An attack on secularism?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because then it would be religious - ergo, in direct conflict with secularism. You do know what secularism is, don't you?

I know enough to know that there is no single clear idea of secularism. Considering it emerged from the call of Protestants for religious freedom, I think the view people take on the continent with laicite is in fact not secularism at all, but is instead the banning of religious beliefs (and religious beliefs only) from the political sphere. That to me is not secularism, that is just replacing one tyranny with another, from Popish to atheist tyranny, as things seem to be going on the continent.

I much prefer the Anglosphere's view of secularism, which is simply the institutionalised separation of church and state. No religion should have any privileges, or any sort of set place in the legal/political framework. Instead, when people vote, or when a judge passes a sentence, they should be free to draw on religious principles in the same way they would draw on any other sort of principles, be they Marxist, anarchist, scientific, philosophical or whatever.

I do not see why anyone should have the right to tell me my religious views cannot influence my political outlook. If that is your view of what seculairsm means, then we should really be discussing "is secularism really compatible with western views of individual liberty?".

Is this supposed to be an argument for why biblical morality has had "a significant influence on western law"?

Well if you implement a new court system to specifically to reflect Reformation principles, then yes, quite clearly, it is.

"Buy into"? Really? Sounds like you think it's not true. Tell me, which tribe do you think would fare best, all else equal: one that thought killing each other was okay, or one that thought it was not okay? Hint: humans as a social species have always (and especially when living in smaller tribes) depended upon each other for survival.

No, I don't think it's true, although I didn't set out to debate whether or not it was, I was just surprised that Beskar didn't believe in it. I read Dawkin's theories on the origins of morality, although it gets pretty random with his idea of memes to explain the development of religion, before he takes it further and tries to explain the origins of the universe and even a multiverse all in Darwin evolutionary terms, apparently for no other reason than the fact that he finds the Darwinian theory of evolution "beautiful" and appears to have an almost superstitious reverence for it.

I know he was appealing to theists who see God's order in nature and think it is beautiful, and he wanted to make an emotional appeal to the 'beauty' of the Darwinian alternative. But really, he takes it to far and he seems to start seeing evolution even in the cosmos, purely because he likes it!

He's a biologist, and he should stick to the biology.

Wow. Just... wow. State-enforced atheism would be if the state tried to stop the people from believing in any god. That is not the same thing as not allowing religious people to force their religious values onto other people. Sheez.

Banning religion from the public sphere is state-enforced atheism. You can correct me if I'm picking you up wrong, but you seem to be saying a judge can draw on his morals to give a particularly harsh/lenient sentence, unless the morals are in any way influenced by a belief in God. Why does it matter if the morals are from a belief in God or not? It shouldn't be relevant unless we are going to discriminate based on people's beliefs.

[The Celtic Viking]

Rhyfelwyr, you have just demonstrated that you don't know what secularism means, and your failure to appreciate its value suggests to me that you have never been in a position where other people would force their religious beliefs onto you. That's the beauty of secularism: it protects everyone equally, atheist and theist alike. I will say it again: you not getting to force your religious values on others is in no way an abridgement of your rights, because you don't have a right to do that. Like muslims don't have a right to tell you that you can't drink alcohol or eat pork because islam says so.

Well if you implement a new court system to specifically to reflect Reformation principles, then yes, quite clearly, it is.

I don't see that western law reflects reformation principles at all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhyfelwyr, you have just demonstrated that you don't know what secularism means, and your failure to appreciate its value suggests to me that you have never been in a position where other people would force their religious beliefs onto you. That's the beauty of secularism: it protects everyone equally, atheist and theist alike. I will say it again: you not getting to force your religious values on others is in no way an abridgement of your rights, because you don't have a right to do that. Like muslims don't have a right to tell you that you can't drink alcohol or eat pork because islam says so.

Secularism means the instititionalised separation of church and state, yes or no? The roots of the idea go back to Luther, although the first truly secular movement was that of the Independents in the English Civil War. They wanted the temporal powers to be separated from the spiritual, that surely is what classical secularism is?

