Ideal secular society?

[ImmortalFlame]

For atheists here, what do you think of this view of a secular society?

It's pretty F-ed up. For me, secularism is not about an absence of religion in general. It's about impartial organizations and governing bodies being free of any kind of religious bias or affiliation, thereby respecting the rights of all religions and religious people to practice their beliefs without either fear of repression or of being given undeserved levels of influence on the lives of people who do not willingly adhere to their doctrines.

Would it be better than what we have today? Worse?

Probably worse. We've seen what happens when you repress a religion - just imagine what would happen if you tried to repress all religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is from a blog post from an atheist asking if we will ever live in a secular society.

Will We Ever Live in a Secular Society? | Friendly Atheist

He expresses his view a of a "truly" secular society and asks if others share his view (even though he admits it is currently unrealistic).

Here is how he thought of a secular society.
For atheists here, what do you think of this view of a secular society? Would it be better than what we have today? Worse? Or possibly just the same old status quo with a different dominant world view?

For theists, would you enjoy living in such a society?

It doesn't really sound that different from the society we have today in most respects. There's a line I've heard from many sources over the years about how sex, politics and religion are inappropriate topics for polite conversation.

Speaking of politics, at my new workplace, there's a guy with a picture of Stephen Harper (the Canadian Prime Minister) as his Windows wallpaper and a big Conservative Party calendar on his wall. I was a bit taken aback when I saw this - I'm not used to seeing expressions of partisan affiliation in a professional setting.

This doesn't mean that people with jobs aren't politically engaged or don't have partisan affiliations; they just recognize that interacting with everyone is easier if we keep these views to ourselves in professional settings so we don't set up barriers between people who have to work together.

I wouldn't have a problem with a society where people took a similar view of religion: not that it should be eradicated, but that it should be a generally private matter. I also wouldn't have a problem with a society where a person doesn't get any special social benefit (or disbenefit) from his religious affiliation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Probably worse. We've seen what happens when you repress a religion - just imagine what would happen if you tried to repress all religion.

Is the article really talking about repression, though?

I didn't take it to be a description of a society where you'd get fired or arrested for putting a cross up in your cubicle; I took it as a description of a society where you would decide not to put your cross up because you don't think it's appropriate in an office.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just a thought: I think that as a Canadian, I may have a different perspective on this than most Americans.

Historically, my country's been no less religious than yours, but we've had a big difference: we had two major religious groups: Catholics and Protestants. Neither one was dominant, and even though both had strongly held religious views, everyone had to set those views aside if they wanted to work together.

I think this is something that comes with having a society not dominated by a single religious group: religiosity in public forums and mixed social settings has to be toned down if you want to get anything done.

And it's not necessarily about a loss of religiosity in the individual believers; it's just a matter of recognizing which ways of expressing that religiosity are appropriate and which ones aren't.

 

[idav]

The entity that controls a society should have checks and balances or it will fall into corruption like most things do. When they don't have to answer to a higher power it makes it just as easy to fall into corruption as following a tyrant deity. The problem is with the power and who has it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is the article really talking about repression, though?

I didn't take it to be a description of a society where you'd get fired or arrested for putting a cross up in your cubicle; I took it as a description of a society where you would decide not to put your cross up because you don't think it's appropriate in an office.

That could be another way of reading it, but sentences like this one certainly sound like repression:

"Religious people would be relegated to only speaking of their superstition in the confines of their own home or church."

If he meant this purely as an "out of choice" thing, then I guess it doesn't qualify, but the language to me implies there is some kind of official, political stance on the subject.

 

[Me Myself]

Religion is not the problem. Humanity itself is the problem.

:clap :clap :clap :clap

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That could be another way of reading it, but sentences like this one certainly sound like repression:

"Religious people would be relegated to only speaking of their superstition in the confines of their own home or church."

If he meant this purely as an "out of choice" thing, then I guess it doesn't qualify, but the language to me implies there is some kind of official, political stance on the subject.

Hmm. Maybe my take on it was wrong. I doubt that he was suggesting thought police who would arrest people for talking about God in public, but that word "relegated" does make it sound like it's something being imposed on people somehow.

In any case, I'm not in favour of that. I also don't see the need; IMO, religion tends to decline on its own once a person doesn't get preferential social status, power or benefit because of their religion.

 

[JMR105]

I would argue that, outside of a few radical Muslims, modern Britain is as close to an ideal secular society.

The Scandanavian countries too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would argue that, outside of a few radical Muslims, modern Britain is as close to an ideal secular society.

And inside a radical Muslim, it's cramped, dark and wet!


Bad joke. Bad penguin. :sorry1:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would argue that, outside of a few radical Muslims, modern Britain is as close to an ideal secular society.

I'm inclined to agree, though I still think the standards of comparative religion lessons over here need to be dramatically brought up. The lessons I received during my time in a Catholic College were far from what could be considered secular-friendly.

 

[Meow Mix]

I would argue that, outside of a few radical Muslims, modern Britain is as close to an ideal secular society.

The Scandanavian countries too.

They're socially pretty close from what I understand, but I would never consider any state with a state religion or official religion of the state to be close to ideal.