Which religion is the greatest threat to secularism?

[wandering peacefully]

n

No but I can see how easily they can be abused.

I have had some discussions with some Buddhists that literally think this way.

The woman the lives downstairs from me, thinks exactly like this.

Example: if the farmer decides to poison one of our dogs, which to be fair one of them likes killing chickens and ducks as a hobby. But the other dog has never killed anything larger than a fly, but we had a discussion one day if something were to happen, to the fly swatter dog, her answer was it was supposed to happen and no recourse should be taken.

My recourse is to salt a section of his crops.

This is rather infuriating to me, since she takes that philosophy to almost every facet of life.

Well that's just silly. The only karma that is actually real is if you do something bad to another person or animal you will just feel like crap. Punishment I would say. Same with doing good deeds. You will feel good. What you think you become and such. No magic about it. But yes, I have heard people talk like that. I just nod and respond with "I see" and try to change the subject. Or some talk about their "past lives". Okay, whatever you say. But the main principles about overcoming suffering through non-attachment and mindfulness living and learning to meditate as well as the way you are to treat others is very helpful.

If your neighbors are threatening to poison your dog, I assure you they are not following Buddha's teachings.

 

[Milton Platt]

Your focused only on the symtom, not the cause.

The cause is important.

The reason i believe theocrasy hasnt worked isnt due to it being a "bad idea" but due to LIERS. Liers as in false prophets, like i already mentioned.

Let me illustrate, im sure youl probably agree that communism does not work.

But, again, its not about the symtom, its about the cause. WHY doesnt communism work? The reason isnt because of the idea itself. For the philosophical idea is good.

The reason it dont work is because of too many LAZY people.

Well, likewise with a theocrasy. The problem there is too many liers, too many false prophets. People claiming God says thus, when God never said a word. They do this because there real intent is not to uphold Gods authority but to promote there OWN IDEAS as policy in the theocratic society.

This is why it dont work.

The problem is with how MOST PEOPLE are and there EVIL nature.

Communism does indeed ignore human nature. It is not only about "lazy people". There are also people who cannot work because they are mentally or physically unable. There are also people who want more than their share and will hoard resources to the detriment of others. However, theocracy fails for a whole host of reasons.

Religions are founded upon lies.....or at the very minimum, unsubstantiated claims. How can that be a good basis for establishing a government?

There is virtually no universally established method for determining if anyone is a prophet at all, much less a false one or true one. So that issue is insurmountable.

It does not matter that the theocracy wants to uphold "god's authority" if there are people within the nation that do not accept that god as even real, much less authoritative. Religion is divisive by nature, not inclusive. It is inherently discriminatory.

Who is the person who knows absolutely and unambiguously what the mind of a god desires? Where is this absolute knowledge of what a god wishes to be found in a completely detailed, unambiguous format that requires no interpretation and second guessing and is understood by every person of every language and background?

Virtually all governments are subject to the same human frailties. some can adjust for that, some cannot. Theocracy cannot.

 

[Milton Platt]

I might argue with that one, but hey, I won't make you prove a negative. What I CAN say is that every time an 'anti-theocracy,' has been tried (that is, a government which forbade all religion or religious observances) the results have been, in every case I am aware of, considerably less than beneficial. In fact, THOSE governments have been, by far, the most murderous.

As in....body counts in the millions.

Secularism...freedom of religion...has always been the best option.

Absolutely

 

[2ndpillar]

We need an "Other" option

The other option is defined in Daniel 2:44-45, whereas all the kings of the world and their religions will be "crushed" by a stone cut out of the mountain without hands, that being the "Word of God". That time is "at hand". It will start with all the nations gathered against Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:1-4).

 

[2ndpillar]

There is virtually no universally established method for determining if anyone is a prophet at all, much less a false one or true one. So that issue is insurmountable.

That is not actually true. If one states that something is going to happen, and it doesn't, they are a false prophet. If they do not prophesize, then apparently they are not a prophet.

 

[Jollybear]

Communism does indeed ignore human nature. It is not only about "lazy people". There are also people who cannot work because they are mentally or physically unable. There are also people who want more than their share and will hoard resources to the detriment of others.

I agree

However, theocracy fails for a whole host of reasons.

Religions are founded upon lies

Thats a bold statement. I dont agree. Of course SOME religion is lies. But all? I dont agree.

or at the very minimum, unsubstantiated claims.

I dont even agree with that. The human race ever since its existence has experienced the "spiritual realm" with all its activity to various levels. Call it anecdotal if you want, but that means nothing to me. Its real to me. And i believe its more then halucinations because some experiences are veridical. Ive had a rare few of my own. And i know some others who had them to.

How can that be a good basis for establishing a government?

If you got the right God/Spirit/angel/guide leading you and you HEAR this being, then, your in good shape for leading the country in my view. Because this being would know whats best because they would have wisdom and supreme knowledge.

There is virtually no universally established method for determining if anyone is a prophet at all, much less a false one or true one. So that issue is insurmountable.

