Can secularism be oppressive to any religious believer?

[Valjean]

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

"Atheist secular religion" makes no sense. A religion is a belief system. Atheism is neither a system nor a belief; atheism is a lack of belief.
I'd hazard to guess that you, M. cOLTER, lack belief in leprechauns. Is your a-leprechaunism in any way a religion? Is your a-leprechaunism not synonymous with my a-theism?

You promote Godless materialism so just ask yourself.

Do you believe that your car moving automotively, water coming out of your tap or falling from the sky, or a hammer falling to the ground when you drop it, are effected by God -- or can they be explained by 'godless' physics, chemistry, engineering?

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.

Very few secularists are anti-religion, nor is secularism a religion. Most are neutral on the subject of religion. Indeed, the subject almost never comes up.

How is a lack of belief in religion -- formal or otherwise, -- or unicorns, for that matter, not a lack of belief?
How is secularism a religion?
Godless secularism? -- I'm assuming you mean the belief that things can happen by themselves, without direct intervention of any invisible personage?

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

Secularism isn't an investigative modality. It's not out to prove anything.
Secularists haven't disproved the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Easter Bunny, or unicorns, either.

Things work without resort to religion or magical thinking. Religion seems unnecessary; it has no demonstrable function in practical affairs, so why should anyone take it into consideration in everyday affairs?

 

[Valjean]

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.

How is atheistic science different from regular science? How is atheistic carpentry, driving, or cooking different from theistic carpentry, driving or cooking?

Science doesn't say everyone should just shut up and accept. The whole scientific method demands criticism, and attempts to disprove ideas and theories. Science encourages everyone to attack it -- especially other scientists. That's how it works. Science attempts to disprove its ideas. That's why the ones that stand are so productive.

Again: How is a claim that life occurred mechanically, by physics and chemistry rather than magic, a religious belief?

cOLTER, I don't believe you understand what science is. How do you see it as a religious belief, as opposed to an evidence-based belief?
In no observation of anything, or investigation of any phenomenon, has magic ever been found a necessary component.

Life developed -- can we agree on that? You believe it poofed into existence by magic. I believe it developed like everything else we've ever seen -- step by step, through ordinary chemistry and physics.
The laws and constants of physics just are, they operate automatically, with no intention needed.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Every time they have a voice in society, things go wrong.

 

[F1fan]

It seems unfortunate that many people think belief is the heart of religion, but this is part of what protects religion from government interference.

This tells us what YOU think it isn't, you don't bother to explain what the heart of religion is. Be sure it applies to all forms of religion from liberal Universalists to the 9-11 hijackers.

If politicals think it is about belief then they dismiss it instead of opposing it -- which can be a good thing. In particular its good when good people are laboring beneath an evil government to accomplish something good, but its bad when people begin to live like its about belief, like its just about putting teeth under their pillow. So I think.

So how would you categorize the laws Oklahoma state officials passed to ban Sharia Law? Is that dismissing or opposing? Are these republicans an evil government?

 

[Valjean]

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

What atheistic beliefs masquerading as fact are being taught? What's the difference between fact and "atheistic belief?"

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.

So because we don't yet have all the facts of abiogenesis we should not expect a natural mechanism? When have we ever discovered an unnatural, magical mechanism? Considering this, isn't expecting a natural mechanism reasonable?
No magical mechanism has ever been demonstrated, for anything. Isn't not seeking a magical mechanism reasonable?

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.

And the Miller-Urey experiments, and the many subsequent experiments, were very revelatory, weren't they?

Everything ever investigated has been found to have a natural explanation. No magic has ever been discovered. It's reasonable to investigate mechanism rather than agency, when no hint of agency has ever been found.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This tells us what YOU think it isn't, you don't bother to explain what the heart of religion is. Be sure it applies to all forms of religion from liberal Universalists to the 9-11 hijackers.

There is no center about which all religion revolves, since the name of a religion describes only what a religion looks like...what people seem to be doing...bowing or whatever. Its what outsiders think of the group -- not what the group actually is. Its like the address on a house or the cover on a book. The books might look the same and made out of paper, but they aren't the same. They aren't about the same things.

So how would you categorize the laws Oklahoma state officials passed to ban Sharia Law? Is that dismissing or opposing? Are these republicans an evil government?

