The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State

[Kralizec]

My point is that secular ethics seem to be much more virulent when it assumes power unhindered by religious ethics. Is it just a coincidence that the list of the greatest mass murderer's in history, with the exception of Ghengis Khan, were the leaders of secular movements? The Crusades? The Crusades don't hold a candle to any of them!

Hitler was an evil man! There have been evil men, with evil plans in every age and generation. If we need a madman, or a dictator, it isn't that hard to find one. He has to gain power first. You also need a secular movement if you really want to see the body count go up.

For one thing, mass murder wasn't technologically feasonable in those days. If the crusaders, the conquistadores or whoever had acces to nowadays technology, they would have been even more brutal. There's only so much killing you can do with sticks and stones. Well Ghenghis Khan didn't do badly, but that's a case apart (besides he still can't hold a cancle on Tamerlane, who was a fanatical muslim)

With the possible exception of Genghis Khan, all the mass murderers you mentioned were not just "evil men". They were sociopaths, mentally dysfunctional people with no capability of moral judgement. These sort of people tend to be atheists, true, but to use them as an indicator for any secular government is ridiculous.


I want a secular government, not an atheist one. We speak of a secular government when a government does not endorse any specific religion. Civil servants can adhere to any religion they want but shouldn't be allowed to show preference when doing their job. That anybody can have a problem with this is amazes me, and shows their true colors.

[Reenk Roink]

For one thing, mass murder wasn't technologically feasonable in those days. If the crusaders, the conquistadores or whoever had acces to nowadays technology, they would have been even more brutal. There's only so much killing you can do with sticks and stones.

Reminds me of Robespierre's reign of terror. Only so many you can kill with a guillotine after all...

[Kralizec]

How many millions died in the reign of terror?

[Reenk Roink]

How many millions died in the reign of terror?

20000-40000.

You sarcasm is mistaken. I was affirming your point...

[Brenus]

From the 3rd of September 1793 to the 27th of July 1794, the number of victims of the Terror is 40,000 victims of whom 17.000 by the guillotine and the rest drown, by shooting squads etc…
After the victory of Fleurus (26th of June 1794, where for the first time an observation balloon (filled with hydrogen) was used, in fact a far better moral factor than a real observation role) the Republic felt safer and Robespierre rule was ended.

[sharrukin]

From the 3rd of September 1793 to the 27th of July 1794, the number of victims of the Terror is 40,000 victims of whom 17.000 by the guillotine and the rest drown, by shooting squads etc…
After the victory of Fleurus (26th of June 1794, where for the first time an observation balloon (filled with hydrogen) was used, in fact a far better moral factor than a real observation role) the Republic felt safer and Robespierre rule was ended.

What happened in France led a lot more than just how many were guillotined. Fascism is responsible for much of what happened in World War Two, just as the French revolutionaries are responsible for what followed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars_casualties

Civilian deaths are impossible to accurately estimate. Whilst military deaths are invariably put at between 2.5 million and 3.5 million, civilian death tolls vary from 750,000 to 3 million. Thus estimates of total dead, both military and civilian, can reasonably range from 3,250,000 to 6,500,000.

[sharrukin]

With the possible exception of Genghis Khan, all the mass murderers you mentioned were not just "evil men". They were sociopaths, mentally dysfunctional people with no capability of moral judgement. These sort of people tend to be atheists, true, but to use them as an indicator for any secular government is ridiculous.

Communism is not a religious movement. It is a secular movement as is fascism. They were secular movements, with a non-religious ethical standard. The central tenets of these movements are not religious.

I want a secular government, not an atheist one. We speak of a secular government when a government does not endorse any specific religion. Civil servants can adhere to any religion they want but shouldn't be allowed to show preference when doing their job. That anybody can have a problem with this is amazes me, and shows their true colors.

If secular means that no one particular religion is established by the government then I would agree with you.

[Keba]

Communism is not a religious movement. It is a secular movement as is fascism. They were secular movements, with a non-religious ethical standard. The central tenets of these movements are not religious.

Fascism most certainly was not secular. Christianity and religion played a major part in that particular movement. Gott mit uns, right?

Communism is a different story ... it was atheistic, therefore, it was not secular. While one cannot qualify atheism as a religion, it nevertheless falls into that sphere, and therefore, makes communism cease being secular.

A secular goverment is one that ignores religion, in essence. While that is not truly possible, the impact of religion is minimized, and the state does not attempt to push itself into religious matter.

[sharrukin]

Fascism most certainly was not secular. Christianity and religion played a major part in that particular movement. Gott mit uns, right?

Communism is a different story ... it was atheistic, therefore, it was not secular. While one cannot qualify atheism as a religion, it nevertheless falls into that sphere, and therefore, makes communism cease being secular.

A secular goverment is one that ignores religion, in essence. While that is not truly possible, the impact of religion is minimized, and the state does not attempt to push itself into religious matter.

So a secular movement is one that ignores religion, but... that isn't possible.

So logically there is no such thing as a secular movement!

Well I guess it my misunderstanding. Not much point in arguing about something that doesn't exist.

[Keba]

There is, in fact, no secular movement, yes. However, there wouldn't be a lot of things if we only counted absolutes.

Secular movements, like I said, attempt to minimized the impact of religion, while, at the same time, refraining from interfering in religious matters. That does not mean that religion does not influence politics and that politics don't influence religion, but secular movements attempt to minimize such things.

TBH, I'm not even sure who is advocating what here, or even what the debate is about, but I'll go with the flow.