Is there ever a universal astablished agreement on anything in this crazy life? That dont mean much to me.

It does not matter that the theocracy wants to uphold "god's authority" if there are people within the nation that do not accept that god as even real, much less authoritative. Religion is divisive by nature, not inclusive. It is inherently discriminatory.

It dont matter what people believe. It matters what they do. And all beliefs are devisive and discriminatory, even none religious ones. This is a broad brush and does not really refute anything. It kinda just says the obvious actually.

Who is the person who knows absolutely and unambiguously what the mind of a god desires?

God can reveal it to whom he pleases.

Where is this absolute knowledge of what a god wishes to be found in a completely detailed, unambiguous format that requires no interpretation and second guessing and is understood by every person of every language and background?

Im sorry, but a statement like this actually angers me. And im not trying to approuch this harshly, but, i do wanna be honest. It angers me because i dont have a clue why you would expect something like this from anyone, even a God? How can God give freedom under a statement like that?

You may be confusing a perfect dictatorship from God, vs a theocracy of God.

Virtually all governments are subject to the same human frailties. some can adjust for that, some cannot. Theocracy cannot.

Why cant a theocracy adjust?

 

[Willamena]

Explain the prison reform?

At the risk of over-generalizing, the penal system can punish criminals for their behavior or it can support them in reforming previous behaviours and adopting more socially acceptable behaviours so that they can return to living 'good' lives. The secular approach is the one that divorces itself from such religious ideas as guilt and punishment, which are particularly Christian images. Prison reform, by contrast, approaches the problem from the perspective of shame, rather than guilt, and virtue, rather than punishment.

 

[Jollybear]

At the risk of over-generalizing, the penal system can punish criminals for their behavior or it can support them in reforming previous behaviours and adopting more socially acceptable behaviours so that they can return to living 'good' lives. The secular approach is the one that divorces itself from such religious ideas as guilt and punishment, which are particularly Christian images. Prison reform, by contrast, approaches the problem from the perspective of shame, rather than guilt, and virtue, rather than punishment.

Ok. So, a secular government does not condone bad behaviour, it just has faith that bad people will turn good? Do i understand correctly?

I dont fully agree that guilt and punishment is a christian image. Even the christian message says "repent". So, it has hope that bad people will change too.

 

[Willamena]

Ok. So, a secular government does not condone bad behaviour, it just has faith that bad people will turn good? Do i understand correctly?

I dont fully agree that guilt and punishment is a christian image. Even the christian message says "repent". So, it has hope that bad people will change too.

Secularism does not dictate attitudes or beliefs, it simply lays out a course of least resistance. The course that proceeds regardless of religious ideas, religions, and religiosity is the secular course.

Edit: Without guilt, there is nothing to repent.

 

[Jollybear]

Secularism does not dictate attitudes or beliefs, it simply lays out a course of least resistance. The course that proceeds regardless of religious ideas, religions, and religiosity is the secular course.

So, securalism dont say rape/murder is bad? Or does?

 

[Willamena]

So, securalism dont say rape/murder is bad? Or does?

Correct, it makes no moral judgements. It is, after all, just an ideology, not a person.

 

[Jollybear]

Correct, it makes no moral judgements. It is, after all, just an ideology, not a person.

Ok, so if we have a secular government, wouldnt that be a bad thing then since they wont say rape/murder/theift is bad?

 

[Willamena]

Ok, so if we have a secular government, wouldnt that be a bad thing then since they wont say rape/murder/theift is bad?

I think we got crossed-hairs at some point. Secularism isn't the secular government, they are distinct things. Part of the government's job is to make judgements, and secular governments govern as much as any. Secularism doesn't make moral judgements, which are religious.

Edit: Secularism isn't the be-all-to-end-all of a secular government. A secular government may also be a liberal government, a conservative government, a socialist government, a capitalist government, a democratic government, and a dictatorship -- it is not making choices based on only one ideology, but on all the ideologies that go into composing its mandate. So while secularism makes no moral/religious judgements, democracy most certainly does.

 

[Jollybear]

I think we got crossed-hairs at some point. Secularism isn't the secular government, they are distinct things. Part of the government's job is to make judgements, and secular governments govern as much as any. Secularism doesn't make moral judgements, which are religious.

Edit: Secularism isn't the be-all-to-end-all of a secular government. A secular government may also be a liberal government, a conservative government, a socialist government, a capitalist government, a democratic government, and a dictatorship -- it is not making choices based on only one ideology, but on all the ideologies that go into composing its mandate. So while secularism makes no moral/religious judgements, democracy most certainly does.

Ok. So, why dont secularism make moral judgements?

 

[Willamena]

Ok. So, why dont secularism make moral judgements?

Because it crosses the line of definition. The moral judgement is a religious judgement, and "secular" means without regard to religion. If a moral judgement is made, it is not a secular thing.

Some people take "secular" to be about religions, i.e. the institutions themselves. I take it in a broader context.

