to the political control of the church in Russia is what you would label “Atheism”, I wouldn’t.

I can only pass on this quote: 'The Society of Militant Atheists, under Stalin’s orders, issued on May 15th 1932, the “Five Year Plan of Atheism” – by May 1st 1937, such as the “Plan”, “not a single house of prayer shall remain in the territory of the USSR, and the very concept of God must be banished from the Soviet Union as a survival of the Middle Ages and an instrument for the oppression of the working masses.”! Paul Dixon on Stalin’s Five Year Plan of Atheism | Quotes at Afterall.net

They weren’t simply anti religious. As was said, ‘the very concept of God must be banished…’.

It probably sounds as nonsensical to you as it does to me. But atheism was one of the official positions held by the party. If there ever has been a suggestion that atheist governments have existed, then Stalin’s is the number one contender.

 

[Sarcelle]

Mainly they failed because they were not a system of government of the people. They were a religion of the cult of personality…in Russia, first Lennon then Stalin. Yes, they tried being atheistic but you can no more force atheism than you can force any religion upon people.

Tell that to the CCP. They have been putting Uighur Muslims in concentration camps. You can’t force belief or non-belief on anyone but that doesn’t mean there won’t be any attempts to do so.

 

[Sarcelle]

I presume you don’t live in a theocracy. So how does it work where you live? I guess pretty much the same as where I live.

I don’t live in a theocracy but I live in a society which recognizes the rights of the individual regardless of religion.

However where does this concept of the rights of the individual come from? What is its history?

 

[Cirdan_XII]

We seem to be in a societal shift.

Christendom is definitely at a nadir—as an institution, churches and Christian schools and structures like hospitals and social service are at their lowest point in centuries.

At the same time, some people seem to be aware that the secular institutions such as journalism are also in deep trouble.

But it’s too early to see how this will all shake out.

I don’t believe the Catholic Church will die, however.

I agree with this.

Christianity may be in trouble, but secularism / atheism isn’t in genuinely better shape. It doesn’t have answers and isn’t stable.

I think there will be a swing back towards spirituality, but the question is, is the Catholic Church ready to lead that swing, or will it benefit other religions and things like esoterism?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I presume you don’t live in a theocracy. So how does it work where you live? I guess pretty much the same as where I live.

I don’t live in a theocracy but I live in a society which recognizes the rights of the individual regardless of religion.

However where does this concept of the rights of the individual come from? What is its history?

As all societies have it, it must be common to all. What do you think could that be?

 

[Sarcelle]

You sure all societies have it?

I’ve lived in Asia. The individual does not have any importance in the culture.

Sure the laws of some Asian countries may recognize individual rights but I think this is due to Western influence.

 

[Pattylt]

Tell that to the CCP. They have been putting Uighur Muslims in concentration camps. You can’t force belief or non-belief on anyone but that doesn’t mean there won’t be any attempts to do so.

Religions are just as capable of doing these things, too. Muslims in some countries aren’t too kind to any other religion! Plus, are the people of the CCP voting to do this to the Uighur Muslims? They aren’t a government of the people in the slightest! It’s not the people’s will being done…it the cult in charge.

 

[Sarcelle]

It’s not the religion or the lack of it that’s the real root cause of forcing other people what to believe.

If you managed to get rid of all religions and everyone became secular there will be still forcing others to do or believe what one wants.

It’s people. People are the root cause. People just like to control other people.

 

[Pattylt]

People just like to control other people.

Yep.

That’s why the atheistic societies that have so far existed were doomed to failure…instead of religion and worshiping a God, it becomes a cult of personality and worshiping a leader. You don’t even have to be atheist to fall into this. Many tyrants in history were religious as well.

 

[Freddy]

You sure all societies have it?

I’ve lived in Asia. The individual does not have any importance in the culture.

Sure the laws of some Asian countries may recognize individual rights but I think this is due to Western influence.

I’ve also lived in Asia. And I can most definitley say that the individual concept of human rights are no different to any other part of the world. And I’m not talking about legalese. I mean the concept.

Aboriginal concepts of how we should behave to one another are based on the Dreamtime which goes back more than 65,000 years. Which is somewhat older than any ‘Western influence’.

As I say, it’s common in all societies. Why do you think so?