problems with secularism?

[Ana the Ist]

So, as an atheist, I have a hard time understanding why Christians seem to have a problem with secularism. For the sake of this post, I'll define secularism as not only prohibiting the establishment of a national religion, but also against favoring any particular religion. It seems to me that this idea doesn't do anything to "destroy" christianity but actually protects it. Maybe I have it all wrong and it just seems like Christians are against secularism because I hear it from Christians who have access to large audiences. Does anyone here think secularism is a problem? And if so, why?

 

[ChristianT]

So, as an atheist, I have a hard time understanding why Christians seem to have a problem with secularism. For the sake of this post, I'll define secularism as not only prohibiting the establishment of a national religion, but also against favoring any particular religion. It seems to me that this idea doesn't do anything to "destroy" christianity but actually protects it. Maybe I have it all wrong and it just seems like Christians are against secularism because I hear it from Christians who have access to large audiences. Does anyone here think secularism is a problem? And if so, why?

Does that mean adherents aren't allow to favor their religion over another? If so, I hope you see the conflict there?

Otherwise, in a secularist world, are Christians allowed to share and talk about our faith with friends/family/strangers (whom we have contact with a lot, who aren't friends or family, just normal people you see a lot, not just random people)?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Does that mean adherents aren't allow to favor their religion over another? If so, I hope you see the conflict there?

Otherwise, in a secularist world, are Christians allowed to share and talk about our faith with friends/family/strangers (whom we have contact with a lot, who aren't friends or family, just normal people you see a lot, not just random people)?

Oops, I suppose I should've been more specific. I meant secularism in the government, as in policy or public institutions.

 

[Ernst Junger]

The problem with secularism is it tends to interfere with local communities organization of civil society, which are frequently celebrations/organizations that are religious in nature. Civil society provides enormous benefits to local communities, and disruption of it, particularly by disinterested outsiders (such as "national atheism advocacy groups") is seen as aggressive intrusion.

I don't think most people give a rip about federal secularism.

 

[ChristianT]

Oops, I suppose I should've been more specific. I meant secularism in the government, as in policy or public institutions.

Oh in that case, sure. In the grand scheme of things, it seems hard for a genuine Christian to truly be in a situation for president [or high type of office] elect, and if they make it onto the seat, they slip into the trap of the presidency (its hard to do anything but focus on the presidency, for example it's hard to worship, pray, study anything but politics) and barely come out the other side as a genuine Christian. I can't say the same for another religion, but I assume for any that is anything more than a "self-improvement" religion, it is similar.

And like in the church, schools that devote their focus on Christian topics (for example ministries, learn'd folks Bible study, apologetics), they should be allowed their freedom to do whatever they like within reason and under reasonable supervision. But that diverges into another topic altogether.

Anyway, secularism isn't really anti-Christianity, it's just lack-o'-religion. So they should have their freedom to their "lack of religion" as we have our freedom to religion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The problem with secularism is it tends to interfere with local communities organization of civil society, which are frequently celebrations/organizations that are religious in nature. Civil society provides enormous benefits to local communities, and disruption of it, particularly by disinterested outsiders (such as "national atheism advocacy groups") is seen as aggressive intrusion.

I don't think most people give a rip about federal secularism.

I would have to disagree, it seems to me that when religious celebrations are disrupted, it is because an atheist in the community has enlisted the help of a larger nationwide organization. On the contrary, it seems that federal secularism is extremely important topic. Otherwise I don't see us having a debate on topics like gay marriage or abortion.

 

[Ernst Junger]

A person can despise gay marriage or abortion on purely secular grounds.

Anyway, yeah. That is the problem with secularism. A small community in Louisiana wants to organize a Ash Wednesday Penitential March, and a few atheists decide to end it because outsiders will fund the legal shenanigans and the district is too poor to defend itself.


And what the hell. They certainly have the right to do so. But civil society suffers, and no one is ignorant of the cause.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh in that case, sure. In the grand scheme of things, it seems hard for a genuine Christian to truly be in a situation for president [or high type of office] elect, and if they make it onto the seat, they slip into the trap of the presidency (its hard to do anything but focus on the presidency, for example it's hard to worship, pray, study anything but politics) and barely come out the other side as a genuine Christian. I can't say the same for another religion, but I assume for any that is anything more than a "self-improvement" religion, it is similar.

