Defending Secularism against Religious Incursions

[columbus]

(BTW, "islamophobia" is a fundamentally dishonest term promoted by those who want to stifle criticism. If you're concerned with anti-Muslim discrimination, you have a legitimate concern. But the term "islamophobia" conflates actual discrimination with legitimate criticism.)

Islamophobia is one of those vague words, like antisemitism, that people use as a weapon when their opinions and the facts fail to win the argument.
Tom

 

[icehorse]

But like climate change, you can't see their claims. It's a lie, a scheme, backed up by falsified interpretation of mountains of data. So I don't think we're getting anywhere, you have an unwavering faith in the incorruptibility of the scientific community. Much like in days of old people believed the pope and his church were infallible.

Glaciers all over the world are melting at an alarming rate. Do you think this is a claim without evidence? Are you saying all of this evidence has been falsified?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps we can make some progress here.

OK

So here's an assumption I'm making:

I view secularism and theocracy as opponents in a zero-sum game.

Do you agree or disagree?

Wikipedia offers the following:

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries (the attainment of such is termed secularity). One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs or practices.​

If that is acceptable to you, then I agree.

(BTW, "islamophobia" is a fundamentally dishonest term promoted by those who want to stifle criticism. If you're concerned with anti-Muslim discrimination, you have a legitimate concern. But the term "islamophobia" conflates actual discrimination with legitimate criticism.)

Would you raise the same opposition to the terms "xenophobia" and "antisemitism"?

(I'm sorry, but I'm off to the airport to pick up visiting family. I will be offline for much of the remaining weekend.)

 

[icehorse]

Would you raise the same opposition to the terms "xenophobia" and "antisemitism"?

(I'm sorry, but I'm off to the airport to pick up visiting family. I will be offline for much of the remaining weekend.)

I'm fine with the definition of secularism you provided. So to verify, that means that we're agreed that secularism and theocracy are in opposition in a zero-sum game?

As for xenophobia and antisemitism, I believe that those are both fears of people, whereas critics of Islam are criticizing ideas, not people.

I believe we ought to have unbiased terms for fear of Muslims as people AND for dislike of Islamic ideas. I think that to conflate those two is a problem.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As I said in the other thread, the title was nonsense and pushing an anti-religious agenda that had nothing to do with what was actually going on, which was a worker dispute for break allowances in subcontractor work, and access to a break space set aside for prayer, which Amazon already provides to its workers, to subcontractor workers too.
Essentially it's about how parent company and subcontracting companies work for independent contractors.
Calling that 'pushing sharia or 'pushing theocracy is unreasonable and irrational, imo.

 

[icehorse]

As I said in the other thread, the title was nonsense and pushing an anti-religious agenda that had nothing to do with what was actually going on, which was a worker dispute for break allowances in subcontractor work, and access to a break space set aside for prayer, which Amazon already provides to its workers, to subcontractor workers too.
Essentially it's about how parent company and subcontracting companies work for independent contractors.
Calling that 'pushing sharia or 'pushing theocracy is unreasonable and irrational, imo.

I'm attempting to nail down a few definitions here. DA, would you agree with the following?:

"Secularism and theocracy are in opposition in a zero-sum game."

 

[Augustus]

"Secularism and theocracy are in opposition in a zero-sum game."

Few people would argue with that, you do have a habit of posting as if all religion = theocracy though.

This might be of interest to you (also has a nice background on the evolution of 'Orthodox' Islam in 9th C Iraq.

I finally got to reading Turkish journalist Mustafa Akyol’s book, Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty (2011). It is a well-researched book, very smart, and daring in a way I hadn’t considered before. Akyol argues that a Muslim can stay within the boundaries of the faith and still enjoy all the freedoms available in secular Western democracies. All that is required is for him or her to be bound by the word of Allah, as revealed in the Koran. And since the Koran by itself cannot meet all the Muslim’s needs for guidance, a careful use of the Hadith (the authorized collection of sayings about the words and deeds of Prophet Mohammed), one that conforms to the message of the Koran, is acceptable.

Islam Without Hadith? - Tingis Magazine

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

But like climate change, you can't see their claims. It's a lie, a scheme, backed up by falsified interpretation of mountains of data. So I don't think we're getting anywhere, you have an unwavering faith in the incorruptibility of the scientific community. Much like in days of old people believed the pope and his church were infallible.

