Photonic
Ad astra!
You so sure about that? What could you imagine would force a good person to do something bad of their own free will without brainwashing?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ideal secular society?
- Thread starter Apex
- Start date
You so sure about that? What could you imagine would force a good person to do something bad of their own free will without brainwashing?
Human nature. Outside influences. Stress. Depression. There's a few.
Pineblossom
Wanderer
My comments were made in response to the statement that 'Australia was the ideal secular society'.
My point being there is no difference between a 'religious' society and a 'secular' society - neither are 'ideal'.
kerravon
Anti-subjugator
I consider it to be ideal in relation to how religion is treated. The OP is from America where it is socially acceptable to trash atheists and call them communists too. And then there's places like Saudi Arabia that are even worse with regards to religion.
Being an ideal secular society doesn't imply that everything about the society is perfect in the eyes of every single member of that society.
I'd like this society more but it's still just as bad. I'd rather that people were free to do what they like within reason. Expressing ideas, including a religious one, is included in this freedom. People need to acknowledge that people will disagree and learn to tolerate others rather than restrict them. If you feel your idea is better then show them through reason and persuasion.
I think the idea he's expressing is horrifically backward. Anti-theocracy is just as miserably misguided as theocracy.
A secular society wouldn't try to prohibit religion from the view of the public. That's not what having a secular government is. Secular government is just a government that neither favors or disfavors religions -- it's neutral on religion, not opposed to religion.
I very much agree with the concept of a secular government as it's the fairest government to everyone. This means that, for instance, in America I disagree with the religious connotations of the national motto and in the currency ("In God We Trust") -- that shouldn't be there. I disagree with sculptures of the Ten Commandments on government land, such as outside courthouses. I disagree with the phrase "under God" in the official pledge. America should not have any of those things.
However, I disagree with "secular" groups attempting to remove nativity scenes from public parks. I disagree with isolated incidents where people have tried to keep kids from being able to pray at school. I believe people should be able to pray however and whenever they wish as long as they don't force others to do so as well.
Religion has every right to be in the public sphere. Private businesses have every right to add any religious connotations they wish (so long as they don't discriminate in employment, but I thinky ou understand what I mean). It just shouldn't have anything to do with the government.
I honestly can care less if the world is secular or not.
But I do kind of think of that movie Equilibrium when I hear "secular society"
But I do kind of think of that movie Equilibrium when I hear "secular society"
Yeah but I view it would be more stricter than it is today. It's not very scientific to express your personal emotions of things in research.
Let alone, I'm all for freedom of belief or lack of. They would throw you in jail for believing in God, doesn't seem very pleasant in that sense either.
Let alone, I'm all for freedom of belief or lack of. They would throw you in jail for believing in God, doesn't seem very pleasant in that sense either.
Nothing about a secular society would be more strict. Secular government means religious neutrality on the government's part, not oppression of religion.
Oh sorry, I misunderstood what secular society exactly was.
Hmm, then sounds fine.
Thanks for info!
Maybe because Fox "News" and other misinformation outlets repeatedly condemn "secular society" as being equivalent to anti-theocratic totalitarianism or something.
Hehe, I don't watch Fox News though, too unreliable
Ha yeah, didn't mean to insinuate that you did -- just saying that it (and other sources) misinforms enough OTHER people that the misinformation might have gotten to you through them
Pineblossom
Wanderer
To make a claim that a certain situation is 'ideal' is to set a standard to which other things can be measured as 'not ideal'.
To argue that Australia is an 'ideal' secular society is make the statement that it is a standard against other should be measured.
If Australia is the 'ideal' then the world has problems.
Photonic
Ad astra!
Pineblossom
Wanderer
Because non-secular societies are ideal.
What's Iran up too these days?
Same as the US - out to prove who's got the biggest God.
From wikipedia on Secularism
"Secularism is the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be unbiased by religious influence."
Seems I just found a big difference between a religious society and a secular society
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
It doesn't sound like a secular society to me, much less a warped idealistic version, so no, I would not like to live in this form of a pseudo-secular society. It sounds like a a bigoted, anti-religious person's wet dream under a guise of being 'truly secular'.
I have no qualms about living under a secular society, in fact, I approve of it. I do not think religion should have a say in government policies and it should be favoured, let alone enforced, either on believers, or on people of other faiths or none. Nor do I think religion should be opposed and hidden away, as if there is something shameful about it. Neither of these, in my eyes, are tolerant or secular.
If I had to choose between this anti-religious form of government, and a religiously pluralistic form of society (for example, where displays of religion and their holidays and so on were allowed in public areas for many religions, but no laws were enacted with religious inclinations), I'd rather live under the latter -- even if I wasn't religious, and I wasn't always religious.
I would, however, prefer an actual secular country where government is indifferent to religion, and not for or against it. One where nativity scenes are allowed on private, but not public property, for example.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
The guy who wrote the essay is an idiot.
Much as I see on this forum he is using incorrect definitions of secular, religious, etc. No need to even comment on his essay beyond that.
Others have already pointed out that a secular society does not mean the oppression of all religious practices. However, there will always be some oppression of forms of religious practice in a secular society as well as a religious based legal society.
I prefer a secular society. I do not believe that the most fundamental human rights can be upheld unless society is secular.