Secularists--Would You Eliminate All Religion, If You Could?

[Storm]

So if this is correct then I'm more confused than ever. How are theists imposing on atheists? It appears that secularism is what we've got.

Once again, Secular =/= atheist. The problem is we're having to fight to keep it.

1. Evolution is being taught in schools.

And they keep trying to get Creationism in science class.

2. Abortion is legal.

And seriously under attack.

3. Gay marriage is coming, in spite of the fact that it has been defeated in every state that voted on it, most by a wide margin.

After a long and bitter stuggle for equality

So here the majority is being imposed upon by the minority.

Yup, just like the Blacks did in the '60s. Ever heard of "the tyranny of the majority"?

More than ever, I don't understand what secularists have against religion.

Not a blessed thing for the most part. Many secularists are religious themselves. I'm one of them.

Other than in a few minor cases, such as our coins, the secularists seem to have their way. What am I not seeing here?

The attack on secularism.

 

[Starfish]

In what way does gay marriage impose upon the majority?

Changing the law. Whenever it has been put a vote, the majority have voted against changing the law to allow gay marriage.

I really don't want to see this thread end up in a debate about same-sex marriage, though. (Like I said before, I can see both sides here.)

 

[Magic Man]

So if this is correct then I'm more confused than ever. How are theists imposing on atheists? It appears that secularism is what we've got.

1. Evolution is being taught in schools.
2. Abortion is legal.
3. Gay marriage is coming, in spite of the fact that it has been defeated in every state that voted on it, most by a wide margin. So here the majority is being imposed upon by the minority.

More than ever, I don't understand what secularists have against religion. Other than in a few minor cases, such as our coins, the secularists seem to have their way. What am I not seeing here?

I think it's the fact that up until recently there was a lot more religion in the government. Over the last several decades I think there has been a movement away from religion in the government, but the imposition that it had there for centuries is still somewhat fresh, especially since it's not completely gone yet.

Also, I think it has to do with things like presidential candidates' religions. Obama has been critisized by some because they thought he was Muslim, and he came out and "defended" himself by declaring his strong ties to Christianity as if being Muslim was a detriment to being a good president.

 

[Storm]

Changing the law. Whenever it has been put a vote, the majority have voted against changing the law to allow gay marriage.

I really don't want to see this thread end up in a debate about same-sex marriage, though. (Like I said before, I can see both sides here.)

The majority voted against interracial marriage as well. However, our government was dleiberately designed to protect the rights of the minority even if the majority wants to trample them. That, too, is a good thing.

 

[Fluffy]

Changing the law. Whenever it has been put a vote, the majority have voted against changing the law to allow gay marriage.

And is that imposition comparable to the imposition placed upon homosexuals who wish to marry but can't?

How is a democracy different in any significant way from an oligarchy if it allows the tyranny of the majority?

 

[Magic Man]

And is that imposition comparable to the imposition placed upon homosexuals who wish to marry but can't?

How is a democracy different in any significant way from an oligarchy if it allows the tyranny of the majority?

Right, because it gay marriage doesn't take away any Christians' rights. Christians can still live their lives the way they want, which is why the allowance of this is not an imposition. The imposition is when you try to take away someone's rights, like taking away gay people's right to marry and enjoy the governmental benefits of it.

 

[Starfish]

I think it's the fact that up until recently there was a lot more religion in the government. Over the last several decades I think there has been a movement away from religion in the government, but the imposition that it had there for centuries is still somewhat fresh, especially since it's not completely gone yet.

Also, I think it has to do with things like presidential candidates' religions. Obama has been critisized by some because they thought he was Muslim, and he came out and "defended" himself by declaring his strong ties to Christianity as if being Muslim was a detriment to being a good president.

(Yea, and Obama's experience was nothing compared to what Romney went through. At least not yet.)

Well, I guess, even though my religion is (I guess) "dogmatic", I am somewhat secularist. And I also suspect that the whole conflict has been way over-blown. We hear these isolated stories about some crusade to remove a picture of Christ from a public building and the whole country goes into a tail-spin. I wouldn't care if there was a statue of Buddha, or the Star of David in my local courthouse, and I bet most people would agree. The few extremists give us all a bad name, on both sides.

