is secular system for real?

[sandandfoam]

LOL


some bigot secular people who does not care for anyone or anything but what they believe.
.

This isn't secularism.

 

[Breathe]

today girls can not wear hijab in schools, i do not mean veil, i mean ordinary Muslim headgear. so secular system limits freedom of people specially if they are religious.

All the Turkish women I've come across have never worn hijabs. Although I do understand your point here, I can't say that it's the most important of matters. School should be about education.

Hijabs are not required until women reach puberty, and so that, coupled with the fact hijabs are not popular with Turkish women. I'll quote a friend of mine from Istanbul word-for-word: "I dislike hijab". Secular systems should not limit freedom of the religion, but neither should religion limit the freedom of secularization.

i know about sharia that practiced by Ottoman. my grand grands lived under sharia but they were nothing like Iran or Saudi Arabia. we might be secular today but our roots, our morals are related to Ottoman.

I also know about the Armenian Genocide, the Assyrian Genocide, and the Greek Genocide, all done by the Ottomans. Does that count as Ottoman morality?

you know, what i am trying to see here is not about Sharia or anything. secularism is another belief system. all the laws of secular system is based on some people's beliefs. so secular system is not that separated from beliefs, it is a system naturally based on beliefs.

Actually, not so hon - secular countries are about keeping religion out of politics and the running of a country. They are not people's beliefs, but freedoms.

what i am asking here what gives those guys who make rules to take away my right to live as i believe? i mean, what makes their belief rule over mine? it is like, if your belief is God related then you should shut up and sit down, if your beliefs are not God related then you are free to do whatever is that you want to do. and if secular law makers do not believe in God, then they make their own beliefs their God or maybe they worship power and money. i am sorry, , i am trying to understand. it really feels like secular system does not exist considering its defination.

I understand what you are feeling, but this is far too narrow-minded a view about it. Secularization is about keeping religion out of politics. Unfortunately this is a clash with Islam. Why? Because Islam is a political religion.

99% of Turkey is Muslim, and what gives them the right to take away your right to live as you believe? Nobody - except when that inteferes with the everyday running of a country, it does.

If hijabs become allowed in the classrooms once more, then someone will want a jilbab, and then a niqab, and then a burqa. What about the Christians and Jews in the class? Could they start wearing crosses and kippot and stars of David? Who's to say that people won't start asking for sex-segregated classrooms and buses?

Why would you want to start giving in to a loud-mouthed minority of a secular yet Muslim nation? It baffles the mind, especially when most Iranians want to live in secular nations now, for example.

If you don't want to show someone your hair, just shave it off. Just keep Islam out of Turkish politics or it'll go into a slippery slope. Secularism isn't perfect, no way, but it's much better than living under someone elses' interpretation of "Allah's Laws".

You can't critisize the laws when they are Allah's. You can when they are man's. Man's laws can change with the time.

 

[RomCat]

Secular does not mean "Godless."
Secular means "temporal" or "transitory."
This world is a passing thing.
All authority comes from God whether
secular or not.
What does Jesus teach us? "Render to
Caeser the things that are Caeser's and
to God the things that are God's."
That does not mean that all secular law
is in conformity with God's Will. What it
does mean is that we are obligated to obey
all just secular law in so far as we can. By
doing so we are obeying God not man.

 

[.lava]

I also know about the Armenian Genocide, the Assyrian Genocide, and the Greek Genocide, all done by the Ottomans. Does that count as Ottoman morality?

i am not ignoring rest of your respond. but i would have to leave for awhile.

i would say there is no genocide. as long as people -who say there is- keep ignoring archieves, i can not take them seriously. first read archieves of both Turkish and Russian and demand Armenia to open their archieves. and ask yourself why they refuse to open archieves.

.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If hijabs become allowed in the classrooms once more, then someone will want a jilbab, and then a niqab, and then a burqa. What about the Christians and Jews in the class? Could they start wearing crosses and kippot and stars of David?

I suppose they could. So what?

Who's to say that people won't start asking for sex-segregated classrooms and buses?

They can ask, but the whole point of secularism is not imposing one person's religious views on another. If you demand that nobody wear hijabs to school, you're imposing your religious views on anyone who would want to wear a hijab. If you demand sex-segregated classrooms, you're imposing your religious views on all the other students in the class.

 

[Diederick]

hi

in Turkey many discussions has been made about secular system. more i listened to this secular people, i realized how bigot they are. concept of secularism almost lost its meaning. it is an empty concept.

What do you think is the meaning (the "concept") of secularism? And how does it lose its meaning?

here is what i think;

if we really divide beliefs and government, what's left behind could only be anarchy, no laws= wild West. because noone can make a law without believing something is right or wrong.

