• 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!

Can secularism be oppressive to any religious believer?

Colt

Well-Known Member
I've never heard of this. Explain what it is and give examples. And of the examples, in what ways are they intolerant?
Secularism in education can be seen in such things as anti-creationism trends. Secularism promotes "materialism" as a belief devoid of any spiritual aspects to reality. Atheism and its cousin humanism as movements are by their nature anti-God and hence anti-religious values. Materialism denies God, secularism simply ignores him. Basically Secular totalitarians slowly extracts the religious influence in societal value structures and replaces them with their own.
 
Last edited:

Rawshak

Member
Secularism in education can be seen in such things as anti-creationism trends. Secularism promotes "materialism" as a belief devoid of any spiritual aspects to reality. Atheism humanism as a movement are by their nature anti-God and hence anti-religious values. Materialism denies God, secularism simply ignores him.
There is nothing wrong in teaching creationism in class just not in a science class because it is not science. If you disagree please show the scientific theory of creation paper.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
On another discussion a member claimed that "secularism can be pretty opressive for true believers". There were some good responses but it off topic.

The claim is problematic because it assumes "true believers" have an absolute truth that has an authority over all people and all governance. I suggest the the problem is 'true belief" in an absolute sense, given the believers are fallible thinkers.

Well...any belief system that includes concepts of theocracy, or religious compulsion, or differentiation of rights based on religion would be heavily impacted by secularism.

I'd see that as 'suppression', and not 'oppression' though. But impactful, certainly.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Secularism in education can be seen in such things as anti-creationism trends. Secularism promotes "materialism" as a belief devoid of any spiritual aspects to reality. Atheism and its cousin humanism as movements are by their nature anti-God and hence anti-religious values. Materialism denies God, secularism simply ignores him. Basically Secular totalitarians slowly extracts the religious influence in societal value structures and replaces them with their own.

Which version of creationism is the one you'd like taught in schools, and which class is it being taught in?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Well...any belief system that includes concepts of theocracy, or religious compulsion, or differentiation of rights based on religion would be heavily impacted by secularism.

I'd see that as 'suppression', and not 'oppression' though. But impactful, certainly.
Would any moral religion object to basic human freedoms and equality?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Secularism in education can be seen in such things as anti-creationism trends.
Creationism is a religious idea and religious ideas can't be taught in public schools.

Secularism promotes "materialism" as a belief devoid of any spiritual aspects to reality.
How does it promote materialism? Do you mean because it doesn't include religious ideas that often refer to some other reality that humans can't detect? In other words, the imaginary.

Atheism and its cousin humanism as movements are by their nature anti-God and hence anti-religious values.
Gods aren't known to exist, so what's the problem? Secular approaches aren't concerned with religious concepts, most of which cannot be shown to be true. That's the point. Secularism is practical and functional.

Materialism denies God, secularism simply ignores him.
Again, what is there to deny when gods aren't known to exist? That theists believe, and often disagree about what god means, is why religion is kept of of governance.

Basically Secular totalitarians slowly extracts the religious influence in societal value structures and replaces them with their own.
Totalitarianism a different topic.
 

TheWingMan

Christian Evolutionist
On another discussion a member claimed that "secularism can be pretty opressive for true believers". There were some good responses but it off topic.

The claim is problematic because it assumes "true believers" have an absolute truth that has an authority over all people and all governance. I suggest the the problem is 'true belief" in an absolute sense, given the believers are fallible thinkers.

Oppressive? In some ways some secular movements are. Suggesting that secularism is oppressive is a lot like saying all Christians are judgmental, self righteous hypocrites who's pious attitudes reflect **** poor leadership, given the lives they lead.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Secularism in education can be seen in such things as anti-creationism trends. Secularism promotes "materialism" as a belief devoid of any spiritual aspects to reality. Atheism and its cousin humanism as movements are by their nature anti-God and hence anti-religious values. Materialism denies God, secularism simply ignores him. Basically Secular totalitarians slowly extracts the religious influence in societal value structures and replaces them with their own.
Wow lots to unpack here.

Secularism, materialism, atheism and humanism are all separate things. You do not need to be atheist to agree with secularism and most secularists aren't atheists. Most of them are Christians as well as other religious individuals who don't want religious bodies ruling government bodies. (Theocracies, which are actually totalitarian, bad) To keep no religious office in politics and make no religion 'in charge' of civil law.

Humanism is also part of a Christian movement. And while there are humanist philosophies that reject supernaturalism (which not all religions have) there are those that don't. Christian humanism - Wikipedia

Finally, again, not all atheists are materialists because supernatural and spiritual don't require a god.

Creationism, of course, doesn't belong in any science classroom, because it isn't scientific. Has nothing to do with secularism.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Secularism isn't a 'neutral' principle, it is a particular ideological stance that largely developed in modern Christian/post-Christian societies.

It assumes a certain form of religion, and that this can and should exist in a sphere distinct from governance.

That this is a culturally contingent concept is expressed by the Indian historian S. N. Balagangadhar who noted: “Christianity spreads in two ways, through conversion and through secularisation.”

We can argue that secularism is good, but shouldn't forget that it asserting its own ideological truth just as religions are and is not simply a default or neutral position. Ultimately it is about one group's ideological preferences defeating other group's and denying them legitimacy.
Secular just means without religious influence. Secularism is the idea that religious doctrine shouldn’t influence laws. Other than that, there is no ideology involved.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
On another discussion a member claimed that "secularism can be pretty opressive for true believers". There were some good responses but it off topic.