 

[Willamena]

@Jollybear, I'm sure you know what an ideal is. It's an abstract idea or concept held up as its highest virtue (so that it be most clearly seen). An ideology is a set of beliefs surrounding that ideal. The set of beliefs is about that ideal, rather than about people (or governments). We put "-ism" at the end of a word to indicate a set of beliefs about that word, an idea-ology. Liberal-ism, absolute-ism, popular-ism, athé-ism, Uncle Bob-ism.

To say that secularism cannot make the moral choice isn't to say that people can't, or government's can't, because the beliefs of people and governments aren't dictated by ideologies -- rather, ideologies are dictated by what we believe. If a government says, "killing is bad, lock them up and throw away the key," it is our job to compare that to the ideal of "secular" and decide if it's a secular thing. Government is as government does.

 

[Jollybear]

@Jollybear, I'm sure you know what an ideal is. It's an abstract idea or concept held up as its highest virtue (so that it be most clearly seen). An ideology is a set of beliefs surrounding that ideal. The set of beliefs is about that ideal, rather than about people (or governments). We put "-ism" at the end of a word to indicate a set of beliefs about that word, an idea-ology. Liberal-ism, absolute-ism, popular-ism, athé-ism, Uncle Bob-ism.

To say that secularism cannot make the moral choice isn't to say that people can't, or government's can't, because the beliefs of people and governments aren't dictated by ideologies -- rather, ideologies are dictated by what we believe. If a government says, "killing is bad, lock them up and throw away the key," it is our job to compare that to the ideal of "secular" and decide if it's a secular thing. Government is as government does.

Ok....i gotcha. I understand now. Well, thatle work then.

 

[gnostic]

I think it's too broad to say that Islam is the greatest threat to secularism. Secularism made remarkable progress in many majority-Muslim countries up until a fundamentalist backlash occurred. Sooner or later, I think secularism will return to those countries.

In the last 5 to 8 years, the progress in Turkey has come to halt and even started backpedaling.

My sister’s friend is a Muslim from Turkey, and he doesn’t like the direction his president and government are taking their country to. Islam is once again a force in Turkey, and suppression of rights the citizens had previously enjoyed, are being taken away, so begin a new reign of oppression by Islam.

 

[Sunstone]

In the last 5 to 8 years, the progress in Turkey has come to halt and even started backpedaling.

My sister’s friend is a Muslim from Turkey, and he doesn’t like the direction his president and government are taking their country to. Islam is once again a force in Turkey, and suppression of rights the citizens enjoyed are being taken away, so begin a new reign of oppression by Islam.

I think we in the West underestimate the influence the Saudis and other forces for fundamentalism have had on what we think of as "Islam".

 

[Milton Platt]

I agree



Thats a bold statement. I dont agree. Of course SOME religion is lies. But all? I dont agree.
And how do you propose to objectively test them all?


I dont even agree with that. The human race ever since its existence has experienced the "spiritual realm" with all its activity to various levels. Call it anecdotal if you want, but that means nothing to me. Its real to me. And i believe its more then halucinations because some experiences are veridical. Ive had a rare few of my own. And i know some others who had them to.
I will call it anecdotal, thank you. There is no scientifically sound study that has ever shown the supernatural to be real. Does it mean that it isn't? No. But there is no reason to believe it is real until there is good evidence for it.


If you got the right God/Spirit/angel/guide leading you and you HEAR this being, then, your in good shape for leading the country in my view. Because this being would know whats best because they would have wisdom and supreme knowledge.

I have never seen a God/Spirit/Angle run for public office. Only men who claim to speak for them.

Is there ever a universal astablished agreement on anything in this crazy life? That dont mean much to me.

Yes, there are may things that are universally accepted as a fact. Mathematics, Physics, Geology, Biology, just to name a few fields have universally accepted facts within them.
In the case of religion, you have thousands of religions, some dead, some active. Wishing those, you have hundreds of different sects, and within those you have differing individually held beliefs. All believe they are right, and all are pointing to the same books.

It dont matter what people believe. It matters what they do. And all beliefs are devisive and discriminatory, even none religious ones. This is a broad brush and does not really refute anything. It kinda just says the obvious actually.

What people do is influenced by what they believe, so it matters what people believe. It says a lot about religion, actually. Just because other ideas can be divisive does not lessen the divisiveness of religion.



God can reveal it to whom he pleases.

So he brings forth billions of humans just to deny them such knowledge? That sort of god is a malicious god.



Im sorry, but a statement like this actually angers me. And im not trying to approuch this harshly, but, i do wanna be honest. It angers me because i dont have a clue why you would expect something like this from anyone, even a God? How can God give freedom under a statement like that?

You may be confusing a perfect dictatorship from God, vs a theocracy of God.

Frankly, I don't see much difference, functionally. In either case, might makes right.
The citizens in either circumstance have virtually no say in their governance.



Why cant a theocracy adjust?