< 1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

Meaning of being Secular

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
14 March 2015 20:05
 
EN - 14 March 2015 05:40 PM

Correct.  And you can follow any ideology or idea that you wish, up until the point that you tell me what I can do.  Please explain that to GAD and jdrnd - they don’t seem to understand.


So you believe GAD and jdrnd are somehow telling you what you can do ... I guess when they disagree with you even after you’ve made a case they disagree with ... or ... what? I don’t see the connection between your complaint here and reality.

 
 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
14 March 2015 23:57
 
EN - 14 March 2015 07:01 PM
jdrnd - 14 March 2015 05:46 PM
EN - 14 March 2015 05:40 PM
Brick Bungalow - 14 March 2015 03:33 PM

Western is, I think fundamentally secular. That is to say that practical decisions of authority are made on the basis of reason and parsimony rather that adherence to superstitious tradition. I would never suggest impinging on the right to believe or to worship or to organize civilized religious activity. I simply endorse the same liberty for everyone. Which entails, among other things my right not to respect unjustified authority. Among which I would count religious authority.

In other words, you can do what your bible tells you to do. Up until the point it tells you that you can tell me what to do.

Correct.  And you can follow any ideology or idea that you wish, up until the point that you tell me what I can do.  Please explain that to GAD and jdrnd - they don’t seem to understand.

No one is telling you what to do.  Just because I remind you that there is no big guy in the sky, doesn’t mean you can’t worship him.  But if you are going to proclaim that such an entity exists, its going to be challenged.

You are missing the point of this entire thread, but why am I not surprised.

I am not sure I am.  So that I don’t misquote you can you tell me, in your opinion, what the point of this thread is?

I bet you we agree on the point of the thread.

Discussion in secularism means you can discuss anything as long as you don’t hurt the other individual.  En, No on is threatening you.  Its a discussion. There is nothing that I have said in the three threads that I am currently active in that is any way shape or form dangerous to you….

and I am saying this as a joke  except of course the truth.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21597
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
15 March 2015 02:07
 
jdrnd - 14 March 2015 12:52 PM

But what about people who take their beliefs at face value.

As Gad points out, “Bad beliefs breed bad behavior…”

Should a secular society tolerate everyone’s beliefs?  Of course it should.  It should only concern itself with actions and behavior.  Once it starts concerning itself with beliefs, we are entering into a “thought police” world.  GAD and jdrnd apparently think that a secular society should inquire into other people’s beliefs; i.e., their thoughts.  Someone’s thoughts are nobody’s business.  How would GAD and jdrnd propose to police people’s beliefs?  I’m not sure, but whatever means they choose, it would not be a society that I would want to live in.  Sounds more like a Brave New World or 1984 type culture.

Again, if people behave badly, that is all that should be dealt with.  If you try to cut problems off at the thought/belief stage, you run the risk of mental tyranny.  Jefferson had some things to say about that.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17630
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
15 March 2015 02:19
 
EN - 15 March 2015 01:07 AM
jdrnd - 14 March 2015 12:52 PM

But what about people who take their beliefs at face value.

As Gad points out, “Bad beliefs breed bad behavior…”

Should a secular society tolerate everyone’s beliefs?  Of course it should.  It should only concern itself with actions and behavior.  Once it starts concerning itself with beliefs, we are entering into a “thought police” world.  GAD and jdrnd apparently think that a secular society should inquire into other people’s beliefs; i.e., their thoughts.  Someone’s thoughts are nobody’s business.  How would GAD and jdrnd propose to police people’s beliefs?  I’m not sure, but whatever means they choose, it would not be a society that I would want to live in.  Sounds more like a Brave New World or 1984 type culture.

Again, if people behave badly, that is all that should be dealt with.  If you try to cut problems off at the thought/belief stage, you run the risk of mental tyranny.  Jefferson had some things to say about that.

You are just being silly now. When people carry around books that say are the unbreakable word of gods and those books say blacks are cursed, kill fags, kill anyone who doesn’t worship my god and his commandments etc and promote those gods in the street, on TV, in school, on their money etc that IS action and behavior.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21597
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
15 March 2015 11:10
 

So what should a secular society do about people who have strange beliefs but don’t harm anyone else, Jdrnd & GAD?

 
Thoughtage
 
Avatar
 
 
Thoughtage
Total Posts:  522
Joined  13-01-2015
 
 
 
15 March 2015 13:32
 

The only way to separate religion and politics is to somehow get rid of all religious people.

