Can secularism be oppressive to any religious believer?

[Valjean]

That's a reasonable definition, but it still doesn't make it a neutral position.

Saying that society should be run on a principle of 'no religious influence' is an ideological position that denies the legitimacy of religious influence in governance.

This does not reflect the vast majority of societies in human history, and is a culturally contingent value preference.

I'm all for secularism, but recognise this as part of my ideological preferences.

Do you see it as a neutral position?

What makes governance "legitimate?" How is religious influence legitimate?

 

[Augustus]

I suppose that is true. Though one could argue it is a neutral position, in that it tries to balance or moderate between the competing views. I don't think it can be said to be dominating in the way a theocracy might, because it allows for other views to exist as opposed to trying to oppress them, the way a religious authority might, damning people, throwing them out of the church, and so forth.

Depends on the system.

A system like the US is different from that of the USSR or pre-Erdogan Turkey.

Secularism just forms part of a larger ideological framework and can't really be abstracted from this.

I don't take the idea of being against intolerance of others, as dominating the show with your views. Telling others they cannot oppress others, is not oppressing them. It's moderating them.

Why does a non-secular system have to be oppressive?

They can be, but so can any other system.

 

[Augustus]

What makes governance "legitimate?"

Depends on your ethical principles and view of governance.

How is religious influence legitimate?

How are any personal, subjective ideological influences legitimate?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Secularism doesn't involve a particular legal or moral code, it just lacks divine edicts. It's law based on mundane human interests.
This, of course, can be extremely annoying to those who organize their lives according to divine command or a religious propriety.

Don't see why. I'm quite happy to live in a secular society. I'm free to live my life according to the values I choose, pretty much.

 

[Colt]

On another discussion a member claimed that "secularism can be pretty opressive for true believers". There were some good responses but it off topic.

The claim is problematic because it assumes "true believers" have an absolute truth that has an authority over all people and all governance. I suggest the the problem is 'true belief" in an absolute sense, given the believers are fallible thinkers.

Yes! Secular totalitarianism is a kind of belief on its own. It can be quite intolerant of religion.

 

[Kooky]

Ensuring you can’t bash people with your faith is the opposite of oppression, so this claim always bewilders me.

If reckon that if one used to sit on a throne, then being away from power will always feel like exile.

 

[F1fan]

Yes! Secular totalitarianism is a kind of belief on its own. It can be quite intolerant of religion.

I've never heard of this. Explain what it is and give examples. And of the examples, in what ways are they intolerant?

 

[Kooky]

Secularism just separates the church from the state. Preventing laws based on religious idealism. Could the law of the law be oppressive to a particular religious?
Possibly. However the law can't specifically target a religion. So maybe you wouldn't be able to sacrifice animals for a religious ritual but no one else would either.

So you are free to follow your religious beliefs except where they transgress governmental enforced laws.

Of course you can still target specific religions with laws, you just have to be kind of circumspect about who is the true target of your piece of legislation.

For example, you wouldn't be allowed to ban headscarves only for Muslim women, but you could still create a general "anti head covering" law and then make exceptions for all the circumstances where a non-Muslim would wear something on their head, achieving the exact same effect of religious oppression by "secular" means while giving the outward appearance of neutrality.

In a similar vein, historically, countless nominally secular states used to ban marriage equality for spurious and nonsensical reasons just so they wouldn't have to acknowledge that they were acting as gatekeepers for Christian morality.

 

[F1fan]

I think @Brickjectivity was only getting at the idea that secularism in and of itself would not prohibit slavery. So, even given a "secular" society, it would not necessarily mean that slavery would be prohibited.

It's a bad assertion given the alternative isn't supported, encouraged, allowed, permitted, etc. It's like asking: how often do you beat your wife? The assertion implies something that isn't true.

 

[F1fan]

Secularism just has nothing to do with it ethics at all. Humanism is an ethical framework. You can be pro-slave state secularist, but you can't be a pro-slave humanist. You can be a secular humanist or you can be a secular non-humanist.

Since secular can allow both ethical and unethical decisions these options offset, thus secular is neutral, yes? It neither supports or opposes ethical/moral positions, it just means free of religion.

That is a misunderstanding. Justification of slavery is extra-biblical mixed with cherry picking. It misconstrues any authoritative resource in order to support the very, very lucrative trade of slaves. The slave trade claims support from anything it can and uses half brained arguments of many kinds and will cherry pick from any resource to misconstrue facts, will lobby the government, will pressure individuals, will bribe officials and do whatever it takes.

Exactly, and this is why a religious claim of moral authority can fail, and it is more likely than not that a secular approach will put limitations on any sort of religious moral authority that assumes it can supersede humanism.

The slave trade in the USA is gradually undermined because of people who care, many of whom are bible students and enthusiasts and who use the bible's many scriptures to argue against slavery. It certainly is not the bible which creates and causes the slave trade.

And in doing so supported a governing style that rejected Christian moral interpretation as having an authority, thus secular.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It's a bad assertion given the alternative isn't supported, encouraged, allowed, permitted, etc. It's like asking: how often do you beat your wife? The assertion implies something that isn't true.

I can see that. A bit like saying something like "atheists can be murderers," I suppose. While nothing discounts an atheist from being a murderer, it does kind of make an implication. Though if I remember correctly, @Brickjectivity was responding to someone else's comment about slavery... not just drawing that conclusion outright with no pretext.

I always thought it would be funny if a company made statements in their advertisements that, while true, implied things about their competition: "There is no urine-soaked fecal matter in our hand-pies!"

