Uh excuse me? “Fairest”? In quotes? Like I said that? Please show me where. I said and implied nothing about “fair”. Fairness is a value judgement that requires accepting a worldview. To judge the hammer using a hammer to judge is silly.
No, I’m talking about what can work. What worldview will be successful in the task of allowing multiple other worldviews to coexist in pluralistic societies let alone a global economy of increasingly entwined cultures? No individual religion’s worldview will do that job; secularism as a basis for law does. Since we live in the modern world together with other religious viewpoints, secularism will therefore be dominant worldview governmental structures. Not because it is fair, but because this is the world in which we live. And the advantages of being part of that modern world are great enough that few states will successfully deal themselves out of accepting secularisms basic tenets.
In the US, it is called the Constitution. It has worked pretty well. Passing laws based on the precepts of a particular religion is establishing it, and is illegal. For example, passing laws requiring the teaching of creationism is illegal.
There is plenty of evidence against god, namely in showing that claims made about his interaction with the world are false. But that is not the issue. If I want to pass a law saying that Pink the Holy Fairy told me that all blondes need to have their hair dyed red, I’d better well prove there is such a thing. Me telling you to prove he doesn’t exist doesn’t cut it, and neither does your or anyone else’s mythology.
And you have done nothing but assert that refusing to accept a religious basis for law devalues anyone. Does not forbidding “immodest” clothing on women debase Islam? It looks to me like you are advocating theocracy to avoid hurting the feelings of the religious who might not get their way.
If you have to ask this question, I don’t want you anywhere near a voting machine. After the bloodshed of the previous century, you can’t tell the difference between tyranny and freedom? This position is a perfect example of why much religion scares the crap out of me.
First, let me appologise for the quotes. I tend to overuse them in my typing, it’s one of my foibles. I didn’t mean to say that you actually said fair, in general when I quote people I use the quote boxes, or at least use more than one world.
The main problem with your logic though is the you assume secularism / pluralism fits with all different worldviews. This is NOT the case. There are many worldviews that are exclusive in their claims. A worldview can only exist in a pluralist context if it agrees that agrees essentially that there are many truths, of which it has one. Many worldviews are simply not like that. These worldviews are fundamentally opposed to secularism as they fundamentally disagree with the pluralistic assumptions on which it is based. You can keep claiming that secularism encorporates all worldviews but it is simply not true.
So for instance consider what is meant commonly by “tolerance” in today’s society. Tolerance is commonly used to acceot that someone else’s worldview is true, while at the same time believing yours is likewise true. In essense so called “tolerant” people acknowledge that there are many truths, of which they have one. To be “intolerant” means that you deny that someone else’s worldview is true, insiting on the truth of your own. Now when you talk to people who advocate tolerance they say that you should be tolerant of all different worldviews. However when you ask them about other worldviews that are inherently intolerant, most people respond that intollerant worldviews are not acceptable and therefore themselves will not be tollerated. So in effect what tollerance boils down to is accepting other viwes that agree with you in that there are many truths. Tolerance is in the end intolerant to views that do not agree with thier premise that there are many truths. There is hardly anything remarkable about agreeing with those that agree with you. Even the most hardcore theocracy advocates agree with those who agree with them. The whole thing is one giant piece of hypocracy.
Tolerance used to mean allowing someone to hold views that you yourself disagree with. It meant bearing with others whose views you disagreed with. It did not merely mean agreeing with those that agreed with you, as it has become.
There is also the implicit assumption in you response that
theism == darkness, pain, war, terror and a return to dark ages
secularism == light, happiness, peace, progress and a brave new world
There is no evidence from history that this is always true. Indeed some the of the most murderous regimes in history, the communist regimes, have been expressly secular. It still didn’t stop them frim murdering millions of their own citizens. Even in France secularism there is not stopping the outright racism and violence towards the ethnic Muslim communities. If anything it is being used as a cover for further persecution. Secularism can be abused in the same ways as any other belief system.
Ultimately I think that we should let people decide for themselves what laws should govenrn them. If they want secular laws, then fine let them have secular laws. But law should be decided by what the people actually want, not imposed on them to satisfy some ideology that they themselves do not agree with.
Also, keep reading to then end.
Has the US Supreme court actually ruled teaching creationism illegal? I’m not American so I ask for information.
