Is Secularlism A Genuine Threat To Religion?

[Sunstone]

Is secularism a genuine threat to religion, or is the popular notion that it is just more political crap in an age of political crap?

If secularism is a genuine threat to religion, then what do you mean by secularism? Can you give specific examples of how and when it is a threat to religion?

If this is just more political crap in an age knee deep in political crap, who benefits from promoting this silly notion? Who is behind the propaganda and why?

 

[bigvindaloo]

Is secularism a genuine threat to religion, or is the popular notion that it is just more political crap in an age of political crap?

If secularism is a genuine threat to religion, then what do you mean by secularism? Can you give specific examples of how and when it is a threat to religion?

If this is just more political crap in an age knee deep in political crap, who benefits from promoting this silly notion? Who is behind the propaganda and why?

Freedom of religious expression and affiliation is a right. The state has no option but to respect your right to believe. Secularism is no more than the position a neutral umpire must take with respect to a sea of variation of religious belief manifest in plural societies. So secularism is not political crap. It is a rational principle based on rights versus the state. It is no threat to religion as it accepts them all.

 

[James the Persian]

Freedom of religious expression and affiliation is a right. The state has no option but to respect your right to believe. Secularism is no more than the position a neutral umpire must take with respect to a sea of variation of religious belief manifest in plural societies. So secularism is not political crap. It is a rational principle based on rights versus the state. It is no threat to religion as it accepts them all.

In theory you're right. In practice (as with so many things), not necessarily. Sometimes a secularist government (France being a good example) strays away from being impartial and towards curtailing the rights of people to freely practice their religion. In the ideal sense that you mention, secularism is certainly no threat. I don't even think it's a threat to religion per se in the more extreme sense that I mention, but it certainly can be a threat to religious believers.

James

 

[Sunstone]

So secularism is not political crap.

Please re read my post more closely than you seem to have done the first time before implying that I said secularism was political crap.

 

[bigvindaloo]

In theory you're right. In practice (as with so many things), not necessarily. Sometimes a secularist government (France being a good example) strays away from being impartial and towards curtailing the rights of people to freely practice their religion. In the ideal sense that you mention, secularism is certainly no threat. I don't even think it's a threat to religion per se in the more extreme sense that I mention, but it certainly can be a threat to religious believers.

James

Why can it be a threat or be perceived as a threat to religious believers. If these worries are articulated and relate to a problem of practising a belief then they can be addressed by asserting the right of the believer to belief. If the objection to secularism is generic, ie to the idea of neutrality with respect to religious belief, then you have to ask at what cost do you exercise your right to religious expression. I would answer to the cost of according the same right to others. Accordingly the umpire has no right but to be neutral and respect equal but conflicting rights. Secularism is therefore validated as impartial (and reasonable).

 

[James the Persian]

Why can it be a threat or be perceived as a threat to religious believers. If these worries are articulated and relate to a problem of practising a belief then they can be addressed by asserting the right of the believer to belief. If the objection to secularism is generic, ie to the idea of neutrality with respect to religious belief, then you have to ask at what cost do you exercise your right to religious expression. I would answer to the cost of according the same right to others. Accordingly the umpire has no right but to be neutral and respect equal but conflicting rights. Secularism is therefore validated as impartial (and reasonable).

Sorry but could you rephrase this as I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. It seems as though you are denying the possibility of secularism being taken to an extreme whereby it infringes upon a believer's rights to freely practice their religion. Is that what you mean? If so I think that the example of the extremely secularist French government rather puts paid to that argument. In any case, human nature is such that anything can be taken to unhealthy extremes. Secularism is no more immune to this than is any religious belief.

James

 

[MaddLlama]

But in that case it isn't really secularism itself that is a threat, it's the government.

 

[bigvindaloo]

Please re read my post more closely than you seem to have done the first time before implying that I said secularism was political crap.

The attack on secularism is neither political crap, nor is it a "silly notion". It is an attack on democracy with those of an absolutist agenda. This answers your central query. Realists cannot entertain secularism whatever their agenda. Law as it is framed protects not only your right to practice your religious belief, but also forces your neighbour away from imposing their belief you. There is no reason to believe however that this law is absolute or cannot be corrupted, as has occurred in France.

 

[bigvindaloo]

Sorry but could you rephrase this as I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. It seems as though you are denying the possibility of secularism being taken to an extreme whereby it infringes upon a believer's rights to freely practice their religion. Is that what you mean? If so I think that the example of the extremely secularist French government rather puts paid to that argument. In any case, human nature is such that anything can be taken to unhealthy extremes. Secularism is no more immune to this than is any religious belief.

