Can secularism be oppressive to any religious believer?

[Valjean]

Religions should be prevented from mixing with government because of the historic problems that it created.

Look at the disaster that the Ayatollah Khomeni did.

Look at the unfolding disaster of the Taliban ruling Afghanistan. Harsh rule, and 12 year old girls marrying is just the tip of the iceberg.

US different from USSR? The US is rapidly losing rights.

Did you see the Op-Ed on MSNBC last week, comparing the growing, religiously motivated, GOP sponsored, restrictions on American womens' rights compared to Taliban oppression?
Interesting article. Opinion | The GOP cares about women's rights — when it's convenient

"If the GOP wants to show that it is sincerely concerned with the rights of the women in Afghanistan, it can start by first championing the human rights of women in the U.S. But instead, it is doing all it can to prevent gender equality while oppressing women based on its members’ extreme religious beliefs. Sound familiar?"

 

[alypius]

'true belief" in an absolute sense

What does 'true belief in an absolute sense' mean in this thread?

 

[Augustus]

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

It ultimately has its origins far further back in Christian theology, power disputes between the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor that established clear boundaries between religious and secular authority and centuries of religious and political evolution from the Middle Ages through to the Modern Period.

 

[Augustus]

But it can't be compared to religion because it only address a view concerning one thing in life (religion); unlike religion that pretty much address views on everything in life.

I didn't compare it to religion in general, but to a religious principle in the sense that they are making competing truth claims.

In this case; what's the difference?

To be neutral is a stance. To be silent is not.

The stance will depend on the broader ideology for all issues other than the basic definition of secularism.

 

[GardenLady]

Secularism in education can be seen in such things as anti-creationism trends

Do you see the teaching of science in a science classroom as religious oppression? Do you think religious beliefs should be taught in a science class?

 

[oldbadger]

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

Yes. Of course secularism can oppress some theists.
Would it be oppressive for some secularists to live within a Theistic community, like a theocracy?

Secularism inhibits, prohibits and/or reduces the freedoms of Theism.
Theism inhibits, prohibits and/or reduces the freedoms of Secularism.

Which part of that is hard to understand?

 

[Valjean]

Do you see the teaching of science in a science classroom as religious oppression? Do you think religious beliefs should be taught in a science class?

How would teaching science in science class be oppressive?
Religion is pretty much the opposite of science, so I can't see how it could possibly be classified as science.

 

[GardenLady]

@Valjean, I quite agree. But comments I have heard indicate that there are those who do not agree.

 

[Colt]

Creationism is a religious idea and religious ideas can't be taught in public schools.

Godless evolution is an idea from the Atheist secular religion but you have no problem teaching that in public schools. Materialism denies God.

How does it promote materialism? Do you mean because it doesn't include religious ideas that often refer to some other reality that humans can't detect? In other words, the imaginary.

You promote Godless materialism so just ask yourself.

Gods aren't known to exist, so what's the problem? Secular approaches aren't concerned with religious concepts, most of which cannot be shown to be true. That's the point. Secularism is practical and functional.

Secularist are religious about their anti-religious ideology. The false assumption being that the lack of a formerly recognized religion is a lack of belief. Godless secularism has invaded every aspect of declining civilization.

Again, what is there to deny when gods aren't known to exist? That theists believe, and often disagree about what god means, is why religion is kept of of governance.

Secularists haven't disproven God but proceed as if they have.

 

[Colt]

Do you see the teaching of science in a science classroom as religious oppression? Do you think religious beliefs should be taught in a science class?

Atheistic science is a religious belief presented as a neutral standard that everyone should just shut up and accept. To say life evolved over time is an observation based on a number of correlated facts. But to go one step further and claim life invented itself when lightening struck a pile of sand, means nothing and is going nowhere, is Atheistic science. Its a form of religious belief.

 

[Rawshak]

Godless evolution is an idea from the Atheist secular religion but you have no problem teaching that in public schools. Materialism denies God.

Could you show me anywhere in the Theory of Evolution that deals with the existence of a God?
Most people who believe evolution to best explain the diversity of life also believe in a God.

 

[Colt]

Wow lots to unpack here.

Secularism, materialism, atheism and humanism are all separate things. You do not need to be atheist to agree with secularism and most secularists aren't atheists. Most of them are Christians as well as other religious individuals who don't want religious bodies ruling government bodies. (Theocracies, which are actually totalitarian, bad) To keep no religious office in politics and make no religion 'in charge' of civil law.