It’s the simplest thing, and it’s rarely addressed in threads such as this.  Religious people have the same right to organize and vote as anyone else.  And thus they bring their beliefs, whatever they may be, in to the political arena, as it their right.

Even if religious people wish to implement some idea that is explicitly prohibited in the U.S. Constitution, they have the option of attempting to edit the Constitution.  So long as they do so using the legal procedures outlined in that Constitution, they are playing by the rules of the game.

What we see in threads like this is little more than a sloppy attempt to create a victim status for the local group consensus, and a “them” which can be used to fuel an ego inflating “us vs. them” war.

I say sloppy in part because it seems there is little understanding, or at least acknowledgement, that religious people are very diverse.  The biggest religious denomination in this country is the Catholic Church, and U.S. Catholics are notorious for enthusiastic in-house debates on almost every social subject.  Members would know this already if they bothered to study the biggest religious denomination in this country, but why bother to study something one wishes to reject, eh?

Thus, when we create an “us vs. them” war with religious people, we are likely alienating the only effective allies we have, those religious people who agree with us on whatever the issue under discussion may be. 

But of course this would only matter if we actually cared about the issue at hand, which seems somewhat rare here.  If all we care about is inflating our ego with an us vs. them war, then it doesn’t matter a bit, and sloppiness is indeed a good procedure.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2761
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
15 March 2015 14:19
 

@gsmonks

christian secularism grew out of the fight of the church against kings&emperors;: since bishops etc. also controlled huge tracts of land, their election was highly political, and the rulers used every influence they could get to get those clergymen to the post they wanted, often in opposition to the Pope. Secularism was the emancipation of the church from the worldly rulersl, not the other way around.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17630
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
15 March 2015 15:53
 
EN - 15 March 2015 10:10 AM

So what should a secular society do about people who have strange beliefs but don’t harm anyone else, Jdrnd & GAD?

Well, what they shouldn’t do is praise, venerate and promote them as good.

 
 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
15 March 2015 16:57
 
EN - 15 March 2015 01:07 AM
jdrnd - 14 March 2015 12:52 PM

But what about people who take their beliefs at face value.

As Gad points out, “Bad beliefs breed bad behavior…”

Should a secular society tolerate everyone’s beliefs?  Of course it should.  It should only concern itself with actions and behavior.

Me, you, and I bet Gad, are in complete agreement.

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
15 March 2015 16:59
 
EN - 15 March 2015 01:07 AM
jdrnd - 14 March 2015 12:52 PM

But what about people who take their beliefs at face value.

As Gad points out, “Bad beliefs breed bad behavior…”

  GAD and jdrnd apparently think that a secular society should inquire into other people’s beliefs…

What’s wrong with this?  How do learn about somebody unless you understand how they think.

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
15 March 2015 17:02
 
EN - 15 March 2015 01:07 AM
jdrnd - 14 March 2015 12:52 PM

But what about people who take their beliefs at face value.

As Gad points out, “Bad beliefs breed bad behavior…”


If you try to cut problems off at the thought/belief stage, you run the risk of mental tyranny.

What do you mean by mental tyranny?

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
15 March 2015 17:03
 
EN - 15 March 2015 10:10 AM

So what should a secular society do about people who have strange beliefs but don’t harm anyone else…?

Nothing

 
EdwinRozario
 
Avatar
 
 
EdwinRozario
Total Posts:  3
Joined  26-02-2015
 
 
 
15 March 2015 22:39
 

I posted this topic because increasingly the Nations call themselves to be Secular are throwing more and more religious rules on to the society. Or allowing religion to interfere a lot in the society that consists of many religions and non-religious population.

Maharashtra Government of India recently passed a bill banning sales and use of Beef. Which is clearly a Hindu thing. But its seen as tolerating Hindu values instead of forcing it on others. And India boasts itself as a Secular Democracy.

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
15 March 2015 23:22
 
EdwinRozario - 13 March 2015 12:04 AM

What must be the meaning of a ‘Secular society’? Should it be ‘tolerate all religions/beliefs’. Or the society has no religion, its your private affair.

So after 29 posts, what do you think?

 
EdwinRozario
 
Avatar
 
 
EdwinRozario
Total Posts:  3
Joined  26-02-2015
 
 
 
15 March 2015 23:28
 

I understand that Secular Nation must mean “State has no religion”. But citizens can have religion but State is not going to support any one of them buy making or modifying State rules for them. Unfortunately that is not whats happening now.

 
 < 1 2 3 >