James

Secularism is not a religious but a political belief based on rights. In France, the rights regime is absolute leading to an interpretation with respect to religion that prevents public demonstation of religious affliliation. The public/private divide is what is being examined in France, not the principle of secularism and the tolerance it offers to all religions. When you classify the French as secularist, you are probably right. However, the French problem is a rights debate not relevant here.

 

[James the Persian]

Secularism is not a religious but a political belief based on rights. In France, the rights regime is absolute leading to an interpretation with respect to religion that prevents public demonstation of religious affliliation. The public/private divide is what is being examined in France, not the principle of secularism and the tolerance it offers to all religions. When you classify the French as secularist, you are probably right. However, the French problem is a rights debate not relevant here.

Firstly, I never said secularism was a religious belief and secondly, I don't think that the situation in France is irrelevant. The problem is that an overzealously pursued policy of secularism has lead to the consequence of eroding religious rights. All I was saying is that while ideally secularism is no threat to religion, given the tendency of extremists to twist any philosophy to their cause, it cannot be said that secularism is not a threat to individual believers without first defining what you mean by secularism. It is quite possible for secularism to be the intolerant promotion of non-religion over religion. Secularism is not synonymous with tolerance.

James

 

[bigvindaloo]

Firstly, I never said secularism was a religious belief and secondly, I don't think that the situation in France is irrelevant. The problem is that an overzealously pursued policy of secularism has lead to the consequence of eroding religious rights. All I was saying is that while ideally secularism is no threat to religion, given the tendency of extremists to twist any philosophy to their cause, it cannot be said that secularism is not a threat to individual believers without first defining what you mean by secularism. It is quite possible for secularism to be the intolerant promotion of non-religion over religion. Secularism is not synonymous with tolerance.

James

I answer to you that secularism is synonymous with tolerance based on reciprocal rights. You did describe secularism as a "religious belief" based on something else in a previous post. Now "overzealous secularism" is the idea you focus on in criticising it as a generic idea. Your criticism is not valid as generic criticism based on a case example like France. The rights debate is extremely complex. It is common to overgeneralise in this context. And I repeat that secularism is a neutral umpire, and tolerant of all religions.

 

[James the Persian]

I answer to you that secularism is synonymous with tolerance based on reciprocal rights. You did describe secularism as a "religious belief" based on something else in a previous post.

No I did not. The only time I mentioned the two in the same sentence is this:

Secularism is no more immune to this than is any religious belief.

That does not in any way imply that secularism is religious but rather that it and religion can both suffer from the same extremist tendencies. I suggest you rer-read my posts.

Now "overzealous secularism" is the idea you focus on in criticising it as a generic idea. Your criticism is not valid as generic criticism based on a case example like France. The rights debate is extremely complex. It is common to overgeneralise in this context. And I repeat that secularism is a neutral umpire, and tolerant of all religions.

And I repeat that ideally, and in theory, you are correct, but that in practice this is not necessarily so. I was not, not once in this thread, criticising secularism in general (again re-read my posts) but rather pointing out that it, like any other philosophy, can indeed be a threat if taken to an extreme. You appear to be the one who is overgeneralising my argument rather than me being the one to make an overgeneralisation.

James

 

[bigvindaloo]

No I did not. The only time I mentioned the two in the same sentence is this:

That does not in any way imply that secularism is religious but rather that it and religion can both suffer from the same extremist tendencies. I suggest you rer-read my posts.



And I repeat that ideally, and in theory, you are correct, but that in practice this is not necessarily so. I was not, not once in this thread, criticising secularism in general (again re-read my posts) but rather pointing out that it, like any other philosophy, can indeed be a threat if taken to an extreme. You appear to be the one who is overgeneralising my argument rather than me being the one to make an overgeneralisation.

James

You seem to be ignoring that right to religious expression does not derive from "human nature" as you assume (post 6): this is the implicit assumption of secularism. Secularism as you would define it is communism. That aside, secularism is not philosophy. It is a political right affecting how you communicate with others. Do you understand how the debate in France is not relevant here?

 

[Saint George]

I guess it really depends on the religion. If your religion is based on fanatical beliefs and ignorant conclusions then yes, secularism is going to root out those deceptive beliefs and expose them for what they are. Christ never attempted to separate himself from the secular world around him. On the contrary, he actively engaged in conversations with the public communities of the day. He was engaging and loving and thoughtful with the public at large. It was actually the religious institutions at the time that were hostile towards Christ. If you read the NT carefully you will see for yourself that Christ was much more involved with the secular public that he was with any religious institutions.

