syo
Well-Known Member
both the theistic and the secular standard of good are correct if there is no fanaticism. in history, the theistic standard is full of fanaticism. didn't we learn from past mistakes?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
a religious state?
- Thread starter syo
- Start date
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
Of course not. I define secular humanism as they have clearly defined themselves. See here,
The Amsterdam Declaration | IHEU
I see no similarity with communism at all, and why should there be? The only thing they share is a non-belief in God or gods. Similarly the only thing Christianity and Mayan religion shares is belief in God or gods. Are they the same?
Last edited:
The core beliefs include very different ideas of God and often very different Commandments. So I see no way anything substantial can be done by considering only the few ideas they share. In any case they are quite well covered by the UN human rights charter that all countries have signed.
syo
Well-Known Member
ideas of god shouldn't bother a state. it's the virtues that matter, how we treat each other, and not theology.
syo
Well-Known Member
these can be found in religion.
Depends on the religion. In many traditions of Islamic law, deconverting from Islam is a capital offense and punishment for thieving is to cut off hands etc. In Catholicism, using birth control is a sin, so is divorce, homosexuality etc. These do not appear to be consistent with protection of rights of people.these can be found in religion.
Secular humanism:
Secular humanism - Wikipedia
Any system that doesn't embrace human reason, ethics, and social justice (along with the inherent worth of human beings, which I'd say is the defining characteristic of humanism) isn't secular humanism even if it rejects religion.
Then where is the claimed 'History' of secular humanism creating peace, the one that is claimed to be superior to the history of religious inspired peace?
Here's the claim: "History has shown that the peaceful, loving countries tend to embrace the values of secular humanism, and the oppressive, violent countries - with only a few exceptions - tend to be religious." Ok, so what History has shown this? I am grasping for History to understand this claim. We talking about recent History among conquered countries with no power or real History?
That's not my claim. Ask the one who made it.
The peace loving and progressive country of Germany embraced Secular Humanism leading to WWI is that right? No, it didn't embrace that; so we have an example of country which was the most progressive in the world, one that loved the arts and all forms of learning and culture which embraced something else entirely. That's because peace loving countries tend to adopt Secular Humanism, correct? You see I do not think that is what happens in peace loving countries. What is the peace loving USA currently adopting? Its not embracing nationalism with waves of xenophobia mixed in? What did the USA, founded on freedom, embrace during the 19th century? I think this claim that good countries adopt Secular Humanism to be disproved rather than supported by History.
I think you got roped into it by replying to a subsequent post, but going back to the OP asking whether a country should make its laws based on religion that seems like what laws are. They are automatically religious in nature to me, so if you make it illegal to leave dogs off of a leash to me that is religious. It is binding on the community. I would say that it is not 'Church' but state religion but still religion.
I'm sorry that sounds like a joke. Europe just recently climbed out of the problems of the world war and can not be called a historical landmark for peace. Its also got serious financial problems and has recently lost the UK, and it remains to be seen whether it can build peace.
Religious laws are based on theology. Laws like not letting dogs off leash are simply for safety purposes and has nothing to do with theology.
Yes. I'm saying they are religious, however; because they are laws. You are an Atheist Hindu, so you know that things and people can be religious without theology.
I am not an atheist Hindu but a secular Hindu. A secular person is one who believes that states should be neutral regarding the various religious beliefs of its citizens, neither favoring nor disfavor in any one religion over others. A devout believer can also be secular in this sense.
Why do you consider any and every law to be of religious nature? That does not seem to be justified.
It is because religion is a broad term that applies to how we live not merely what things we believe. It is an English term which refers to what you do regularly, so it has grown to encompass church attendance and other practices such as prayer. More recently it also includes beliefs, and while some people exclusively use it to refer to beliefs it cannot be limited to that, mainly because of Buddhists. The simplest thing would be to eliminate the word religion and replace with 3 things: Lifestyle, beliefs, and culture; however laws are religious. They tell us how to behave and to some extent also tell us what to believe.