But all this boils down to is you saying effectively “my worldview is right and you all have to abide by it until you can prove to me that I am wrong”. Many would argue that there is a lot of evidence for the existence of God. In fact across the world true atheists (as in those that are convinced that there is no God) are actually a small minority. Most people believe in some sort of God, although many are hazy on who God actually is. Anyway, why can’t I state that Jesus is God, or Allah is God, and if you want me to legislate something based on your atheist “mythology” or “speculation” you better come up with good proof that he doesn’t exist. Why is it OK to set the bar of proof impossibly high for one group, and rediculously low for another?
What I am arguing for is not that the state decides laws on things that are proven to be true, it merely accepts the views of all of its citizens as equally valid, and legislates based on the wishes of the people regardless of worldview.
And you have done nothing but say that it doesn’t. Let me see if I can explain it to you more clearly.
Imagine you are living in some hypothetical state, and that you are an atheist (I’m not sure if you would call yourself one, but lets go with it for the sake of the illustration). This state has a system that is in effect the reverse of secularism. Here all religious views of morality are acceptable as an argument for law, and all atheistic views are unnacceptable as a basis of law. How do you think you would feel living in that society? How would you feel knowing that the society around you considered your morality as inherently worthless, and refused to acknowledge anything you or those like you advocated for law because you were an atheist. Would you feel a full member of that society, knowing that your opinion was not counted by those in power simply because you found the ideology of the ruling power to be incorrect.
If you think that situation would suck, then welcome to the secular world as viewed by those who hold religious worldviews. I can remember the outcry when Bush said something along the lines of “you can’t be an atheist and an American”. People were deeply offended that since they did not hold a particular worldview they were not considered full citizens. Yet in refusing to acknowledge any religious argument as the basis of law, then that is effectively what you are saying to religious people. You effectivly are telling them that there opinion is not valued the same as those of atheists, simply because you disagree with the ideology of the state. Does that make it clearer?
Besides, please don’t misunderstand me. I am NOT advocating that we legislate and and every law that a religious person wants. What I am saying is that in the decision process for legislation the opinions of religious people should be given equal weight with the opinions of non religious people. So say 10 muslims vote to make wearing the hijab in public manditory. Respecting the views of those people saying “well, 10 people want it, the remaining 35,000,000 don’t, so no hijab law”. Notice that no reference is made to WHY anyone wants a hijab law, just that they do. This is not what secularism does. Secularism effectivly says “10 people voted for the hijab law, but I don’t care what they think because they are Muslims, and quite frankly it doesn’t matter how many people voted against it because only Muslims want the law”. Notice that in the end the outcome of each approach is exactly the same, yet in the non-secular case the opinion of all citizens was repsected, while in the secular case the opinions of religious people is disrespected and discounted on the basis of their views.
Bah, the religious bloodshed in the 20th century pales in comparison to the secular bloodshed. Maybe it is you that should step away from the voting machine?
DSeid and Voyager
Neither of you answered the question that I posed as to why a state that does not want a secular government should be forced to have one. I’ll re-post it just so that you know what I am talking about
If a mojority of the people in a country don’t want a secular state, should one still be imposed on them. If so, at what percentage of opposition (if any) does it become wrong to impose a secular state on people that by and large don’t want it?
I would really appreciate an answer, as this is at the heart of my argument. That each state should be allowed for themselves to determine which laws they want and do not want without some sort of ideology being imposed upon it.
Like I and others have said, communism is a religion in all but name.
Until they actually produce some, what they say is meaningless.
Yes. Creationism is a purely religious view; teaching it would violate the seperation of church and state.
What "atheist mythology" ? Atheism consists of the belief there is no god(s), and that’s it. What is there to legislate ?
Also, it it is the logical obligation of those who claim something exists to prove it; not the other way around. Especially when the belief is as fundamentally silly as religion.
I don’t know; why are you doing it ?
On average, this is how it works, although you give secularism too happy a face.
To a large degree, I’d feel the same I do now. The law may restrain them from acting on it, but that’s how the majority feel towards atheists. I have no doubt at all the average American regards me as evil and subhuman.
This is typical Christian malignant arrogance. “You won’t let us slaughter and tyrannize everbody who disagrees; that’s oppression ! Oppression !”
