An attack on secularism?

[Beskar]

The bottom line of what I am saying goes back to my earlier example:

1a. A socialist taxes rich people because his idea of class struggle means he feels for the plight of the poor. Is this OK?
1b. A Christian taxes rich people because his idea of human compassion means he feels for the plight of the poor. Is this OK?

Can someone tell me why 1a is seen as OK, and 1b is not? Is there any justification at all for such reasoning?

The example is incorrect. Socialist would tax the rich more than the poor, as they have far greater relative wealth.
The Christian taxes is incorrect, there are no such examples. The closest would be taxed 10% of your wages by the church which is done for charity needs.

This are both political and economical arguments.

Banning sodomy just because you think is dirty is imposing social controls which doesn't have any practical arguments. If you think it is dirty, simply don't do it. You are taking away peoples liberty and freedom.

I think people who do 'drugs' recreationally by seriously damaging their body for a momentary high are making a big mistake. However, I support decriminalisation of drug use because having a law against it is stupid and unnecessary intrusion on peoples liberties and hinders them being able to receive the help.

So what we have here, the social opinion "Drugs = Bad" and a Political argument to why they should be decriminalised. With your example of sodomy, they are at the "Bumming = Bad" stage, but with no real arguments or assumptions to enforce why it should be banned, while I can make many arguments against it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm not trying to argue the technicalities of which is best, or whether a socialist would really do this, or a Christian would really do that etc...

It is hypothetical. People like The Celtic Viking are telling me that the 1b example is not acceptable in the society we live in, whereas 1a is.

If this really is what secularism means to some people, I do not see how it can be compatible with freedom of conscience.

[Fragony]

He can do as he pleases, but I would get creative on what to do with said bible; quid pro quo. Not an attack on secularism but certainly very annoying.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The example is incorrect. Socialist would tax the rich more than the poor, as they have far greater relative wealth.
The Christian taxes is incorrect, there are no such examples. The closest would be taxed 10% of your wages by the church which is done for charity needs.

This are both political and economical arguments.

So you're saying no Christian politician has ever raised taxes on the rich because he felt the poor were suffering?

OK, I'll get elected and do it - because my Christian belief tells me we are all equal in the eyes of God and those with more should help those with less.

How's that?

[Beskar]

So you're saying no Christian politician has ever raised taxes on the rich because he felt the poor were suffering?

OK, I'll get elected and do it - because my Christian belief tells me we are all equal in the eyes of God and those with more should help those with less.

How's that?

Thats the argument part. The rest of it is just fluff. However, you cannot use fluff alone to justify an action such as:
"As a Christian, I believe homosexuals burn in hell, so lets make it illegal"

There is a difference between the two, you can use fluff along with the argument, but you cannot use the fluff as an argument.

It would be equal to:
"As a homophobe, I believe homosexual intercourse is nasty, so lets make it illegal".

Now, which statement is more valid than the other? There is no argument in either statements, they are simply that, statements.

"Those without money end up committing crime out of desperation, so I believe we should help them be able to help themselves, and provide that means" - Valid Argument.

"I believe as a Christian, that those without money are doing it out of desperation, turn away from teachings of God. My relationship with God helps me understand that these people need our help, in order to help themselves, we should provide that means" - Valid Argument + Religious Fluff.


Now, lets look at PVC's statement, the Anti-H one, and the "Help the Needy" one.

As you see, both PVC's and 'Help the Needy' examples are legitimate arguments which no one has any problems with being used and can be used in a secular environment.

However, the Anti-H, using both a religious and a non-religious argument, is where people have problems. Typically, it is far more associated with religion as this is historically the driving force of such laws.

Does that clear it up?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thats the argument part. The rest of it is just fluff. However, you cannot use fluff alone to justify an action such as:
"As a Christian, I believe homosexuals burn in hell, so lets make it illegal"

There is a difference between the two, you can use fluff along with the argument, but you cannot use the fluff as an argument.

It would be equal to:
"As a homophobe, I believe homosexual intercourse is nasty, so lets make it illegal".