Now, it so happens that in certain circles, secularism has been turned into something more than that, and has became an ideology in its own right, eg secular humanism. I know that in for example, France, laicite means that your political beliefs should not be influenced by your religious beliefs. This is alternative form of secularism, which focuses on 'freedom from', religion, as opposed to 'freedom to' religion.

But I think this laicitie cannot really be combined with western views of individual liberty. Why on earth should someone not be allowed to vote for a certain party on religious grounds? Who are you to tell me that my religious views cannot influence my politics, only to allow your own political views to be influenced by your Darwinian view of morality? That is not giving equality to peoples beliefs.

Furthermore, I never claimed my religious rights were being discriminated against because I couldn't force them onto others. tbh, I don't even think there is such a thing as specific religious rights, there should simply be freedom of conscience. If my freeedom of conscience dictates that I should not, say, vote for a party which supports abortion, then it is my right not to do so, and to vote for someone else, and not be told that this is somehow against the principles of a secular society.

As I said, if you go for the laicitie view where you would say the above is not acceptable, then you must show how this idea of secularism can be compatible with typical western ideas of freedom of conscience.

Oh, and while of course I say my religious views may influence my politics, they are of course bound by the same laws as any other belief would be when it comes to enforcing them on others. So naturally, I could not vote to ban homosexuality because I don't like it. In the same way a neo-Nazi couldn't do the same thing. Ultimately, the same rules should apply to any belief, regardless of whether its got anything to do with God or not.

I don't see that western law reflects reformation principles at all.

I was talking specifically about Scots law, and how it was clearly brought into line with Reformation thought.

[The Celtic Viking]

Ugh. Rhyfelwyr, this will be a pain to me, so I hope you're happy and appreciate my gesture.

Secularism means the instititionalised separation of church and state, yes or no?

Yes. If you know this then it truly baffles me how you can call a system that would allow for church to meddle in the state's business "secular".

Now, it so happens that in certain circles, secularism has been turned into something more than that, and has became an ideology in its own right, eg secular humanism.

Nope - secularism hasn't turned into anything. Secular humanism is named so because it's secular and it is humanism. It's like saying freedom turned into free market.

I know that in for example, France, laicite means that your political beliefs should not be influenced by your religious beliefs. This is alternative form of secularism, which focuses on 'freedom from', religion, as opposed to 'freedom to' religion.

No, this is exactly what secularism is. Remember what you said before? "Secularism means the instititionalised separation of church and state"? Do I need to check if you understand what the word separation mean? Is that your hangup?

But I think this laicitie cannot really be combined with western views of individual liberty.

Au contraire: western views of individual liberty are impossible without it. If you want to follow your religious rules, fine, no one is stopping you. What you want to be able to do is to force others to comply to your religious views, regardless of whether they're a part of your religion or not, and regardless whether they want it or not. That is theocracy.

Why on earth should someone not be allowed to vote for a certain party on religious grounds?

Because then your religion would be interfering with politics. Your religion has no business doing that.

Who are you to tell me that my religious views cannot influence my politics, only to allow your own political views to be influenced by your Darwinian view of morality?

*Bangs head into wall*

So much is wrong with this I don't know where to begin...

*Breathes in and out several times*

Okay. Lets see:

1) The real questions are these: who are you to tell me that, not only do you know that there is a god, but also that you know that this god cares about what we do? Who are you to tell me that you know god's mind better than I do? Who are you to tell me what he wants of me? Who are you to tell me that, because you accept this religion, I must too?

You are not just arrogant and insulting to the extreme, but you are a theocrat too if you try to use the government for this end.

2) Stop using the word "Darwinian". Unlike religions, who comes up with the idea couldn't be more irrelevant in science, because science cares only about the idea itself. The fact that you don't call people who accept general relativity for "Einsteinists" (as an example) shows your dishonesty.

3) The morals that are relevant to evolution and natural selection are things like not murdering people, not stealing, not lying etc. These are innate in us. We wouldn't have got this far if we thought these things were okay.

4) My morality is completely irrelevant to this discussion anyway. Please try to keep on topic.

That is not giving equality to peoples beliefs.

1) Evolution is not a belief, no one is forcing you to accept it.