See, here's the thing: Science is self-correcting. This is because it is a multi-national, multi-cultural group effort.

Sure, it's made up of very fallible people. But it is self-correcting! One of the ways to make high reknown, in science?

Is to disprove a long-held, cherished theory!


Let's contrast this with any religion-- pick one-- ANY of them-- they are all the time having to change, to fit modern understanding of the universe.

Not once-- in all the history of Earth, has the scientific community had to back-track, and admit that some religious holy book had it correct from the beginning.

Not. Once.

But..... how many times have the "holy" books been back-tracked, because their sayings were proven wrong?

Too many to count!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Islamophobia is one of those vague words, like antisemitism, that people use as a weapon when their opinions and the facts fail to win the argument.
Tom

Yeah.... but. Is "phobia" accurate? Does not that describe irrational fear?

What about very rational fear?

What was the name of the religion behind the 9/11 attacks again?

Which "holy" book did they refer to, to "justify" their activities?

Isn't it the exact same "holy" book that the so-called "moderates" use?

Just as the same bible is used by those nutters from Westburough Church?

The thing that bothers me? Is they all use the same infernal books --

It is as if there is no over-arching authority that could enforce the "correct" interpretation of these books... !

What sort of deity would be so .... lax?

 

[icehorse]

Few people would argue with that...

In reference to the claim that: "Secularism and theocracy are in opposition in a zero-sum game."

Ok. So any successful attack on secularism is therefore a gain for theocracy, correct?

 

[Augustus]

In reference to the claim that: "Secularism and theocracy are in opposition in a zero-sum game."

Ok. So any successful attack on secularism is therefore a gain for theocracy, correct?

Not really. There is still a continuum between secularism and theocracy. You have: Pure secularism - religiously influenced governance - theocracy. Only a minority of those who wish for religiously influenced governance want a genuine theocracy.

But more to the point, some things you conflate with theocracy are not necessarily incompatible with secularism (making reasonable accommodations for religious belief in the workplace for example).

 

[icehorse]

Not really. There is still a continuum between secularism and theocracy. You have: Pure secularism - religiously influenced governance - theocracy. Only a minority of those who wish for religiously influenced governance want a genuine theocracy.

But more to the point, some things you conflate with theocracy are not necessarily incompatible with secularism (making reasonable accommodations for religious belief in the workplace for example).

Agreed on the continuum, but it sounds like you're rethinking the zero-sum aspect?

Let me put this another way, if you agree with the zero-sum idea, then any action that weakens secularism strengthens theocracy. I'd like to hash that out before moving forward...

 

[Willamena]

How are the following an "encroachment on secularism and human rights"?

Off the top of my head, here is a list of recent efforts by (mostly), Christians and Muslims to encroach on secularism and human rights:

- Climate change denial
- Corporal punishment in red states
- Halal and kosher in public schools (NY)

To shine light on such anti-secular efforts is not "dog whistling", nor is it racist as the "Yellow Peril" smear implies.

 

[icehorse]

How are the following an "encroachment on secularism and human rights"?

- Climate change denial comes from two main sources: the fossil fuel industry, and right wing Christians. There are many Christians who take the advice "take no care for the morrow" quite literally, who believe jesus is returning - in their lifetime, and who belief god gave them the earth to do with as they will.

- Corporal punishment - really, you're confused as to how that's a human rights violation?

- Halal and Kosher in public schools - these are religious beliefs impacting public policy. Now it turns out that I think Kosher is barbaric, but even if it wasn't, anyone who wants to eat Kosher can do so on their own, and not attempt to mandate it be provided in the commons.

 

[Willamena]

Few people would argue with that...

I would. The zero-sum game model doesn't apply to anything in real life.

 

[Willamena]

- Corporal punishment - really, you're confused as to how that's a human rights violation?

It's debatable.

Thanks for explaining that the other two issues were understated.

 

[icehorse]

I would. The zero-sum game model doesn't any to anything in real life.

Missing a word here?

 

[Willamena]

Missing a word here?

Fixed.

 

[icehorse]

I would. The zero-sum game model doesn't apply to anything in real life.

wow

 

[icehorse]

It's debatable.

Thanks for explaining that the other two issues were understated.

Good to know your stance on corporal punishment.