Its the first time anyone mentioned that in this thread, and I'm unfamiliar with this situation in Oklahoma. In terms of what I am talking about it sounds like the Oklahoma law makers have decided that sharia is more than beliefs and is some sort of competing legal system. That is part of the danger when people see a religion for what it does rather than seeing it as a belief system.

 

[Kfox]

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

Atheism is not about making truth claims. To remain skeptical of a (theists) truth claim is the opposite of a truth claim.

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

No; to remain neutral is not a stance. In this case neutral is equal to silence.
neutral

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

Good point.

 

[Clara Tea]

So you think my nickname (Kfox) means theists are restricted? Where on Earth did you hear that??? Trust me; my nickname has nothing to do with restricting religious people.

I thought that Fox news was biased for Republicans, and they were for the Religious Right (not restricting religious people).

I'm glad that I asked you to clarify your name, so now I know what it means.

 

[Clara Tea]

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?"

Forcing Iraqi and Afghan women to get rid of burkas makes them look more American, but doesn't change their underlying beliefs. From their standpoint, women are judged by their character, rather than their appearance, when that appearance is covered up. Thus, it is more liberating than Americans realize.

Many foreign countries balk at US legal decisions. For example, they felt that OJ Simpson got away with murder. They look at petty thieves getting away with crimes that in their country would result in hands chopped off (which would not only prevent them from using their hands to steal again, but would warn would-be thieves from trying to steal, and it would identify convicted thieves to all who saw that they were missing hands.

If we have a right to go into their country and change it, do they have a right to go into ours and change our laws?

 

[Clara Tea]

False. Evolution is a large set of conclusions from hundreds of thousands of experiments based on facts and data. Gods and other religious ideas are irrelevant. Your attitude here is an example of why free societies need to be secular: so there can be true and accurate knowledge.

And if you don't like that materialism doesn't include supernatural concepts, then find evidence of a supernatural existing outside of human imagination. If you cannot, then don't blame science.



AKA, reality. And that's a problem?





So if secularists are religious, and being religious is bad, then you shouldn't be religious either, right?




Which version of God haven't they disproved?

Don't worry about it, the list has about 4000 names on it. But that's OK because it's up to believers to demonstrate their idea of god exists outside of their imagination.

Many scientists are highly religious. I've known many who were.

 

[Clara Tea]

"Atheist secular religion" makes no sense. A religion is a belief system. Atheism is neither a system nor a belief; atheism is a lack of belief.
I'd hazard to guess that you, M. cOLTER, lack belief in leprechauns. Is your a-leprechaunism in any way a religion? Is your a-leprechaunism not synonymous with my a-theism?
Do you believe that your car moving automotively, water coming out of your tap or falling from the sky, or a hammer falling to the ground when you drop it, are effected by God -- or can they be explained by 'godless' physics, chemistry, engineering?
Very few secularists are anti-religion, nor is secularism a religion. Most are neutral on the subject of religion. Indeed, the subject almost never comes up.

How is a lack of belief in religion -- formal or otherwise, -- or unicorns, for that matter, not a lack of belief?
How is secularism a religion?
Godless secularism? -- I'm assuming you mean the belief that things can happen by themselves, without direct intervention of any invisible personage?
Secularism isn't an investigative modality. It's not out to prove anything.
Secularists haven't disproved the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Easter Bunny, or unicorns, either.
Things work without resort to religion or magical thinking. Religion seems unnecessary; it has no demonstrable function in practical affairs, so why should anyone take it into consideration in everyday affairs?

While atheism is a lack of belief, evolution is a belief (well founded with DNA) that life came to be in a certain way.

Theists often argue that schools should not teach ideas of how life came to be because creationism is often ignored. They argue that if all religions are equal, they should have equal voice in schools.

 

[Augustus]

Secularism can be advocated for by any range of people, from those who don't like religion to fervent theists. It's just a standard for a social activity, that being that religion is left out of it. It's not saying religion is good or bad, it just defines a way of doing things.

None of that changes the fact it is an ideological preference to favour secularism over another system (and that it requires a culturally specific understanding of religion that sees a clear divide between the religious and the secular).

Are you of the opinion that it is not an ideological preference?

 

[F1fan]

Many scientists are highly religious. I've known many who were.

One of my uncles is a Ph.D. chemist, and also a creationist. How whole career was in the pharmaceutical field. They moved a lot when my cousins and me were young and my mom told me he had a hard time advancing due to his religious beliefs, so he kept changing jobs. He ended up in a management position to end his career.

