I agree. That's why I'm a type of secularist. If someone can come up with no better reason to put forward an idea than it's part of their religion or tradition, then it's not something that should be law. Merit based ideas only.
-
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!
Which religion is the greatest threat to secularism?
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
I would say technically all of them as each of them "threaten" secular ideals in various ways with their religious thought processes? Like Buddhism, while not an upstart religion like most of the others I think their view on karma leads to a suspension of both justice and being proactive to seeking out justice or answers for why X is equal to y. Because it was "supposed" to happen. Jimmy has dyslexia because in a past life he burned books for the Nazi regime, that's just a random example but instead of learning to cope and figure out how to overcome, I think Jimmy is subtly *encouraged* to suffer in his predicament.
Why? And while this is not as hard a form of religious expression it is still as equally dangerous because it 'seems' to not be a threat.
anyways those are my 2 cents..
Why? And while this is not as hard a form of religious expression it is still as equally dangerous because it 'seems' to not be a threat.
anyways those are my 2 cents..
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
I'm not Buddhist but I do think the original teachings of Buddha are extremely helpful for anyone. From what I understand of the religion buddhism, i don't think that is really what "karma" is about? But I know there are a lot of different beliefs connected with Buddhists. I don't think it is a threat to secularism. The original teachings are of a humanist nature and work very well with secular life.
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
n
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.
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.
Last edited:
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Didn’t vote because “none of the above” wasn’t an option.
I don’t see religion as a threat to secularist thought.
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
Are
you sure? If I am vocal about my atheism where I live I can go to jail for it.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
This has nothing to do Islam though. There are government with laws regarding speaking out against prophets. did you know you can't speak out against Moses, Jesus, or Noah? You think these laws are specific to Muhammad? The point is countries have laws. But all predominant Muslim countries aren't the same when it comes to legality. Indonesia does not have the same laws as Saudi Arabia just as Turkey does not have the same as Syria.
Spiderman
Veteran Member
It has a lot to do with Islam, because the point of those governments is to force Islam down everyone's throat and not allow criticizing the Qur'an. forcing religion down people's throats and killing non-muslims was the practice of Muhammad, and Muslims have been following his ruthless, intolerant, bigoted example for 1400 years.
That behavior was the practice of Muhammad and the early Muslims, so that behavior has everything to do with Islam.
Last edited by a moderator:
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Do you have any evidence all Muslim governments are shoving Islam down the throats of people besides your own opinion? Is Turkey currently doing this?
Cooky
Veteran Member
Really? That's terrible. What country are you in?
Cooky
Veteran Member
In America, that would be the protestant fundamentalists.
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
Indonesia
Necessarily, each religion equally threatens secularism.
Where a secular government embraces a religion, it is no longer a secular government.
Jollybear
Hey
Right. so... which one is better and why, a religious government or a secular one?
Secular, of course. A religious government would be intolerant of a certain portion of the population, whereas a secular government is tolerant of the entire population.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
A secular government is far more likely to take into account the needs and desires of the broadest swath of it’s citizens (of course, not all forms of secular government necessarily would. A dictatorship, for instance. Bur that form mirrors a theocracy in many ways). A theocratic government would favor the views and desires of those who share the mythological beliefs of those in power, at the expense of those who have different beliefs.
Being accountable to All the People is considered the most democratic form of state.
Actually, I don't think so.
Protestant fundamentalists can't really agree on much. So they tend to oppose each other.
There are definitely some protestant fundamentalists who believe that their interpretation of Scripture should be law. But not all that many. Because other fundamentalists, who vote, also think that they are doing God's will.
Christians tend to oppose each other. That is very different from autocratic Muslim governments who tend to kill people who disagree with them.
Such as Kashoggi.
Tom