They are, of course. :rolleyes: Christians run the country; their opinion is what matters, so you should stop whining about how terribly oppressed you believers are.
So if the Christian majority votes that non-Christians should be killed because their religion demands it, that’'s OK with you ? “Secularism” means that religions aren’t allowed to run the country; that’s all it means.
Secularism is all about religion not being imposed on people. Being kept from oppressing and killing others is not some terrible imposition. If the majority of the population are barbarians, that just makes restraining them from slaughtering one another even more important.
Yes it has. In cases from both Arkansas and Louisiana it ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the Establishment Clause. Note public schools - there is no prohibition against teaching creationism in a private school, as it is not run by the state.
Interestingly, in California there is a suit by private schools who teach creationism against the state university, because the state university does not accept a creationism based biology class as meeting its minimal requirements for high school science. I doubt this case will go anywhere. There is no objection to these schools teaching what they want, but the students will have to deal with the consequences.
I think this is a good example of the way it should be. The state does not get involved with religion, but does not prevent private people from any sort of religious exercise they desire.
What worldview? The one that only consists of a-Pinkism? And I’m not saying the Pink worshipper should be prevented from dying the hair of any Pink followers - just that they should not be allowed to force it on non-followers. That’s called freedom.
I could think, perhaps, of several atheist laws to pass, but passing them would be just as inappropriate as passing religious laws. Having no law forbidding work on Sunday is not atheism! The idea in a pluralistic society is to make no choice among conflicting claimants. Don’t think of the issue as being the religious vs the atheists, think of it as the Baptists vs the Unitarians. Its the same deal.
And when the wishes include keeping children of a certain race out of their schools? Or putting those of a certain religion into camps? Or forced conversion for their own good? What then? You’ve never answered this.
First of all, it is not clear that Bush ever said that. Second, what outcry? Maybe from a few atheist groups, that’s about it. Polls show that voters are more willing to elect a black lesbian woman president than an atheist. So, our morals are suspect - but it is okay, so far, since we still have our rights.
In your example, are the rights of everyone protected, or do these religious laws allow religions to enforce their laws on the non-religious? What do you do when two religions sponsor conflicting laws? If you think this through you’ll see the problem - unless human rights don’t count, of course.
And of course atheist arguments should not be the basis of law either. Ethical arguments should stand independent of whether or not there is a god. A god-independent argument is not the same as an anti-god argument.
It is nonsense that secular lawmaking causes the religious to be second class. In the US you can hardly run for dogcatcher without visibly going to church and announcing your deep devotion. All we ask is for the laws for all not be generated from a theology. Do you disagree with Kerry’s position? How would you feel in a society with religious laws where the religion making the law is opposed to yours. The Chinese Communists arrest people distributing Bibles. Whether you say this is an atheist law of a Communist as religion law, it is still wrong, but I think your argument would say that they are justified in doing this. Do you agree? The whole purpose of rights is to protect the minority when you are the majority so that you get protected when you are the minority.
Let’s say 34 million want the hijab law. It’s more interesting that way. A secular society would say, "we appreciate that in your religion it is required, and we certainly will allow anyone wishing to wear it to do so, even if doing so violates some regulations not as important as your freedom. But, if you want those who do not wish to wear it to do so, please let us know the reasons in terms that those not of your religion can accept. How is this disrespecting them? If a nudist religion flourishes, should they be allowed to pass a law requiring Moslems to strip?
You continue with this strawman about not caring what others think. It’s not the thinking, it’s the actions. Really, do you think it is okay to arrest Bible distributors?
The bloodshed was all about totatlitarianism, which is really what we’re talking about here.
Now that is an interesting question. In the US, nothing is imposed - this is our constitution. The real question is what to do when human rights in a state are being violated. Our attempt to impose democracy on a secular dictatorship is not working out too well, and I’m not for rushing in and toppling governments at whim. Would you agree that human rights should be preserved, even if it might be difficult to enforce. Would you agree that anyone wishing to leave your non-secular state be allowed to do so? If basic human rights are opposed to religious desires, which do you think should dominate?