Humans are quite capable to think for themselves, we can witness suffering and predict it. If someone gets hurt by an action, that particular action might be bad - hence we make a law banning such an action. Altruism is the natural provider of ethics, so we would do fine without religion interfering in our justice system.

i mean, if your law says that stealing is a crime and it deserves punishment, you must believe that's wrong. otherwise you can not make a law. so all the laws that's made by men are depend on beliefs of men. each law contains a belief. would you please tell me how's that make a nation secular?

Secularism is not a complete void of all belief, after all, we have to believe in something (establish the belief in something to be real, to begin with). Secularism solely is the disbelief and opposition of religion and/or Theism, nothing more. A secular state is inherently better than a Theocracy, because it is more capable of growing, evolving and changing to better itself. Besides that it is based on reality, instead of some fairytale, making its laws much more credible.

"Why can't I steal from a shop?"
Answer A: "Because an invisible and unlimitedly powerful thing says you can't."
Answer B: "Because the shopkeeper would be hurt if you did."

The motivation of "A" is fear and greed. The motivation of "B" is pity. Which would you choose, or better, which would Jesus choose?

 

[LuisDantas]

if we really divide beliefs and government, what's left behind could only be anarchy, no laws= wild West. because noone can make a law without believing something is right or wrong. i mean, if your law says that stealing is a crime and it deserves punishment, you must believe that's wrong. otherwise you can not make a law. so all the laws that's made by men are depend on beliefs of men. each law contains a belief. would you please tell me how's that make a nation secular?

Evidence suggest that neither religion nor law are adequate substitutes for social structure and morals.

It seems to me that you are over-valuing both Law and the convenience of having an official faith with close ties to the political system.

Law is made by men... as is religion. That is not a reason to choose a belief, but instead to keep all beliefs away from politics.

 

[.lava]

I suppose they could. So what?


They can ask, but the whole point of secularism is not imposing one person's religious views on another. If you demand that nobody wear hijabs to school, you're imposing your religious views on anyone who would want to wear a hijab. If you demand sex-segregated classrooms, you're imposing your religious views on all the other students in the class.

just for the record, those are not my words. people may confuse.

.

 

[.lava]

That is not a reason to choose a belief, but instead to keep all beliefs away from politics.

do you seriously believe that's even possible? i can understand that if a politician would not violate rights of other people who have different beliefs but every man has a belief. i would not believe a politician who says he keeps his beliefs away from politics. real religious leaders would not go into politics because nature of politics requires "taking a side". but that does not mean, politicians would leave their beliefs out of it.

.

 

[sandandfoam]

do you seriously believe that's even possible?
.

Tony Blair (who I do not generally admire) I think managed to keep the two separate.

 

[.lava]

Tony Blair (who I do not generally admire) I think managed to keep the two separate.

then he either did not violate rights of others even though he did not agree with them or he violated his own rights as a human being by doing things he would not sincerely believe. the first one is being a "normal human being" according to my understanding but even that one would not prove he left his beliefs for his social duty.

what makes you think that?

.

 

[Storm]

Secularism solely is the disbelief and opposition of religion and/or Theism, nothing more.

The hell it is!

Secularism is the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.
In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to a belief that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.
source: Wiki - Secularism
​

The fact that those who oppose religion attempt to co-opt secularism for a veneer of respectability does not change the fact that they are diametrically opposed to its ideals. What you are advocating is not secularism, it's religious oppression.

A secular state is inherently better than a Theocracy, because it is more capable of growing, evolving and changing to better itself. Besides that it is based on reality, instead of some fairytale, making its laws much more credible.

True, but an atheist state isn't secular.

 

[sandandfoam]

what makes you think that?

.

Blair converted to Catholicism after leaving Downing Street but he had been going that way for a long time

A number of potentially divisive moral issues would have been much more difficult if Mr Blair had been known to be a Catholic, even though his personal beliefs have not necessarily intruded into the government's decisions.
Ministers have enacted civil partnerships for gay couples and this year faced down demands, particularly from the Catholic church, for exemption from equality provisions enabling gay couples to adopt children, even though the prime minister favoured compromise.
Equally, the government has not attempted to limit abortion rights - an issue regarded as long settled in Britain except by some mainly Catholic groups - or pushed for reduced time limits, even though the church regards abortion as a sin. And it has permitted stem cell research without conceding to Catholic opposition.

from
After 30 years as a closet Catholic, Blair finally puts faith before politics | Politics | The Guardian

 

[Breathe]

i would say there is no genocide. as long as people -who say there is- keep ignoring archieves, i can not take them seriously.

Denying any genocide is a worrying thing indeed, hon. "Hebrew University scholar Yehuda Bauer suggests of the Armenian Genocide, "This is the closest parallel to the Holocaust."