 

[F1fan]

That's a reasonable definition, but it still doesn't make it a neutral position.

Saying that society should be run on a principle of 'no religious influence' is an ideological position that denies the legitimacy of religious influence in governance.

I don't see secularism as ideological as it is practical. In governing a people with a lot of diverse interests trying to add religious/personal interests will only complicate the purpose of governance. A secular approach is actually advantageous to minority religions as they no longer have to fight the more popular and powerful for social influence. And this touches on what the person I quoted in my OP, that secular oppresses a "true believer", which is code for a believer who seeks more power over other religions.

This does not reflect the vast majority of societies in human history, and is a culturally contingent value preference.

I'm all for secularism, but recognise this as part of my ideological preferences.

Do you see it as a neutral position?

Yes, in that it makes no moral/ethical stands, but does aim to provide equality and freedom to the diversity of religion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Since secular can allow both ethical and unethical decisions these options offset, thus secular is neutral, yes? It neither supports or opposes ethical/moral positions, it just means free of religion.


Exactly, and this is why a religious claim of moral authority can fail, and it is more likely than not that a secular approach will put limitations on any sort of religious moral authority that assumes it can supersede humanism.


And in doing so supported a governing style that rejected Christian moral interpretation as having an authority, thus secular.

Unfortunately you can't just pull a single lever to fix things. We have to play the ball where it lies, as in golf. The Christians must oppose slavery amongst themselves, the secular people must oppose it through humanism amongst themselves, the Muslims must do it amongst themselves and so forth, the capitalists amongst themselves, the academics amongst themselves. Every group is just one more hole in this game of golf, and you must make par in all 18. It is insufficient to point to one group and say it is to blame for this thing which is a human problem which recurs in all times and places. It is the devil within not wolves sneaking in.

Can secularism oppress? Well no, because its not a group.... But if you aren't actively preventing oppression than it won't matter. It doesn't do anything to stop oppression, so you have to add in humanism or religion or some kind of belief to stop it. I think.

 

[Kooky]

Why does a non-secular system have to be oppressive?

Because the ideologies secularism is supposed to moderate tend to be absolutist ideologies bent on either subjugating our outright erasing any rival beliefs inside their specific ideological sphere.

We shouldn't forget that secularism has its origins, ultimately, in the Enlightened reaction to Christian persecutions and civil wars against rival sects.

 

[F1fan]

I can see that. A bit like saying something like "atheists can be murderers," I suppose. While nothing discounts an atheist from being a murderer, it does kind of make an implication. Though if I remember correctly, @Brickjectivity was responding to someone else's comment about slavery... not just drawing that conclusion outright with no pretext.

I always thought it would be funny if a company made statements in their advertisements that, while true, implied things about their competition: "There is no urine-soaked fecal matter in our hand-pies!"

LOL, sold!!!

My point is that secularism seems more directed at religion that it does any moral or ethical concerns. Let's say there's a group of conservative Christians in the Alabama State House and they decided to pass laws that the Bible allows them an authority from God to own black people again, and as a twist only Muslim or atheist black people. The laws that exist via the authority of the Constitution gives the judicial system the authority to invalidate these laws, and arrest people acting on the laws. The secular system as outlined in the Constitution does not give religious belief any authority over its own group. This protects human rights and religion. It does place limitations on their religious beliefs and freedom, but only as far as these freedoms can't displace human rights.

 

[F1fan]

Secularism just separates the church from the state. Preventing laws based on religious idealism. Could the law of the law be oppressive to a particular religious?
Possibly. However the law can't specifically target a religion. So maybe you wouldn't be able to sacrifice animals for a religious ritual but no one else would either.

So you are free to follow your religious beliefs except where they transgress governmental enforced laws.

Yeah, it allows a governing system the freedom and flexibility to protect the targeted and limit the extremists. It helps create a balance within the diversity and competition of religious views.

 

[F1fan]

Because the ideologies secularism is supposed to moderate tend to be absolutist ideologies bent on either subjugating our outright erasing any rival beliefs inside their specific ideological sphere.

We shouldn't forget that secularism has its origins, ultimately, in the Enlightened reaction to Christian persecutions and civil wars against rival sects.

Where would gay rights be today if there were federal laws on the books from the republican majority of the Reagan era? Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority tried very hard to make homosexuality illegal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, I want to own slaves and secularism does not allow it. I would call myself a Christian tomorrow if I was allowed to own a slave.

LOL. You're in luck!

Dear Dr. Laura:

"4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?"
http://www.stpaulsepiscopalbakersfield.org/uploads/6/6/9/0/6690860/a_letter_to_dr_laura.pdf

[This is part of a larger piece that appeared mocking radio host Laura Schleshinger, who had cited Leviticus on her show as grounds for her homophobia. It's a pretty funny article.]

 

[Rawshak]

LOL. You're in luck!

Dear Dr. Laura:

"4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?"
http://www.stpaulsepiscopalbakersfield.org/uploads/6/6/9/0/6690860/a_letter_to_dr_laura.pdf

[This is part of a larger piece that appeared mocking radio host Laura Schleshinger, who had cited Leviticus on her show as grounds for her homophobia. It's a pretty funny article.]

Excellent number ten had me proper laughing out loud!

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

 

[GardenLady]

Yes! Secular totalitarianism is a kind of belief on its own. It can be quite intolerant of religion.

Could you provide examples of this intolerance or totalitarianism? What form does it take?