Let me try to make this very clear. I do not believe that secularism is consistent with all other worldviews. I believe that it more consistent with a greater variety of worldviews than any particular religion’s worldview. I do not believe that any State should be, or is, forced to adopt secular values. But since the worldview that allows for the modern world and for a society of societies is and must be based on secular values, any society that wants to benefit from being part of the community of nations must adopt enough aspects of that worldview that the rest of the world will accept them as members. They don’t want to? The modern world’s worldview disallows slavery, but their religious worldview accepts it? Well they can live outside of the modern world’s global community then. And even then up to a point. If a particular society’s worldview is far enough outside the norm, so abhorrant that it crosses the line, genocide say, then the secular world may indeed impose its values. But not just for your run of the mill theocracy.
Where did you get this definition of tolerance? It’s incorrect. I can be tolerant of someone’s worldview without thinking it’s true. Tolerant means I can support their right to have a different worldview without agreeing with it. That means even though I don’t choose to pray before a meal in a resturant I fully support your right to do so. That means you can wear whatever type of hat or robe or jewelry your religion dictates in public and I support it {not as a fashion statement} as your right.
That also means if a Christian drives a van that says “Jesus is Lord” or a Muslim drives a van that says “there is no God but Allah” and an atheist drives a van that says “God is a myth” I support them all even if I don’t agree with any of them.
I’m pretty intolerant of this statement since it’s false. Tolerance basically means that even if I don’t agree, as long as it doesn’t injure me or another citizen, I’ll accpet it as thier right to a different worldview.
I’m not sure where you got this idea. Tolerance still means that.
AS I mentioned before. Any form of government can be fine if those in power are benvolent. I suppose that implies any form of givernment can be corrupt and dangerous too. Whether the government is secular or religious is only one aspect of its effectiveness and benifit or lack thereof.
You must be able to see how this can conflict with human rights. Are you saying that no matter what the majority wants its okay as long as they’re the majority? There have been several movements in the US to incorperate faith in Jesus into the Constitution. All have failed. Should the majority tell the monority thay have to believe in Jesus to be good citizens? Secular government supports equally the right to believe in various concepts of God and to not believe in God.
No it isn’t
It’s saying, Even though we don’t all have the same worldview we** must** come to some agreement about what laws will govern our citizens. WHat system best protects the rights of all citizens?
Hint, when US citizens go to vote on anything, they are not asked what their religion is before they vote, nor should they ever be. They are simply asked to express their opinion honestly.
Your interpretatoin of secularism is incorrect. This has been pointed out to you several times and you keep repeating it. Secularism doesn’t ignore someones values because they are based on their religion. An atheist or a Christian might vote no on gay marriage. Their vote matters, not why they voted that way. A christian or an atheists might vote yes on gay marriage. Their vote counts and it doesn’t matter why they voted that way. Secularism won’t be offended or suprised that a Christian voted yes. It doesn’t care. Other Christians might be offended. Nor secularism.
Please get over this incorrect concept of what secularism means. Nobody devalues the ethical and moral opnion of anybody based on their religion. What we do ask is good thinking and valid reasons why certain laws should or should not be passed. That means “how does this benifit all of our various citizens, or how will it harm them?” Laws that seek to enforce something that is strictly a religious belief onto people who do not hold that belief are unaccetable, as they should be. Imagine your Christian kids going to a school where the teacher asked them to say “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet” or “We bow to the wisdom of the Buddha” Would you rather have a government that protects your right as a minority and prohibits those kinds of laws, or is it better to let the majority impose it’s religious views on the minority?
.
Blatent ignorence from someone who should no better is pretty dam offensive. That was what was offensive about that comment. I feel the same way about comments from atheists who indicate all believers are gullible fools, and all religion is evil.
In the US one of the basic principles from our founding fathers was the sepration of church and state. It wasn’t forced on anyone although it was fought for and against. In the end we as a people chose it a a foundational principle of our nation. We have spent 200+ years trying to define exactly what that measn and where the lines are drawn. When you say state, are you talking about the national government imposing laws on state government or something broader?
You might find it interesting that in the late 1700s the US was predominantly Christian by a huge majority and still we chose to seperate church and state with the idea that it was the superior choice. In other words. I don’t think it’s forced on any state. It’s chosen.
.
I’ll asssume you mean state vs. federal government. The federal government has the right and obligation to protect it;s cirtizens even if it’s from the laws of a state. In fact I doubt a state can enact and/or enforce a law that is in direct conflict with a federal law. Slavery is a good example. It’s a good question. I think there will be more battles fought over what the rights are of local goverments. To some the constitution applies to only government buildings and property which are financially supported by federal tax dollars. Does that mean a town can put up it’s nativity scene on property not supported by federal dollars?