Now, which statement is more valid than the other? There is no argument in either statements, they are simply that, statements.

"Those without money end up committing crime out of desperation, so I believe we should help them be able to help themselves, and provide that means" - Valid Argument.

"I believe as a Christian, that those without money are doing it out of desperation, turn away from teachings of God. My relationship with God helps me understand that these people need our help, in order to help themselves, we should provide that means" - Valid Argument + Religious Fluff.


Now, lets look at PVC's statement, the Anti-H one, and the "Help the Needy" one.

As you see, both PVC's and 'Help the Needy' examples are legitimate arguments which no one has any problems with being used and can be used in a secular environment.

However, the Anti-H, using both a religious and a non-religious argument, is where people have problems. Typically, it is far more associated with religion as this is historically the driving force of such laws.

Does that clear it up?

Um, Beskar, I said nothing about homosexuality, did I?

Now, your "this is the argument and this is the fluff" approach doesn't hold water, because it is not self evident, from a naturalistic standpoint, that we are all created equal. In fact, it is manifestly obvious that by every naturalistic measure we are all of us profoundly unequal. My belief in human equality is one I hold in defience of numbers and statistics because I believe in the essential equality of the human soul and the universal love which God bears all his children.

I can't see a way to defend the principle of universal equality without atleast resorting to some form of Deism.

[Beskar]

Um, Beskar, I said nothing about homosexuality, did I?

Did I ever say you did?

I can't see a way to defend the principle of universal equality without atleast resorting to some form of Deism.

I can make plenty without resorting to it at all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[QUOTE=Beskar;2053199973]Did I ever say you did?[quote]

'fraid so: "Now, lets look at PVC's statement, the Anti-H one, and the "Help the Needy" one."

I can make plenty without resorting to it at all.

Give me an alternative rationalisation - otherwise I submit your morality runs with a sort of "post Christian" inertia, or rather that your morality is based on metaphysical assumptions which are essentially Christian, but with the figure of God surgically removed. If this is so you have a massive structural whole in your philosophy.

Often I find among Secular Hummanists the phrase, "how the world should be" but "should" is a spiritual word in this context, it implies something divorced from the physical, some supernatural standard from which the world is fallen. The idea is one the West has inherrited directly from Christianity, and it doesn't really work shawn of God.

So, I oppose most violently your charactarisation of my most insoluable beliefs as "fluff".

[Beskar]

'fraid so:

That is a reading miscomprehension on your part. If you see my post, I made three references to yours, the Anti-H one and the "Help the Needy" one.

Let's change that order:
The Anti-H one, "Help the Needy" and PVC's.

It is still exactly the same, except out of order of how I made the statements.

It is part of the "Rule of Three" in the English language: "I think PVC is charming, handsome and witty". It doesn't mean "charming handsome and witty".

Give me an alternative rationalisation - otherwise I submit your morality runs with a sort of "post Christian" inertia, or rather that your morality is based on metaphysical assumptions which are essentially Christian, but with the figure of God surgically removed. If this is so you have a massive structural whole in your philosophy.

Nope. Why does not killing another person have to do with a range of named or unamed dieties? Was does treating another brother or sister with respect have anything to do with a deity? There is no reason for God to be there. God is just slapped on like a sticker. God even spoke about owning slaves, my morality rejects slavery.

Why does treating others like I want to be treated and that we are all as humans equal, have anything to do with any high power? I don't want to be murdered, so does the person next to be, so lets not murder. I want to say what is true, so does the person next to me, so lets speak the truth. It is all things based on freedom and liberty. To be able what you want to do, within a shared sense of order and social function.

It is the basics of ethics. God doesn't even need a place there.

So, I oppose most violently your charactarisation of my most insoluable beliefs as "fluff".

God has decreed that Pork is an unclean food and should not be eaten.

The argument for this back in the 'day' was as Cute Wolf said in the otherthread about pigs having a lot of parasites, spoils easy and was generally eaten quite raw in those days, which complicated matters.

So in the spirit of things:

God says Pork is Bad = Fluff
A reasonable and sound argument against the eating of pork in a desert = Argument