Maybe we have our "beloved" media to thank for it.

(It's interesting--this thread went in an entirely different direction than I expected.)

 

[Storm]

What were you expecting?

 

[Magic Man]

(Yea, and Obama's experience was nothing compared to what Romney went through. At least not yet.)

Well, I guess, even though my religion is (I guess) "dogmatic", I am somewhat secularist. And I also suspect that the whole conflict has been way over-blown. We hear these isolated stories about some crusade to remove a picture of Christ from a public building and the whole country goes into a tail-spin. I wouldn't care if there was a statue of Buddha, or the Star of David in my local courthouse, and I bet most people would agree. The few extremists give us all a bad name, on both sides.

Maybe we have our "beloved" media to thank for it.

(It's interesting--this thread went in an entirely different direction than I expected.)

Actually the picture of Christ being there is completely non-secular. To be secular, you would have to remove it. Maybe this is part of the confusion. Secularism is against a government agency promoting any particular religious group over others. People who want to pray and such should could under a secular government, but religious pictures and the like would have to be excluded.

Just to be clear, though, I think the idea of a picture like that being offensive is stupid, and I get annoyed when people get up in arms about that kind of thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How are religions pushed on others? Is it the effort to outlaw abortion, or prevent same-sex marriage? Are there other examples?

I think those are both examples, but there are others:

- specific religious affiliation or general belief in God as a requirement for elected office
- religious holidays instituted as civic holidays for the population as a whole
- public funding of religious schools, either directly or through vouchers
- preferential hiring/treatment in private business based on religion
- public funding of "faith-based initiatives" and religious organizations
- state religions, and religious positions for state officials (e.g. the British monarch as head of the Church of England)
- governmental sanctioning of general religious activities (e.g. the National Day of Prayer)
- laws based specifically on religious teachings
- preferential tax treatment for churches and religious organizations

... and that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other examples.

So if this is correct then I'm more confused than ever. How are theists imposing on atheists? It appears that secularism is what we've got.

1. Evolution is being taught in schools.
2. Abortion is legal.
3. Gay marriage is coming, in spite of the fact that it has been defeated in every state that voted on it, most by a wide margin. So here the majority is being imposed upon by the minority.

Just because society is more secular than you would like doesn't mean it's actually secular.

And how exactly does gay marriage impose anything on anyone? I can only see two ways that this could happen:

- clergy forced to perform same-sex marriages despite personal or religious objections to them.
- people forced to marry members of the same sex even if they don't want to.

More than ever, I don't understand what secularists have against religion. Other than in a few minor cases, such as our coins, the secularists seem to have their way. What am I not seeing here?

Same-sex marriage is not a "minor case". Neither is government funding of "faith-based initiatives" or religious schools. Neither are the requirements in many states for elected representatives to believe in God, or the treatment of churches as charities whether they engage in charitable work or not.

So does the government honor Christ at Christmas? (Just a small point I'd like to get out of the way.)

Whether they suitably honour Christ is debatable, but they certainly celebrate Christmas in an official capacity.

 

[Starfish]

What were you expecting?

Wow, I can hardly remember now. With all the debating in the different threads between theism and atheism, I see a lot of confrontations about believing in God, why is faith important, dumping on organized religion (at least mine), etc. It sometimes feels like the atheist would like the rest of us to evaporate away.

I see religion being a tremendous value in a society, which was the view of many of our founding fathers. So I wanted to know what the non-believers had against the believers. (Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "secular".)

But I don't mind where we've been in this thread, because I, for one, learned something.

 

[Magic Man]

But I don't mind where we've been in this thread, because I, for one, learned something.

And that is the most important thing, isn't it? :yes:

 

[Storm]

Wow, I can hardly remember now. With all the debating in the different threads between theism and atheism, I see a lot of confrontations about believing in God, why is faith important, dumping on organized religion (at least mine), etc. It sometimes feels like the atheist would like the rest of us to evaporate away.

Oh, some of them undoubtedly would, but not the majority. This is a forum for religious discussion and debate, after all.

I see religion being a tremendous value in a society, which was the view of many of our founding fathers. So I wanted to know what the non-believers had against the believers. (Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "secular".)

I actually agree with you: religion is valuable. But you're right, secular was an inaccurate term. I'm a staunch secularist, and devout believer.