Can a teacher be fired for answering questions about her faith when asked by a student? I sure hope not but I bet it will happen eventually if it hasn’t already. The lines between church and state are continuously being examined.
No doubt huh? I have plenty of doubts about the truth of this statement. I know of few Christians who regard atheists as evil or subhiman simply becuase they don’t believe. Most don’t feel that way about other religions either. Prone to incredibly biased statements with little factual foundation, is not evil or subhuman.
Cosmo, Der Trihs may overstate and overgeneralize, but there is some truth buried in his malignity. Fry’s position seems to be that failure to allow a religious worldview impose its beliefs upon others is oppressing that worldview. He tries to claim that tolerance is only tolerance if it not only tolerates intolerance, but allows for actions based on intolerance. That position deserves to be mocked a bit.
And I have met quite a few who believe that an atheist must have nothing but a self-serving morality of the moment. America is full of people who believe that only a faith in God can guide you to right actions.
Anyway.
To recap a little -
I would posit that secilarism is the “fittest” worldview for the value basis of rules in governmental (both domestic and international) structures in today’s world. It is has no advantage, and some disadvantages, as the most fit worldview for individals’ personal values guiding their day to day ethical behaviors that fall otside the laws of society. In those venues religion brings some “value added” utility to many.
Further, I would argue that the scientific worldview easily trumps religion as the fittest means of knowing how the world works and religion should just give it up in this venue. Fry thinks it never even tried to compete in it. Okay.
Then there is the issue of group membership. Here we run into the difficulty that multiple identities provoke. The French view, that a public religious identity threatens identificatiion as part of the national culture, is a misuse of “secularism”, in my mind, and is intolerant. But it isn’t like Americans don’t make similar mistakes, albeit in the other direction. How many times have we heard that the Ten Commandaments should be posted in governmental structures because America is “a Christian country” afterall? These are errors of the same sort and both should be guarded against. In today’s world we must get comfortable with having multiple sorts of identities.
Finally there is the issue of fittest versus “correct”. Religious truth is usually by defintion revealed truth. To some it must be correct. Most religions can also be compatable with secularism, just as one can be Moslem and be American or even French. Some particular interpretations of religions and some other worldviews are incompatable with the secular worldview because science and secularism conflict with the revealed truth. Some who who hold those beliefs will moderate their views in order to gain the advantages of membership in the modern pluralistic world. Some will not and will become marginalized. Some of them will react violently to becoming marginalized (eg Islamic terrorists). These outcomes are unavoidable as worldviews jostle for position.
I’ve been peeking back here from time to time and just wanted to let you know how much I’ve enjoyed the quality of your posts, particulalry in the latter half of the thread. I’ve been tempted to join in but will not for fear of inadvertently derailing, distracting, or otherwise fucking up such a focused discussion.
As you can see from my posts, I don’t agree with Fry. I can’t figure out why he insists on clinging to his concept of secularism and tolerance regardless of how many point out that’s it’s incorrect. The problem I have witn Der Trihs is his trendency to overstate and overgeneralize, {which is being kind} is all he seems to offer in thread after thread. Check out his posts in the ProLifers thread. Funny stuff, in the utterly ridiculous sense. I’ll say it again. Der Trihs is to atheism what Jerry Falwell is to Christianity.
That is pretty unfortunate. An ignorence that is in need of correcting. Someone spouting the opposte view which is equally extreme and equally ignorent isn’t helping.
Are you sure the part I bolded is right? I don’t get it. As I’ve said, any form of government is okay if those in power are benevolent.
I like the concept of a secular government that protects the rights of each citizen to worship as they choose {within reason} We won’t always agree on where those lines are drawn. What I find pretty disturbing about what’s going on now is that the Christian majority somehow feel threatened by those who want to discuss where the lines should be drawn, and seem more concerned about language that refers to Jesus and God rather than actions that might reflect the moral and ethical teaching of Christ.
I know several people who believe the story of Genesis is the historic truth and the world is only a few thousand years old. I believe I just heard something on the radio about private Christian school science credits not being acknowledged by certain universities as valid.