And like in the church, schools that devote their focus on Christian topics (for example ministries, learn'd folks Bible study, apologetics), they should be allowed their freedom to do whatever they like within reason and under reasonable supervision. But that diverges into another topic altogether.

Anyway, secularism isn't really anti-Christianity, it's just lack-o'-religion. So they should have their freedom to their "lack of religion" as we have our freedom to religion.

Personally I couldn't care less what faith the president is, so long he doesn't try to legislate his faith. Schools can teach whatever they like, so long as they aren't publicly funded.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A person can despise gay marriage or abortion on purely secular grounds.

Anyway, yeah. That is the problem with secularism. A small community in Louisiana wants to organize a Ash Wednesday Penitential March, and a few atheists decide to end it because outsiders will fund the legal shenanigans and the district is too poor to defend itself.


And what the hell. They certainly have the right to do so. But civil society suffers, and no one is ignorant of the cause.

I suppose they could oppose abortion, though I don't see it happening. I can't think of any secular reasons to oppose gay marriage though. Also, I don't see how civil society suffers without the march. Can you explain?

 

[Ernst Junger]

I suppose they could oppose abortion, though I don't see it happening. I can't think of any secular reasons to oppose gay marriage though.

If you wish to discuss that, make a seperate thread and I'll be happy to oblige. It will be shut down however. So for the purposes of mutual respect can you just assume that such an arguement is possible, and let that point drop?

Also, I don't see how civil society suffers without the march. Can you explain?

Because most of society is built on trust, and not violence. In fact, insofar as a society has trust, it does not need to rely on violence. I don't steal or pollute or a million other socially undesirable acts not because I suspect that I will be caught, but because I have a bond of commonality and trust with my neighbors. Activities like marches, dances, celebrations build this trust. Local government is one of the most effective tools for organizing these events, and religion is one of the most expansive common causes to base it on. Yes, yes, I know you think a "march for liberated vaginas" or a "march for picking up your stuff" is equally compelling, but you must realize you are in the extreme minority of most-boring-modern-puritans; the internet atheist. Ultra-calvinists, in a way.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you wish to discuss that, make a seperate thread and I'll be happy to oblige. It will be shut down however. So for the purposes of mutual respect can you just assume that such an arguement is possible, and let that point drop?





Because most of society is built on trust, and not violence. In fact, insofar as a society has trust, it does not need to rely on violence. I don't steal or pollute or a million other socially undesirable acts not because I suspect that I will be caught, but because I have a bond of commonality and trust with my neighbors. Activities like marches, dances, celebrations build this trust. Local government is one of the most effective tools for organizing these events, and religion is one of the most expansive common causes to base it on. Yes, yes, I know you think a "march for liberated vaginas" or a "march for picking up your stuff" is equally compelling, but you must realize you are in the extreme minority of most-boring-modern-puritans; the internet atheist. Ultra-calvinists, in a way.

Sure, I'll agree that such an argument could be made. You could point to Jim Crow laws and other sources of legislated bigotry to support your claim. I just don't think the supreme court backs that kind of legislation anymore.
I suppose its unfortunate for those who hold the majority in a civil society that their government also represents those in the "extreme minority" and as such, they can't favor the majority at the minority's expense. Besides, if a simple march required the backing of the local government to succeed, perhaps it isn't as popular as the majority might like to believe.

Does this site actually block any attempt to discuss gay rights?? how sad.

 

[Ernst Junger]

If only it were that simple! Even when its the congregations organizing the event, outside secularists still seem intent on disrupting local custom merely out maliciousness. Such as demanding equal parade rights, along the same routes. Or using the same plots for anti-religion scenes during christmas time as crèche scenes. And failure to provide such space, even for the three overweight internet nerds, results in outside agencies flooding them with lawyers.

It gets even more bizarre in metropolitan areas, where secularists have taken to lottery stuffing in order to even garner disproportionate representation, such as in LA during the last Christmas time and crèche scenes.

I suppose its unfortunate for those who hold the majority in a civil society that their government also represents those in the "extreme minority" and as such, they can't favor the majority at the minority's expense.