2) Letting you force your religious beliefs onto others is not exactly equality of people's beliefs, is it? So equality is not what you're asking for anyway.

Furthermore, I never claimed my religious rights were being discriminated against because I couldn't force them onto others.

You are constantly attacking secularism here, trying to tell me that it is unfair that you can't shove your religion down my throat.

tbh, I don't even think there is such a thing as specific religious rights, there should simply be freedom of conscience.

Then why are you telling me it's unfair that you can't tell me what religion I should follow? (And don't get hungup on "I never said we should force someone to be christian!". You are saying you should be allowed to force me to obey christian rules, regardless of whether I believe in christianity or not. That is the point.)

If my freeedom of conscience dictates that I should not, say, vote for a party which supports abortion, then it is my right not to do so, and to vote for someone else, and not be told that this is somehow against the principles of a secular society.

Yes, you have the right to not vote for a party that supports abortion, but you do not have the right to have abortion banned on religious grounds.

As I said, if you go for the laicitie view where you would say the above is not acceptable, then you must show how this idea of secularism can be compatible with typical western ideas of freedom of conscience.

Easy: you still have the right to believe what you want. That's not the same thing as having the right to force those religious beliefs on others. That would violate their freedom of conscience.

Oh, and while of course I say my religious views may influence my politics, they are of course bound by the same laws as any other belief would be when it comes to enforcing them on others. So naturally, I could not vote to ban homosexuality because I don't like it.

So you agree that your freedom of conscience is not violated by this? Then why can't you see how your freedom of conscience is not violated by you not being allowed to ban, say, abortion on religious grounds.

In the same way a neo-Nazi couldn't do the same thing. Ultimately, the same rules should apply to any belief, regardless of whether its got anything to do with God or not.

We've got freedom of religion. That includes freedom from religion. In fact, it doesn't make any sense without it! You have no right to force your religion on anyone else, and no one has the right to force their religion onto you. You seem to get it but not get it at the same time, which is really, really frustrating. Are you fine with a hindu using the state to stop you from eating meat because of his religion? If not, you must be able to see why I object to allowing you to use the state to enforce your religious rules on me.

I was talking specifically about Scots law, and how it was clearly brought into line with Reformation thought.

Two things: a) I don't buy that until you get more specific. b) the whole thing was about western law and biblical morality; unless you think "the reformation" is the bible and "Scotland" is "the west", I don't see how you could've claimed that it is "an argument for why biblical morality has had 'a significant influence on western law'".

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.

To be specific, I have not (or at the very least, had not) given a personal standpoint on this. I have simply pointed out the fact that secularism means religion can have no thing to say in the state's affairs. If religion could do that, the state could interfere in religious affairs. Perhaps you see the problem better if done that way?

But to answer the question:

1a. This is fine.
1b. This is also fine. Human compassion is not exactly religion, you know.

[ajaxfetish]

1b. This is also fine. Human compassion is not exactly religion, you know.

Have you read the gospels? Or are your opinions on Christianity informed only by encounters with aggressive fundamentalists? From my reading, I'd say human compassion was the vast majority of Christ's message.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

I swear, I have some magic quality that means people ignore the point of what I am saying. Like when I made a post saying I think the not-at-Ground-Zero not-a-mosque should be legally OK, but that I thought it was morally wrong - to be met with a response on why should be legal to build it. Then I make a thread on property right and anti-discrimination laws, in which I made it very clear the state itself could not discriminate - to be met with a spiel on the civil rights movement and the Jim Crow laws.

And true to form, I am now being met with a ridiculous set of accusations that have nothing to do with anything I have ever said on this thread.

Ugh. Rhyfelwyr, this will be a pain to me, so I hope you're happy and appreciate my gesture.

It's painful for me to, trust me.

Yes. If you know this then it truly baffles me how you can call a system that would allow for church to meddle in the state's business "secular".

For the context, the above is referring to when I said: "Secularism means the instititionalised separation of church and state, yes or no?"

Now, having just said what I said there, I can only wonder how on earth you came to the conclusion that I am saying the church has any sort of right to meddle in the state's affairs.