IMHO the same sense of wonder that brings about mythology, brings our search for truth to the scientific realm as well. Because of this I see mythology as an acceptable part of the process. It is, however, a part of the process we leave behind at some point.
I’m not familiar with the details of the French biew but I think it refelects a realistic concern for believers of different faiths. Can kids pray openly in school? They should be able to. Can teachers? I think they should be able to as well. Can teachers wear symbols feflecting their faith? Again yes. If a student asks a teacher about his or her beliefs can they answer honestly without fear of repercussions? I heard of a teacher being suspended for wearing crosses to school. OTOH, I read of a teacher who witnessed in every class despite the protests of the students and warnings from the principle. HE got fired and justly so. I remember a certain religious group standing on streetcorners in my home town and reading from the Bible in shouting tones. It hurt downtown buisinesses and bothered people but nothing was done because of their religious freedom. They should have been arrested for disturbing the peace.
I am really irritated by the false history being taught by the Chistian right as if they had spiritual dibbs on America. What are Christian values anyway? How do they differ from other values?
Some people , no matter their view on religion or worldview, have a sense of honor and integrity. Others, no matter their views, have little or none. I have respect for honesty and sincereity from either an atheist or some religious follower. I have little respect for those who embrace ignorence and bigotry no matter their worldview. Hopefully people of honor will understand why it’s superior to seperate state and church while defending people’s rights to worship.
What we see very much in the world today are those who are in power useing the fears of others to manipulate them. It’s sad that so many seem so willing to be manipulated.
Not to worry, Cosmo, I didn’t think that you suddenly agreed with Fry. And Lord knows (so to speak) that I don’t agree too much with Trihs. I think that you and I are mostly on the same page, albeit not the same paragaph.
As to what you bolded of my statement. If you reread it you will see that I was trying to make a distinction between secularism vs religious values as a basis for governance (secularism has big advantages in a pluralistic society/world) and between the two as a basis for living our daily personal/private lives beyond those aspects covered by public laws (secularism does not have any particular fitness advantage, in fact religious worldviews might) Again, this analysis is restricted to “fitness” not “right” or “fair.”
The French situation is about public display of religious affiliation and outlaws wearing headscarves, “large” crosses, and, I think, kippot and tallit in the public sphere. It is mandating that one appear areligious in public life. This is not the secularism that I know and respect. But it is about group identity, not about God.
As to your other comments, well, fear sells. That and sex.
So it does. Upon rereading it I understand. I count myself as a believer but not a Christian. In the end, it doesn’t matter what path a person takes. Each is uniquely our own. What matters is the what comes from that chosen path and how it affects the world we live in. Honesty from a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Jew, Wiccan, Scientologist, etc, is equally valuble to all around. The same with compassion, kindness, courage, a sense of justice. What we contribute or don’t contribute to society seems to have little to do any worldview label. Is an atheist bigot any better or worse than a Christian bigot?
I agree that secularism seems to be the best foundation for government providing it is dedicated to protecting people’s right to worship.
The French situation is about public display of religious affiliation and outlaws wearing headscarves, “large” crosses, and, I think, kippot and tallit in the public sphere. It is mandating that one appear areligious in public life. This is not the secularism that I know and respect. But it is about group identity, not about God.
.
[/QUOTE]
I hear a lot of talk from Christians about them being persecuted. It seems a bit of a joke under the circumstances, but I know there are incidents. There are some, such as the witnessing teacher getting fired, that are told as persecution stories because certain Christians seem to love the idea of being a martyr for the Lord.
The French approach is what they are worried about. I can’t see something like that happening in the US in the foreseeable future but it’s not impossible. The beauty of our Constitution is that we have a certain moral obligation as citizens to defend the rights of those we don’t agree with. It does me no harm if the person next to wears a “Jesus is Lord” T shirt or prays before their meal. It does harm me if the government passes a law to say they can’t do either.
I complain about religion on the Internet, and I’m the same as a man who advocates Christian tyranny, and calls for the mass death of homosexuals ? Nice double standard.
Heh, I kind of agree with Der Trihs on this one. I think he’s an evangelical atheist of the highest order, no reason required, but he’s definitely not like Jerry Falwell. He’s more like the people handing out tracts with really broad generalizations taken out of context. I don’t think he’s advocating the spread of hate in the name of his belief, which is what I think seperates him from Jerry Falwell.