The message of Christ is really quite simple but very difficult to put into practice. The message is to love one another, to love your neighbor as yourself and to love your enemy. This message is so powerful that no secular society can diffuse its meaning. Actually, throughout history, its religious institutions and their followers who have sullied this message of love. A good example is 9/11 where the perpetrators justified their actions to kill for religious reasons.

True followers of Christ are people who practice their religion within the larger secular community. They are not afraid of secularism. They embrace it because it gives them an opportunity to practice their beliefs. A good example of this is Mother Teresa. There are very few Catholics in India but that didn't stop Mother Teresa from leaving the confines of her cloistered convent and go out into the streets and take care of those who were relegated to the gutters of Calcutta. She could have stayed and lived with Catholic Nuns for the rest of her life without every coming into contact with anything secular. But she clearly understood the fallacy of this argument. She new that the only real way to serve Christ was to live in the secular world.

 

[Æsahættr]

I would say that secularisation is a threat to any religion that relies on ignorance to sustain it. The only risk it presents to a religion is that it presents the possbility of people of different beliefs living side by side, and as such exposes people to different ideas. If your religion relies on ignorance of the possbility of believing anything else, then yes, secularisation presents a threat.

 

[Ody]

Possibly, if the movement turns violent.

 

[Æsahættr]

Possibly, if the movement turns violent.

Any movement that turns violent is a threat. Any evidence that the secular movement is more likely to turn violent than most others?

 

[fantome profane]

It seems as though you are denying the possibility of secularism being taken to an extreme whereby it infringes upon a believer's rights to freely practice their religion. Is that what you mean? If so I think that the example of the extremely secularist French government rather puts paid to that argument. In any case, human nature is such that anything can be taken to unhealthy extremes. Secularism is no more immune to this than is any religious belief.

I agree. And I believe that the French example is relevant to the discussion. Secularism is supposed to be about religious neutrality. And it is extremely important to be religiously neutral in order to insure freedom of religion. That is the whole point. But what happened in France is the government used Secularism to violate freedom of religion by trying to impose Secularism on the people. It is the government that must be secular, not the population. Secularism can be a threat to religion is it is in anyway imposed.

I would say that secularisation is a threat to any religion that relies on ignorance to sustain it. The only risk it presents to a religion is that it presents the possbility of people of different beliefs living side by side, and as such exposes people to different ideas. If your religion relies on ignorance of the possbility of believing anything else, then yes, secularisation presents a threat.

I also have to agree with Æsahættr. Secularism can also be a threat to any religion that cannot stand in the face of a free exchange of ideas.

But we have to remember that having a secular government is the only way to protect those same religions. So even though Secularism can be a treat, I see it as more of a protection of Religion. So I voted for other.

 

[James the Persian]

You seem to be ignoring that right to religious expression does not derive from "human nature" as you assume (post 6):

I assumed nothing of the kind. Please stop reading your own preconceptions of anyone who argues against secularism into my words and read the posts themselves. My only assumption was that secularism is intended to be impartial to religion and that such impartiality can only be achieved by granting rights to practice religion to all. This appeared to be your view also, so I fail to see what you are trying to get at. Frankly, I'm starting to wonder about your debating skills as you seem intent on arguing against points I've never made.

Secularism as you would define it is communism.

No it is not. I never defined secularism at all. I asked you to do so as you seemed to be saying that the imposition of a secular society on a population was not an extreme form of secularism and I contend that it is. Communism, being an economic philosophy, has got nothing to do with secularism whatsoever. It's perfectly possible to be both religious and a communist. The fact that historically communist states have been promoters of secularism does not mean that the two are necessarily entwined.

That aside, secularism is not philosophy.

Any system of thought, which is what secularism is, is a philosophy. Whether you choose to use that word or some other, though, is irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

It is a political right affecting how you communicate with others.

It is not a right. It is a system which is used as a justification for granting or revoking certain rights to certain people within society. It is a political philosophy. You seem to have no clear understanding of what the difference between a system of thought and its practical effects are.

Do you understand how the debate in France is not relevant here?

No. Please enlighten me as to why you believe it is irrelevant. I contend that it is very relevant to the discussion and you have yet to come up with a single good reason to dismiss it.

James

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That aside, secularism is not philosophy.

See Secularism 101: Secularism as Philosophy. You're seem to be doing a rather paltry job pummeling strawmen.