Only Turkey and Azerbaijian (and possibly Turkish Cyprus) refuse to accept it as historical fact...:sad:

 

[.lava]

Denying any genocide is a worrying thing indeed, hon. "Hebrew University scholar Yehuda Bauer suggests of the Armenian Genocide, "This is the closest parallel to the Holocaust."

Only Turkey and Azerbaijian (and possibly Turkish Cyprus) refuse to accept it as historical fact...:sad:

dear, let's talk about it somewhere else.

.

 

[.lava]

Secular does not mean "Godless."
Secular means "temporal" or "transitory."
This world is a passing thing.
All authority comes from God whether
secular or not.
What does Jesus teach us? "Render to
Caeser the things that are Caeser's and
to God the things that are God's."
That does not mean that all secular law
is in conformity with God's Will. What it
does mean is that we are obligated to obey
all just secular law in so far as we can. By
doing so we are obeying God not man.

i might agree with things you say. imo religious laws could be secular too. according to my knowledge Islam is naturally secular, or it is supposed to be. but just like how secular systems are able to become bigot that oppress people, so could any religious system. maybe the real deal here is not the name of system but people who's running it.

.

 

[.lava]

What do you think is the meaning (the "concept") of secularism? And how does it lose its meaning?

a system that protects rights of people. it loses its meaning because secular system would not let people practice their religion in the name of protecting rights of people who's not following the same religion.

Humans are quite capable to think for themselves, we can witness suffering and predict it. If someone gets hurt by an action, that particular action might be bad - hence we make a law banning such an action. Altruism is the natural provider of ethics, so we would do fine without religion interfering in our justice system.
Secularism is not a complete void of all belief, after all, we have to believe in something (establish the belief in something to be real, to begin with). Secularism solely is the disbelief and opposition of religion and/or Theism, nothing more. A secular state is inherently better than a Theocracy, because it is more capable of growing, evolving and changing to better itself. Besides that it is based on reality, instead of some fairytale, making its laws much more credible.

fairy tales huh? OK i'll pass that

i do not think we can talk about justice of a system if system interferes with acts of man even though those acts do no harm to others.

"Why can't I steal from a shop?"
Answer A: "Because an invisible and unlimitedly powerful thing says you can't."
Answer B: "Because the shopkeeper would be hurt if you did."

matter of fact, you can. but laws say you should not because you do not have right to do that. law of God and law of man match there. so not A not B, but maybe both.

The motivation of "A" is fear and greed. The motivation of "B" is pity. Which would you choose, or better, which would Jesus choose?

you're sweet and weird. motivation A is fear and greed. how so? i mean, if i stole and if someone explained me not to do it according to religion, i really need to believe in that. when i believe it means i respect. it is not fear and greed. it is respect and trust. because i do not practice religion to save myself from hell or to earn heaven. at least they are not primary issues. if you violate rights of others, you turn your back to divine sources and move away from God. yet i find happiness in being close to God and being inspired by divine sources. yea i want to be happy, is it greed?

how come motivation B is pity? considering rights of others is one thing, looking down on people is another.

.

 

[LuisDantas]

do you seriously believe that's even possible?

In the most extreme way, probably not. For practical purposes, yes, I think that is both possible and morally necessary.

i can understand that if a politician would not violate rights of other people who have different beliefs but every man has a belief. i would not believe a politician who says he keeps his beliefs away from politics. real religious leaders would not go into politics because nature of politics requires "taking a side". but that does not mean, politicians would leave their beliefs out of it.

I guess that you are technically right. On the other hand, I don't think I could offer any significative degree of trust to either a religious man or a politician who did not try to avoid any significant overlap between the two fields.

It is not that hard, either. After all, good religious practice tends to leave belief aside anyway.

 

[themadhair]

I’ve always interpreted secularism with reference to the establishment clause of the US constitution (something we didn’t quite replicate in the Irish constitution and had a referendum in 1973 to improve it, although only cosmetically).

Basically for every action the government takes it must have either a demonstrable reason or an election on behalf of the people. ‘God says so according to my particular holy book of choice’ isn’t demonstrable.

A lot of people miss this rather important point regarding secular societies – it protects religious minorities in a way non-secular societies do not.

 

[Storm]

I’ve always interpreted secularism with reference to the establishment clause of the US constitution (something we didn’t quite replicate in the Irish constitution and had a referendum in 1973 to improve it, although only cosmetically).

Basically for every action the government takes it must have either a demonstrable reason or an election on behalf of the people. ‘God says so according to my particular holy book of choice’ isn’t demonstrable.

A lot of people miss this rather important point regarding secular societies – it protects religious minorities in a way non-secular societies do not.

Thank you! I've been trying to make this point, but thus far I seem to be being ignored.