This makes absolutely no sense from a basic english composition point of view. I'm sure this is all rather new and sudden for you, but there is indeed a civil society that is not pixel based.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If only it were that simple! Even when its the congregations organizing the event, outside secularists still seem intent on disrupting local custom merely out maliciousness. Such as demanding equal parade rights, along the same routes. Or using the same plots for anti-religion scenes during christmas time as crèche scenes. And failure to provide such space, even for the three overweight internet nerds, results in outside agencies flooding them with lawyers.

It gets even more bizarre in metropolitan areas, where secularists have taken to lottery stuffing in order to even garner disproportionate representation, such as in LA during the last Christmas time and crèche scenes.

We are speaking about public space right? Not say, the grounds of a church where you would expect to see such displays, but public parks or city hall grounds etc? What's wrong with expecting equal opportunity to use such spaces?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If only it were that simple! Even when its the congregations organizing the event, outside secularists still seem intent on disrupting local custom merely out maliciousness. Such as demanding equal parade rights, along the same routes. Or using the same plots for anti-religion scenes during christmas time as crèche scenes. And failure to provide such space, even for the three overweight internet nerds, results in outside agencies flooding them with lawyers.

It gets even more bizarre in metropolitan areas, where secularists have taken to lottery stuffing in order to even garner disproportionate representation, such as in LA during the last Christmas time and crèche scenes.




This makes absolutely no sense from a basic english composition point of view. I'm sure this is all rather new and sudden for you, but there is indeed a civil society that is not pixel based.

I didn't realize I was in the presence of the grammar king, unfortunately I'm on my phone so I substitute clarity for brevity sometimes. I meant "the government can't favor the majority at the expense of the minority. I'm afraid I'm confused though, what is this pixel based society you're referring to, or for that matter, the "three overweight internet nerds"?

 

[Ernst Junger]

I didn't realize I was in the presence of the grammar king, unfortunately I'm on my phone so I substitute clarity for brevity sometimes. I meant "the government can't favor the majority at the expense of the minority. I'm afraid I'm confused though, what is this pixel based society you're referring to, or for that matter, the "three overweight internet nerds"?

Sure it can. It does all the time. The government's purpose is to restrict the rights of undesirable minorities; particularly the ones who don't buy into the trust based society. When we throw a thief in prison, he is personally rather disconvenienced. And is there a more precious minority than the individual? But the majority benefits.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure it can. It does all the time. The government's purpose is to restrict the rights of undesirable minorities; particularly the ones who don't buy into the trust based society. When we throw a thief in prison, he is personally rather disconvenienced. And is there a more precious minority than the individual? But the majority benefits.

LOl there's a large difference between an ideological minority and an individual. Also, a tremendous difference between punishing a criminal, and denying rights to a minority. Also, lol we have no ideologically undesirable minorities, this Is a free country where no matter what you believe in, you have the same rights as everyone else under the law. So basically everything about your analogy, which was poor to begin with, is wrong in basically every way. Unless you're extremely young I find It hard to think even tpi expected that statement to hold up under scrutiny.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You*

 

[Ernst Junger]

LOl there's a large difference between an ideological minority and an individual. Also, a tremendous difference between punishing a criminal, and denying rights to a minority. Also, lol we have no ideologically undesirable minorities, this Is a free country where no matter what you believe in, you have the same rights as everyone else under the law. So basically everything about your analogy, which was poor to begin with, is wrong in basically every way. Unless you're extremely young I find It hard to think even tpi expected that statement to hold up under scrutiny.

A criminal, such as a thief, is an ideological minority. They merely disagree on the extent of property rights. Consider a IP pirate for an easy analogy that will be palatable to your modernist tastes, since a poverty stricken food thief is alien to your overly satiated lifestyle.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A criminal, such as a thief, is an ideological minority. They merely disagree on the extent of property rights. Consider a IP pirate for an easy analogy that will be palatable to your modernist tastes, since a poverty stricken food thief is alien to your overly satiated lifestyle.

LOl again, you're very very wrong. We don't punish the thief based upon his views on property rights, we punish his actions which have infringed upon the rights of others. Lol seriously? This is where you've utterly failed, the thief can hold any ideology he wants and he still holds the same rights as anyone else. Maybe I can dumb it down for you...beliefs do not equal actions. Get it yet? And who are the three fat internet nerds? Friends of yours?

 

[Ernst Junger]

Seperating thoughts and actions is possible only to hypocrites. Who are not terribly intellectually interesting to me.