 

[F1fan]

None of that changes the fact it is an ideological preference to favour secularism over another system (and that it requires a culturally specific understanding of religion that sees a clear divide between the religious and the secular).

Well you fail to explain how secularism is an ideology. But what most any theist will agree to is that they don't want some competing religion telling them what the truth is. A secular approach is an excellent way to create order and stability.

Are you of the opinion that it is not an ideological preference?

Well it could be a stand a person has IF, for example, they see religion as very harmful to the future of a nation or the planet. Secular as a functional approach is not ideological itself, just a good idea.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"secularism can be pretty oppressive for true believers"

We in India are going to face that soon. The Indian Constitution says that men or women (and LGBTQ) are to be treated equally. The Supreme Court wants to have the same rights for men and women (and LGBTQ). But religions, Islam in particular, has different views. So, there will be agitations and unrest whenever the Parliament comes up with 'Uniform Civil Code'. India is going to have no religion-specific rules as it has at present.

 

[Augustus]

Well you fail to explain how secularism is an ideology. But what most any theist will agree to is that they don't want some competing religion telling them what the truth is. A secular approach is an excellent way to create order and stability.

An ideological preference is not an ideology, it is a pregerence that is based on one's ideology i.e. It is a subjective value choice.

Well it could be a stand a person has IF, for example, they see religion as very harmful to the future of a nation or the planet. Secular as a functional approach is not ideological itself, just a good idea.

Do you view ideology as a negative term? Otherwise why would it not be ideological to prefer one culturally contingent value proposition over another.

I find it interesting how western secular humanistic types are often so unaware that their ideological preferences are very much the culturally contingent product of a specific environment, rather than being the neutral application of universal reason that they seem to think they are.

 

[Valjean]

Forcing Iraqi and Afghan women to get rid of burkas makes them look more American, but doesn't change their underlying beliefs. From their standpoint, women are judged by their character, rather than their appearance, when that appearance is covered up. Thus, it is more liberating than Americans realize.

But the point is, noöne forced the Afghans to adopt Western dress or lifestyles. They did this themselves. In fact, it was only after the West became exploitative and heavy-handed that the retreat to the 1400s began.

So, rather than encouraging proper behavior in men, or expecting men to control themselves, the burden falls on women to hide themselves and restrict their free movement. The sad part is that this hasn't worked. It hasn't reduced sexual assault, it's only swept it under the rug.

Many foreign countries balk at US legal decisions. For example, they felt that OJ Simpson got away with murder. They look at petty thieves getting away with crimes that in their country would result in hands chopped off (which would not only prevent them from using their hands to steal again, but would warn would-be thieves from trying to steal, and it would identify convicted thieves to all who saw that they were missing hands.

If we have a right to go into their country and change it, do they have a right to go into ours and change our laws?

Good points. forcing change on people produces a regressive backlash and resentment. If you want to influence people just move in next door and live your life. If neighbors see an advantage to it, they'll imitate it of their own accord.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't understand how secularism is an ideological preference? Seriously?

I said "ideology or doctrine". And no, I'm not seeing that.

Secularism is not a doctrine. It doesn't come with a bunch of instructions of what kind of laws should be installed or whatever.

Instead, it's more about how laws and regulations should be motivated (or not).
It is an acknowledgement of how citizens of a society can and do believe different things in terms of religions and how to make sure every one of them can freely hold to those beliefs without one group imposing their religion on others.

People, fundamentalist theists in particular, like to say / think that secularism is "anti religious".
I consider it to be the exact opposite. Secularism is PRO religion as it is the way we have come up with to make sure that everyone gets to follow the religion of their choosing, without having any authorities telling them which religion they can and can't follow.


In that sense, "secularism" to me is pretty much the same as anti-racism.
It tries to make sure that people of all faiths are treated equally, just like anti-racism tries to make sure people of all skin colors are treated equally.

To me, as I understand it, a religious person who opposes secularism is like a racist who opposes humanism.

 

[Valjean]

None of that changes the fact it is an ideological preference to favour secularism over another system (and that it requires a culturally specific understanding of religion that sees a clear divide between the religious and the secular).

Are you of the opinion that it is not an ideological preference?

I believe it's the experiential norm. People grow up seeing how things work. Secularism is a sort of default.

It's interpreting reality according to a particular mythology, trying to organize society around that mythology, even imposing laws based on the myth that's the ideology.