But I don't mind where we've been in this thread, because I, for one, learned something.

Glad to hear it.

 

[Smoke]

If secularism was a religion, couldn't you say they were imposing their views on others as well--not allowing prayer in school, banning Creationism, or banning any form of religion in the public place?

But secularism is not a religion. Secularism is impartiality with regard to religion. And no one is attempting to ban public expressions of religion, just government-sponsored expressions of religion.

 

[Smoke]

I belong to what would probably be classified as a "dogmatic" religion. However, I don't expect prayer in public school. I just don't want it banned-- if a group in school all agree they want to pray together, I think they should be allowed. But I wouldn't expect it in class or in an assembly, etc.

I'm fine with voluntary groups of students who meet for prayer before school, after school, on their lunch break, or whatever. But not in class or in an assembly.

I don't mind Christmas focusing on snowmen and Santa, but I don't want Christ banned from the holiday in a public setting. Nor do I mind other religions honoring their holidays publicly either.

Public is one thing. Civic is another.

Gay marriage--I'd rather marriage stay the way it always has been. (I do see why this one can be a sore spot. I kind of see your point here. However, the majority of the population in the U.S. prefers the traditional concept.)

There was a time when the majority preferred that the institution of slavery stay the way it was, too, and a time when the majority preferred that women not be allowed to vote. Eventually, you will understand that equality under the law for all citizens is no threat to you.

 

[Smoke]

No, and that's my problem with people wanting to get rid of anything Christmas-y in public/government places. At this point, for a lot of people, Christmas has taken on a life of its own outside of Christianity. I'm atheistic, and I still celebrate it, as do several of my friends who are Jewish. As you say, I don't honor Christ, just the idea of a holiday as a time of togetherness and giving.

I not only celebrate Christmas; I have no problem with attending a Christmas service at a church. It's not as if I'm afraid of Christianity or something. But neither my personal preferences about religious holidays, nor yours, nor anybody else's, ought to be adopted by the government.

 

[Smoke]

It sometimes feels like the atheist would like the rest of us to evaporate away.

No, we'd just like believers to stop shoving their religions down our throats. And actually, that's how I felt about it when I was a believer, too. No religion that's at all worthwhile has to resort to compulsion.

 

[Magic Man]

I not only celebrate Christmas; I have no problem with attending a Christmas service at a church. It's not as if I'm afraid of Christianity or something. But neither my personal preferences about religious holidays, nor yours, nor anybody else's, ought to be adopted by the government.

I understand, and I'm with you. I just don't think that Christmas at this point is really a religious holiday. Even many Christians who celebrate it don't honor Christ. To me it's on par with Thanksgiving or New Year's. I don't think its promotion by the government is a promotion of Christianity anymore.

 

[Autodidact]

How is our government honoring Christ at Christmas?

As a rule, they're not. That's because we live in a secular country, with a secular system of government. What I'm saying is, let's keep it that way. Do you agree?

Public / civic -- yes, I see what you're saying. But I don't see what those Christian dominionists are doing exactly to impose their beliefs civily. (Unless we covered it all in the previous posts.)

Well, maybe you're not familiar the Dominionist or Reconstructionist movement, which seeks to make the United States a Christian theocracy, in which all religions other than conservative Christianity would be banned, and Biblical law would be the law of the nation? You can read more about them here.

I mean, is this all about prayer in the Senate, the phrase on our coins, and the Pledge of Allegiance?

It's about a movement that seeks much more than that, a movement that wants to make the U.S. a country in which their brand of Christianity is mandatory, in which Wiccans would be executed, sodomy punishable by death, and so forth.

The battles now are being fought over things like ten commandment monuments on courthouse lawns, mandated teaching of creationism a.k.a. intelligent design, Air Force Academy officers pressuring cadets to convert to Christianity, and other issues.

 

[Autodidact]

Changing the law. Whenever it has been put a vote, the majority have voted against changing the law to allow gay marriage.

I really don't want to see this thread end up in a debate about same-sex marriage, though. (Like I said before, I can see both sides here.)

You may recall the Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education, quite a controversial case in its time, that forced school integration down the throats of the majority of the citizens of Arkansas against their will. That's what the Supreme Court is for.