What I do allow, however, is for individuals to draw their morality from the church, and for that in turn to influence their political beliefs. Which is of course, an entirely different matter from giving the church an institutionalised position in the affairs of the state.

tbh, even though I am a member of the Church of Scotland, I would gladly see it's position as the state religion removed tomorrow!

No, this is exactly what secularism is. Remember what you said before? "Secularism means the instititionalised separation of church and state"? Do I need to check if you understand what the word separation mean? Is that your hangup?

I understand very well what it means, you seem to be having problems with the word "institutionalised". I have always condemned any institutionalised role of the church in the state, but for some reason you seem convinced that I have not, and keep ranting about church interference in the state.

Au contraire: western views of individual liberty are impossible without it. If you want to follow your religious rules, fine, no one is stopping you. What you want to be able to do is to force others to comply to your religious views, regardless of whether they're a part of your religion or not, and regardless whether they want it or not. That is theocracy.

Where did I say anything of the sort? Please, please, tell me. I can't see it anywhere, maybe you could point it out?

Because then your religion would be interfering with politics. Your religion has no business doing that.

For the context, the above was in reply to my comment: "Why on earth should someone not be allowed to vote for a certain party on religious grounds?"

Excuse me? My personal beliefs have no place interfering with my... personal beliefs, as soon as place my vote? This is the free world, and my political outlook should be determined by my own conscience, whether I am influenced by a certain religion, or a certain philosophy, or ideology etc. And it will no longer be the free world if people like yourself take that right away from me.

*Bangs head into wall*

So much is wrong with this I don't know where to begin...

*Breathes in and out several times*

I know the feeling...

1) The real questions are these: who are you to tell me that, not only do you know that there is a god, but also that you know that this god cares about what we do? Who are you to tell me that you know god's mind better than I do? Who are you to tell me what he wants of me? Who are you to tell me that, because you accept this religion, I must too?

You are not just arrogant and insulting to the extreme, but you are a theocrat too if you try to use the government for this end.

I really don't care what you think about God. I simply uphold that my own conscience may be influenced by my religious morals in political matters. Naturally, should I wish for my religious views to impact the political sphere, they will be bound by the same laws that limit the impact of any one person's ideology on the life of another.

So I think it is my right to vote for a socialist party if my Christian values make me feel for the plight of the poor, for example. This is the sort of interference of religion in politics that I have always maintained is acceptable, not the strange strawmen you keep constructing where religious values would blatantly violate human rights.

*questions 2, 3 & 4

All this stuff with Darwinism is getting off-topic, so I'm just going to let it go.

You are constantly attacking secularism here, trying to tell me that it is unfair that you can't shove your religion down my throat.

No, really I'm not, that's just what you want me to be saying. Think back to my 1a/b and 2a/b examples. Neither 1a or 1b involve shoving your ideas down people's throats, be they religious or otherwise. However, both 2a and 2b involve showing your ideas down people's throats, once again, whether for religious reasons or otherwise.

All I want is for religious beliefs to have the same rights as any other beliefs. 1a/b are both OK in my view, 2a/b are both not.

Then why are you telling me it's unfair that you can't tell me what religion I should follow? (And don't get hungup on "I never said we should force someone to be christian!". You are saying you should be allowed to force me to obey christian rules, regardless of whether I believe in christianity or not. That is the point.)

No, that's the point you want me to be making, but really it's not, I don't know what I can do to make it any clearer.

We live in a society where the values of the majority do influence the minority, although thankfully we have enough individual rights to protect against a real tyranny of the majority. I simply want religious beliefs to be allowed to influence the political system to the same extent as any other sort of belief would.

You seem to want do deny PVC the right to run for election in order to raise taxes to help the poor, since his concerns for them are based on religious conviction.

If you really are saying this, that shows to me that, in your own words "You are not just arrogant and insulting to the extreme, but you are a theocrat too if you try to use the government for this end". Just replace theocrat with something more general, like dictator/whatever.

Yes, you have the right to not vote for a party that supports abortion, but you do not have the right to have abortion banned on religious grounds.

Am I allowed to base my vote on my religious views, depending on each party's stance on abortion?

