Can secularism be oppressive to any religious believer?

[F1fan]

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.

 

[Meow Mix]

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

 

[Rawshak]

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, 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.

 

[Secret Chief]

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.

I'd settle for my own cake factory. Possibly run by slaves.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

Which thread was that?

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

Secularism allows owning slaves. Humanism doesn't.

 

[Rawshak]

Secularism allows owning slaves. Humanism doesn't.

Ok I guess I am not oppressed by secularism then, just humanism.

 

[F1fan]

Which thread was that?

The one about the Taliban might be correct. It's now closed under review. Look at page 6.

 

[F1fan]

Secularism allows owning slaves. Humanism doesn't.

How does secularism assume an authority to own people?

Let's note the Bible condones slavery, and the Confederation of States were Southern Baptist using the authority of the Bible to justify owning black people kidnapped from Africa.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

How does secularism assume an authority to own people?

Let's note the Bible condones slavery, and the Confederation of States were Southern Baptist using the authority of the Bible to justify owning black people kidnapped from Africa.

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.

 

[Augustus]

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.

Secularism isn't a 'neutral' principle, it is a particular ideological stance that largely developed in modern Christian/post-Christian societies.

It assumes a certain form of religion, and that this can and should exist in a sphere distinct from governance.

That this is a culturally contingent concept is expressed by the Indian historian S. N. Balagangadhar who noted: “Christianity spreads in two ways, through conversion and through secularisation.”

We can argue that secularism is good, but shouldn't forget that it asserting its own ideological truth just as religions are and is not simply a default or neutral position. Ultimately it is about one group's ideological preferences defeating other group's and denying them legitimacy.

 

[HonestJoe]

On another discussion a member claimed that "secularism can be pretty opressive for true believers".

That kind of statement pretty much always reflects a misunderstanding of the word "secularism".

 

[F1fan]

Secularism isn't a 'neutral' principle, it is a particular ideological stance that largely developed in modern Christian/post-Christian societies.

It assumes a certain form of religion, and that this can and should exist in a sphere distinct from governance.

That this is a culturally contingent concept is expressed by the Indian historian S. N. Balagangadhar who noted: “Christianity spreads in two ways, through conversion and through secularisation.”

We can argue that secularism is good, but shouldn't forget that it asserting its own ideological truth just as religions are and is not simply a default or neutral position. Ultimately it is about one group's ideological preferences defeating other group's and denying them legitimacy.

Isn't is fair to define secular as "no religious influence"?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It assumes a certain form of religion, and that this can and should exist in a sphere distinct from governance.

That this is a culturally contingent concept is expressed by the Indian historian S. N. Balagangadhar who noted: “Christianity spreads in two ways, through conversion and through secularisation.”

But surely you recognize that the idea of "secularization" is more broadly applicable in any situation where a particular religious belief was being wielded within governance, and that begins to fall to calls for less biased viewpoints being at the helm of said governance? Meaning... even if the word has its roots in the "Christian-principles" versus "variously-sourced-principals" debate, it isn't just sitting there anymore.

We can argue that secularism is good, but shouldn't forget that it asserting its own ideological truth just as religions are and is not simply a default or neutral position. Ultimately it is about one group's ideological preferences defeating other group's and denying them legitimacy.

And what is the ideology in play within the idea of "Secularism?" I mean besides the idea that religious conviction not be used as the basis of governance? Is there anything else that makes up an "ideology" of secularism? Honestly... it sounds a lot like the ongoing misunderstanding of "atheism" and all that term entails in totality. All I believe you can know for certain with only hearing that a society is "secular" is that this society doesn't allow religious articles to decide state-wide governance. Just as all you can know about an person upon hearing only that they are atheist is that they do not believe in deities.

 

[Windwalker]

We can argue that secularism is good, but shouldn't forget that it asserting its own ideological truth just as religions are and is not simply a default or neutral position. Ultimately it is about one group's ideological preferences defeating other group's and denying them legitimacy.

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.

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.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

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

I agree with you, the claim makes no sense.

I came to this conclusion:
People who believe falsities see everything upside down.

 

[Brickjectivity]

How does secularism assume an authority to own people?

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.

Let's note the Bible condones slavery, and the Confederation of States were Southern Baptist using the authority of the Bible to justify owning black people kidnapped from Africa.

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.

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.

 

[Valjean]

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.

 

[Augustus]

Isn't is fair to define secular as "no religious influence"?

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?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

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.