The claim is problematic because it assumes "true believers" have an absolute truth that has an authority over all people and all governance. I suggest the the problem is 'true belief" in an absolute sense, given the believers are fallible thinkers.

History answers the questions.

The inquisition, witch burnings, book burnings (Savonarolla, Bonfire of the Vanities), Puritanism (avoidance of dancing, song, joy, and Spartan belief that idle hands are tools of the devil), all show harsh rule by theists.

But this is off topic. The topic is the reverse....are secular people harsh to theists?

Some secular people (and some theists) refuse to allow schools to have group prayers led by a particular religion, in which everyone is required to attend. You could understand how upsetting that would be if they all had to pray to Satan. The Constitution requires a separation of church and state so that all religions can coexist peacefully..

Separation of Church and State hails back to England, around the middle of the 1500's when King Henry VIII divorced his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and found that the power of the king was limited by the power of the church, which balked at his divorce. Then King Henry VIII founded his own religion (Anglican...which means the church of England) and he wanted to be the leader of the church, over the loud protestations of his Privy Council and Lord Protector, Saint Sir Thomas Moore. Moore was beatified then sainted in 2011 for giving his life to defend the Catholic religion. Henry had threatened to behead him if he interfered (which he did).

Following the creation of the Anglican religion, bloody Mary (dau of Henry, and queen of England) chopped off the heads (in a very Kind Konservative Kristian way, of course) of over 150 Anglican pastors for refusing to don the robes of Catholic priests. Back and forth the power struggle continued. Whoever was in power made a bloody coup against the opposite religion. Until....King Charles II was forced to sign the "Great Petition" of the Excusionary Act. That excluded catholics from ever ascending the throne (no Catholic kings). Yet, when Charles II died, he appointed his Catholic brother, James II, to the throne (igniting the Monmouth Rebellion, to put the illegitimate, yet recognized, son, James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, onto the throne. The ill-fated rebellion resulted in drawing and quartering many people (including the Earl of Argyle of Scotland, and the Duke of Monmouth, himself). The surviving rebels mounted another rebellion (Glorious Rebellion) to put King William of Orange on the throne (with his wife, as queen...Mary, dau of James II).

What fell out of all of these English rebellions was the abiding love of freedom of religion....hence this is one of the freedoms of the United States.

What appears harsh to theists is nothing more than allowing all religions to practice their religions in private, while allowing schools to teach science.

It could be argued that evolution is a belief, not a proven fact. Yet, DNA does prove evolution.

Abortion
is another source of friction between theists and non-believers. It boils down to an understanding of when life begins (at inception or brain activity).

Very few want to abort live babies, though current laws require doctors to keep a fetus alive if is aborted alive (and that could be with brain damage, blindness, or a host of other debilitating problems).
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
That's a reasonable definition, but it still doesn't make it a neutral position.

Saying that society should be run on a principle of 'no religious influence' is an ideological position that denies the legitimacy of religious influence in governance.

This does not reflect the vast majority of societies in human history, and is a culturally contingent value preference.

I'm all for secularism, but recognise this as part of my ideological preferences.

Do you see it as a neutral position?
It isn't neutral when it comes to religion, but it is concerning everything else.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Secular just means without religious influence. Secularism is the idea that religious doctrine shouldn’t influence laws. Other than that, there is no ideology involved.
Kfox (which I believe is the call sign for the conservative and biased Fox News) means that restrictions of theists by non-theists seem harsh. I believe that such restrictions are merely the result of separating church and state to allow all to believe as they wish.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
That's a reasonable definition, but it still doesn't make it a neutral position.

Saying that society should be run on a principle of 'no religious influence' is an ideological position that denies the legitimacy of religious influence in governance.

This does not reflect the vast majority of societies in human history, and is a culturally contingent value preference.

I'm all for secularism, but recognise this as part of my ideological preferences.

Do you see it as a neutral position?

Religions should be prevented from mixing with government because of the historic problems that it created.

Look at the disaster that the Ayatollah Khomeni did.

Look at the unfolding disaster of the Taliban ruling Afghanistan. Harsh rule, and 12 year old girls marrying is just the tip of the iceberg.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Depends on the system.

A system like the US is different from that of the USSR or pre-Erdogan Turkey.

Secularism just forms part of a larger ideological framework and can't really be abstracted from this.



Why does a non-secular system have to be oppressive?

They can be, but so can any other system.

US different from USSR? The US is rapidly losing rights.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Kfox (which I believe is the call sign for the conservative and biased Fox News) means that restrictions of theists by non-theists seem harsh.
So you think my nickname (Kfox) means theists are restricted? Where on Earth did you hear that??? Trust me; my nickname has nothing to do with restricting religious people.
 
Secular just means without religious influence. Secularism is the idea that religious doctrine shouldn’t influence laws. Other than that, there is no ideology involved.

Which still makes it an ideological stance towards the role of religion in society.

It isn't neutral when it comes to religion, but it is concerning everything else.

It isn't neutral about everything else, it just says nothing about everything else :D
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Which still makes it an ideological stance towards the role of religion in society.
But it can't be compared to religion because it only address a view concerning one thing in life (religion); unlike religion that pretty much address views on everything in life.
It isn't neutral about everything else, it just says nothing about everything else :D
In this case; what's the difference?
 
Top