Humanism is also part of a Christian movement. And while there are humanist philosophies that reject supernaturalism (which not all religions have) there are those that don't. Christian humanism - Wikipedia

Finally, again, not all atheists are materialists because supernatural and spiritual don't require a god.

Creationism, of course, doesn't belong in any science classroom, because it isn't scientific. Has nothing to do with secularism.

The reason creationism doesn't belong in any classroom is because the classrooms are Atheist territory. Naturally, you see it as an "of course"

Its important that the church and state are separate, but that wasn't enough for the (Atheists, Humanists or Secularist). They seek to separate religion, religious values and religionists from having a voice in society.

 

[Rawshak]

Atheistic science is a religious belief presented as a neutral standard that everyone should just shut up and accept. To say life evolved over time is an observation based on a number of correlated facts. But to go one step further and claim life invented itself when lightening struck a pile of sand, means nothing and is going nowhere, is Atheistic science. Its a form of religious belief.

Could you point to what atheistic science is? I am unaware of any such entity.

 

[Rawshak]

The reason creationism doesn't belong in any classroom is because the classrooms are Atheist territory. Naturally, you see it as an "of course"

You have misquoted the poster, they say that creationism does not belong in any science classroom not that is does not belong in any classroom. You have simply made a factual error.

 

[GardenLady]

@cOLTER, how do you reconcile your assertions with the FACT that many (perhaps most) Christians are both theists and accept the scientific evidence of evolution and deep time? Many who accept this science are not materialists or atheists. Why lie about their faith?

 

[Colt]

@cOLTER, how do you reconcile your assertions with the FACT that many (perhaps most) Christians are both theists and accept the scientific evidence of evolution and deep time? Many who accept this science are not materialists or atheists. Why lie about their faith?

I'm a theistic evolutionist. I want facts taught, not Atheistic belief masquerading as scientific fact.

To say life evolved is supported by facts. To say life evolved after life spontaneously invented itself and one-day-we-will-prove-it is a kind of unsubstantiated faith presented as fact.

In general, the bias of evolutionary scientific discussion is the assertion that Life appeared on its own and disregards a creator through some sort of event. The Miller–Urey experiment was an attempt to recreate the hypothesis.

 

[ecco]

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.

Every theist cherry-picks. All theists cherry-pick.

The slavers cherry-picked verses to support their beliefs.
The abolitionists cherry-picked verses to support their beliefs.

That's the problem with the Bible, and most all scripture, one can find justification for almost anything

 

[F1fan]

Yes. Of course secularism can oppress some theists.

So not all theists would have a problem with it. Why are they cool with secularism while your "some" would not be? What is the latter group wanting if they see secular approaches as oppression?

Would it be oppressive for some secularists to live within a Theistic community, like a theocracy?

If the theocracy forced compliance to some ideological authority that would otherwise not occur in a secular nation, then yes.

Secularism inhibits, prohibits and/or reduces the freedoms of Theism.

What freedoms can't they have?

Theism inhibits, prohibits and/or reduces the freedoms of Secularism.

And even other forms of theism, so vastly less tolerant and free as a society, yes? Which offers more to an open society?

Which part of that is hard to understand?

Depends on your answers.

 

[ecco]

Secularism in education can be seen in such things as anti-creationism trends.

Secularism in education can also be seen in such things as not forcing kids to pray to a specific God.

I wouldn't refer to anti-creationism as a trend. Anti-creationism is a step away from superstition and toward reality.

Secularism promotes "materialism" as a belief devoid of any spiritual aspects to reality.

Atheism promotes a belief devoid of any supernatural aspects to reality.

Atheism and its cousin humanism as movements are by their nature anti-God and hence anti-religious values.

Yes. And that is good.
Religious values stemming from the Bible make homosexuality wrong.
Religious values stemming from the Bible make masturbation wrong.
Religious values stemming from the Bible make slavery right.

Materialism denies God, secularism simply ignores him.

Atheists and Materialists would be glad to ignore God(s). However, the religious always want to insert God(s) into daily life.

Basically Secular totalitarians slowly extracts the religious influence in societal value structures and replaces them with their own.

Good.

 

[F1fan]

What does 'true belief in an absolute sense' mean in this thread?

Hell if I know. It's something a certain category of believer claims for themselves. I was just quoting one of these believers.

In my experience it is an absolutist and extreme form of belief, that both claims to have an exclusive and correct interpretation of a religion over all other interpretations. It also tends to claim authority over all people even if they don't agree or believe.