Easy: you still have the right to believe what you want. That's not the same thing as having the right to force those religious beliefs on others. That would violate their freedom of conscience.

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but the impact of religious beliefs on the political system should be bound by the laws of the land as any other sort of belief.

You, however, seem to want to deny religious beliefs any impact on a person's political outlook, which to me blatantly violates their freedom of conscience.

So you agree that your freedom of conscience is not violated by this? Then why can't you see how your freedom of conscience is not violated by you not being allowed to ban, say, abortion on religious grounds.

I can see it, you just can't see that I can see it. Maybe just just don't want to, people never seem to when they debate with me.

That's right. I can't ban homosexuality, or enforce the sabbath, or prevent euthanasia etc. But just to be controversial, I'm going to point out that with your abortion example, you could make a case for saying that the foetus should have human rights. But let's not go there in this thread.

We've got freedom of religion. That includes freedom from religion. In fact, it doesn't make any sense without it! You have no right to force your religion on anyone else, and no one has the right to force their religion onto you. You seem to get it but not get it at the same time, which is really, really frustrating. Are you fine with a hindu using the state to stop you from eating meat because of his religion? If not, you must be able to see why I object to allowing you to use the state to enforce your religious rules on me.

Pure strawmanism. Completely irrelevant to everything I've said. Am I fine with a hindu using the state to stop me eating meat because it's his religious belief? Well, why don't you read everything I just said in this post, and take a guess?

Two things: a) I don't buy that until you get more specific. b) the whole thing was about western law and biblical morality; unless you think "the reformation" is the bible and "Scotland" is "the west", I don't see how you could've claimed that it is "an argument for why biblical morality has had 'a significant influence on western law'".

For the context, this was in reply to when I said: "I was talking specifically about Scots law, and how it was clearly brought into line with Reformation thought."

So, a) Sorry, but I can't right now be bothered going into the specfics of the Scottish legal system, and it's no longer the main subject of our discussion, and b) as I said, the whole thing was never about western law in general, since I made it abundantly clear that Scots law had completely different roots from the Germanic law of the rest of westernn Europe outside of Ireland.

To be specific, I have not (or at the very least, had not) given a personal standpoint on this. I have simply pointed out the fact that secularism means religion can have no thing to say in the state's affairs. If religion could do that, the state could interfere in religious affairs. Perhaps you see the problem better if done that way?

But to answer the question:

1a. This is fine.
1b. This is also fine. Human compassion is not exactly religion, you know.

Well in saying 1b is fine, you contradict everything you have said so far, so I don't know how to react. Although I think maybe you actually tried to avoid the issue by focusing on the human compassion bit, which as you pointed out, is not a religion.

Yet my example made it clear his view in this respect was a product of his religion, so...

[Beskar]

Banning religion from the public sphere is state-enforced atheism. You can correct me if I'm picking you up wrong, but you seem to be saying a judge can draw on his morals to give a particularly harsh/lenient sentence, unless the morals are in any way influenced by a belief in God. Why does it matter if the morals are from a belief in God or not? It shouldn't be relevant unless we are going to discriminate based on people's beliefs.

State-Enforced Athiesm = Banning Churches, Actively Denouncing Religion, Tearing down Religious symbols, etc.
Examples: USSR, Communist China, etc

Secularism = Removal of Religion from the State (and vice-versus), you can still go to church, you can still pray, still have your cross necklace when appropiate, etc. You cannot get into Office and tell people they are going to hell, and put them in prison for being gay. In the same light, this applies to all religions, what you believe in your own time is nothing to do with the state, unless you try to enforce your religious beliefs onto others against their will. You can still be elected and say you are a Christian, but it doesn't affect your work in office. This allows people the freedom to practise any religion as they are not discriminated against.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Secularisation is the transformation of a society from close identification with religious values and institutions toward non-religious (or "irreligious") values and secular institutions. Secularisation thesis refers to the belief that as societies "progress", particularly through modernization and rationalization, religion loses its authority in all aspects of social life and governance.

[Rhyfelwyr]

State-Enforced Athiesm = Banning Churches, Actively Denouncing Religion, Tearing down Religious symbols, etc.

