Secularism doesn't make much sense to a pantheistic, polytheistic and animistic worldview. It's from a foreign paradigm that grew out of monotheism.
-
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!
Secular Power is a blessing to humanity, not some sort of divine chastisement
- Thread starter danieldemol
- Start date
@danieldemol Very much agree.
I would hate to live under any sort of theocracy, not least one inspired by my own religion - as a minority, fundamentalist group of Catholic 'integralists', who are at odds with the current Vatican, advocate.
So far as I'm concerned, faith and morality cannot be dictated through policymaking. You cannot legislate morality. God acts upon the human conscience, through the impulse of grace and not by means of the state.
"In order for all persons to exercise their liberty, the state must tolerate those freely chosen actions of citizens of which it disapproves." (William Galston, Liberal Purposes, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p.222)
A theocracy cannot admit of this, since the system touts its own laws and processes as emanating from divine sanction, therefore it is an inherently defective governmental order.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), through the moral intuitions of conscience and reason human beings have direct access to the Natural Law, which itself participates in the Eternal Law (the Mind of God). Because of original sin, our ability to comprehend the natural law will never be perfect, and so perfection cannot be expected from any temporal legal systems.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....belief/2012/mar/05/thomas-aquinas-natural-law
This last part is critical: if a piece of legislation is regard as 'divinely authored', it cannot have the flexibility to be waived when it conflicts with the common good. And the law must always serve the common good.
Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine of Hippo both maintained that prostitution was gravely immoral, for instance, and thus out of keeping with their religion. Yet they did not see its immorality as sufficient to justify a legal proscription of the practice by civil governments. Aquinas advocated tolerance of prostitution by noting:
The historian Vincent Dever concisely summarized Aquinas’ thoughts on this:
illinoismedieval.org/ems/VOL13/13ch4.html
In secular states, we prudentially judge a given situation and formulate appropriate legislation to address it, using our minds and consensus in a given society. This will change from decade-to-decade, with older legislation continually requiring review after the passage of time, as human understanding progresses and social conditions develop (populorum progressio).
Since legislation mutates and develops continually - with fresh supreme court judgments overturning older precedents and every new parliament / congress, after an election, passing newer laws to update the existing statutebook, in accord with government policy and evolving social trends - I can't say I would see the merit in having a cache of 'immutable' positive law that is deemed so sacred that we are, basically, 'stuck' with it for eternity.
It's impractical, quite apart from anything else.
I would hate to live under any sort of theocracy, not least one inspired by my own religion - as a minority, fundamentalist group of Catholic 'integralists', who are at odds with the current Vatican, advocate.
So far as I'm concerned, faith and morality cannot be dictated through policymaking. You cannot legislate morality. God acts upon the human conscience, through the impulse of grace and not by means of the state.
"In order for all persons to exercise their liberty, the state must tolerate those freely chosen actions of citizens of which it disapproves." (William Galston, Liberal Purposes, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p.222)
A theocracy cannot admit of this, since the system touts its own laws and processes as emanating from divine sanction, therefore it is an inherently defective governmental order.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), through the moral intuitions of conscience and reason human beings have direct access to the Natural Law, which itself participates in the Eternal Law (the Mind of God). Because of original sin, our ability to comprehend the natural law will never be perfect, and so perfection cannot be expected from any temporal legal systems.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....belief/2012/mar/05/thomas-aquinas-natural-law
[For Aquinas] law is not about individual morality, and individual vices should only be legislated against when they threaten harm to others. Unlike Aristotle, Aquinas believed that an informed conscience takes precedence over law. No individual should obey a law that he or she believes to be unjust, because laws that violate reason are not laws. Moreover, laws must have sufficient flexibility to be waived when necessary in the interests of the common good.
This last part is critical: if a piece of legislation is regard as 'divinely authored', it cannot have the flexibility to be waived when it conflicts with the common good. And the law must always serve the common good.
Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine of Hippo both maintained that prostitution was gravely immoral, for instance, and thus out of keeping with their religion. Yet they did not see its immorality as sufficient to justify a legal proscription of the practice by civil governments. Aquinas advocated tolerance of prostitution by noting:
“Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain evils be incurred: thus Augustine says [De ordine 2.4]: ‘If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.’” (ST II-II, q. 10, a. 11)
The historian Vincent Dever concisely summarized Aquinas’ thoughts on this:
illinoismedieval.org/ems/VOL13/13ch4.html
While civil law does forbid certain vicious acts such as murder and theft, and requires certain acts of virtue such as caring for one’s children and paying one’s debts, it cannot “forbid all vicious acts” nor can it prescribe “all acts of virtue.” Aside from the fact that it would supplant the need for eternal law, why cannot civil law be enacted to prohibit all vicious activities?
The goal of human law is the temporal tranquility of the state and not eternal salvation. Given this goal of temporal peace and order, Aquinas notes that the mandate of human law is to prohibit “whatever destroys social intercourse” and not to “prohibit everything contrary to virtue.” The main reason for civil law’s inability to prohibit all vice is that it cannot effect a full internal reform of an individual.
An individual in their personal moral life is wounded by original sin and can only be restored by God’s grace. Therefore the coercive and educating power of human law is inefficacious in this realm. Aquinas asserts, then, that human law cannot “exact perfect virtue from man, for such virtue belongs to few and cannot be found in so great a number of people as human law has to direct".
The goal of human law is the temporal tranquility of the state and not eternal salvation. Given this goal of temporal peace and order, Aquinas notes that the mandate of human law is to prohibit “whatever destroys social intercourse” and not to “prohibit everything contrary to virtue.” The main reason for civil law’s inability to prohibit all vice is that it cannot effect a full internal reform of an individual.
An individual in their personal moral life is wounded by original sin and can only be restored by God’s grace. Therefore the coercive and educating power of human law is inefficacious in this realm. Aquinas asserts, then, that human law cannot “exact perfect virtue from man, for such virtue belongs to few and cannot be found in so great a number of people as human law has to direct".
In secular states, we prudentially judge a given situation and formulate appropriate legislation to address it, using our minds and consensus in a given society. This will change from decade-to-decade, with older legislation continually requiring review after the passage of time, as human understanding progresses and social conditions develop (populorum progressio).
Since legislation mutates and develops continually - with fresh supreme court judgments overturning older precedents and every new parliament / congress, after an election, passing newer laws to update the existing statutebook, in accord with government policy and evolving social trends - I can't say I would see the merit in having a cache of 'immutable' positive law that is deemed so sacred that we are, basically, 'stuck' with it for eternity.
It's impractical, quite apart from anything else.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Danieldemol, why are you a 'Bahai inspired liberal' when that puts you against Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism? Because these religions oppose what Bahaollah claims without a proof other than the vision of the 'Maid of Heaven'.
To be a liberal you should have been inspired by so many other nice people, past and present. Why do you put limits to your liberalism? There is no dearth of people to be inspired by.
To be a liberal you should have been inspired by so many other nice people, past and present. Why do you put limits to your liberalism? There is no dearth of people to be inspired by.
Last edited:
Who said I’m not inspired by other nice people... you? I’m capable of speaking for myself thanks.
I think people should not give their power to any human leaders/governments. Governments make all wars possible and without them, we would not have any wars.
The clergy are human leaders
Not true, in a state of anarchy there would be civil wars, hence the reason governments arose in the first place.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
Well I think I'd rather frame it as 'secular influence,' rather than frame it terms of power. Things that have the 'power' descriptor attached tend to be open to corruption, to states of eventual non-democracy. Now for a long time, that which is 'secular' didn't even have a foundation established to allow for it get powerful or radiate influence. Now that is has that foundation , it doesn't necessarily mean we just constantly water it with power. It can corrupt just like 'religious power,' or whatever thing that can become a power. Giving it the ability of influence though, is good. Things that are allowed 'influence' tend to contribute, rather than overwhelm or detract from the whole.
The problem is, that's not really a common way it's interpreted. The idea of 'cognitive relativism' gets a little too subtle and sophisticated for many of the ancient religious thinkers, who founded many of the present ideas of how we connect to gods. Human cognitive variation in terms of ideas or behaviors is more likely to be analyzed on a simpler level, they would say it is merely the human ability to 'stray from the truth,' whatever truth it is they are selling. Alignment over relativity
Civil wars are a result of groups that want to govern same area. If people would not give power to those leaders that want the civil war to get all the power, the war would not exist. If people would be just free individuals, they could not have war. But, it could be that there would be some fights between individuals, but those can exist even if we have governments.