The word “Secular” has a neutral definition. It is not prone to religious abuse per se. It is the adding of the “ism” at the end that turns it into such.
For instance, in a muslim theocracy, they probably have a variant of secular institutions such as the Department of Motor Vehicles. There is probably no problem for them with having a Department of Motor Vehicles, secular bureaucracy has been one of the cornerstones of civilization for all of history.
Secularism however is different. The seperation of church and state never intended for it to become a belief system that would be held up and compared to the religions it was attempting to mediate. Once it becomes compared to religion it starts to become of the same type as what it is being compared to. As this false-dichotomy moves forward, you see a political organization form around the belief system. Those who believe that secular pluralism is superior to a theocracy of one religion are it’s members. It is just as closed minded to attempt to force Iran to become a western democracy as it would be to try and force Americans into a Caliphate.
Of course I believe that pluralism is the most useful in a pluralist culture. It doesn’t make sense for us to argue about which religion is better. This doesn’t conflict with my beliefs at all, as I believe there is one god one god one god, regardless of what you name it, and I find fighting over which name for God is superior to be pretty ridiculous.
However, you get proselytizing atheists who will use the secularism banner to put forward atheistic views. This is threatening to anyone who feels that atheism is false, as it is a proposal for the virtues of ignorance, it is an attempt to move people further from God, which is considered a threat among many organized religions. Stating that one DOES NOT believe in God is a statement of faith, as opposed to agnosticism which claims simply not to know.
Religion is not defined by a belief in God. Both Daoism and Buddhism have no belief in God as a westerner might understand such a being, yet they would be categorized as a religion. scott_plaid referred to communism as a religion. I don’t disagree with him, it is a religion for the same reason secularism or atheism are religions. It didn’t start as a religion, never was intended to be a religion, as neither of those two belief systems were intended to become religions. However, you get zealots involved and they begin to proselytize, and it becomes for all intents and purposes, a religion.
If Secular Democracy is not a religion, then why have we fought wars for the past 50 years attempting to impose it upon people? Why have people found a need to answer the rallying cry for it? I see the imposition of Secular Democracy as Evangelical Christianity in another form, and it’s hardly new to George W Bush, it spawned the entirety of the cold war.
For some reason we’ve allowed the definition of religion to follow a Judeo-Christian template, and it’s begun to lose any meaning because of this, and it allows for people to argue false platforms that contain no reason whatsoever that demonizes the religious while conveniently seperating themselves from this category, as they mass together, organize and attack their foe who is a common foe only because they share a similar ideology.
Science and religion are not in conflict whatsoever. Many people on both sides of this debate bastardize science thinking it might prove their point, and sometimes it does simply because they are able to confuse their opponent with clever semantics, even though both sides their ideas are induced rather than deduced.
Someone who proselytizes atheism is not proselyzing a secular viewpoint. They are proselytizing atheism. Nothing more or less. And protected in their right to do that in a culture which adopts secular values as a basis for law. Under the same protections that allows Fry to witness on a street corner if he wants to. And me to ignorre them both.
Can different value systems clash, whether or not they are religious worldviews? Sure. I don’t really know if that is what your last 50 years of wars has been about though.
I was referring to the definition of religion. I basically view it as doublespeak and a way to win some sort of semantic political clash when people want to damn the religious. Basically IMO when your “ism” becomes the “Best belief system out there”, it’s a religion.
Well, I am of the opinion that religion is used mostly to keep the proles in line. I have doubts that the ruling class ever really believed it. I am certain some of them do, but for all of human history the ruling class has had a better education than the proles, and I am certain that it is seen quite differently from the top of the hierarchy than the bottom.
So I’d tend to agree that it’s not about the religious worldviews, it’s about increased power for the individuals IN power. However, they use the religious sentiment to dupe the proles, and I don’t see a difference between secularism, or Christianity in this regard.
I don’t think that qualifies as a double standard but I think you make a valid point. I compared you to Falwell because you both are zealots touting your own unreasonable and obviously irrational opinion as “truth” Just as he gives Christianity a bad name and supports all the nasty stereotypes people have about Christian zealots, your attitudes, if taken as typical, only makes atheists look foolish and spiteful. It may well be an unfair comparision with Falwell being much more extreme than you. If you provide cites for the two accusations you just made about him I will confess I am wrong.