Secularism = Removal of Religion from the State (and vice-versus), you can still go to church, you can still pray, still have your cross necklace when appropiate, etc. You cannot get into Office and tell people they are going to hell, and put them in prison for being gay. In the same light, this applies to all religions, what you believe in your own time is nothing to do with the state, unless you try to enforce your religious beliefs onto others against their will. You can still be elected and say you are a Christian, but it doesn't affect your work in office.

Why should being a Christian not affect my work in office? Should being a communist affect your work in office? Or a stoic? Or a buddhist? Or a libertarian? Or an atheist? Or whatever...

This argument about 'enforcing your ideas onto others' is ridiculous, since you are delibetely taking extreme examples which would naturally infringe others freedoms. All I am saying is that religious beliefs should have as much leeway in the political sphere as any other. Think about some hypothetical examples...

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?
2a. A socialist bans sodomy because he believes it is a bourgeoisie decadence. Is this OK?
2b. A Christian bans sodomy because he believes it is morally wrong. Is this OK?

My answers would be:

1a. Yes
1b. Yes
2a. No
2b. No

I am fed up with these accusations of forcing my beliefs on others, despite the fact I have always maintained that religious beliefs would be bound by the laws of the land and the belief in individual liberty in the same way as any other belief would.

Why is it so hard to give all beliefs the same status in the political system (namely, no institutionalised privileges)? Why do people have to single out beliefs in God and ban them from the political sphere?

[Beskar]

A Socialist would never ban sodomy though. Even then Socialism is a economic argument, it isn't one based on fairy tales and imaginary friends.

As for:

Why do people have to single out beliefs in God and ban them from the political sphere?

Because we are still not a fully Secularised nation. The focus on Christianity is only because the Buddist Privileges isn't there, same for Islam. If we had Shia law or people trying to advocate that, I will tell them where to stick it. Religion has a lot of institutionalised privileges, such as tax immunity being one of the biggest. This lead to people like Hubbard doing 'scienfictionology' just so he can cash in on this tax-free status.

Also, I remember the athiest bus campaign, when all the religious peoples were trying to silence athiests/agnostics again, trying to file discrimination lawsuits simply because they said "There may not be a God" on a banner on the side of the bus.

secularism has been turned into something more than that, and has became an ideology in its own right, eg secular humanism

Nope, you are clearly not knowing what you are talking about. Secular Humanism is from the Humanist movement, which has Christian, Muslim and other branches as well. Secular Humanism is simply the non-religious version based on the values of Humanism.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism

And here is information on the Humanist movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Humanism is an approach in study, philosophy, or practice that focuses on human values and concerns. The term has a complex history and is used to mean several things, most notably, (1) an educational movement, associated especially with the Italian Renaissance, that emphasized the study of Greek and Roman literature, rhetoric, and moral philosophy – the humanities – in the formation of character. Historically, this revival of Greek and Roman learning was seen as complementing rather than conflicting with religion. Today, the terms humanist, humanism, and humanistic in this historical sense have broadened in meaning to encompass all literary culture (not just Greek and Roman), and indeed, cultural activity in general.[1] And (2) a secular ideology that espouses benevolence through the use of reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making. This latter use characterizes modern organized Secular Humanism as a specific humanistic life stance.[2] Thus, in modern times Humanism has come to connote a rejection of appeals to the supernatural or to some higher authority.[3][4] This development of Humanism arose from a trajectory extending from the deism and anti-clericalism of the Enlightenment to the various secular movements of the nineteenth century (such as positivism) and the overarching expansion of the scientific project. However, in traditional religious circles, humanism is still not seen as conflicting with religious dogma.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A Socialist would never ban sodomy though. Even then Socialism is a economic argument, it isn't one based on fairy tales and imaginary friends.

As I said it was hypothetical, and whether it is based on God or not is irrelevant. Just look at my 1a/b 2a/b examples and explain how it is not hypocrisy to allow 1a and not 1b...

Because we are still not a fully Secularised nation. The focus on Christianity is only because the Buddist Privileges isn't there, same for Islam. If we had Shia law or people trying to advocate that, I will tell them where to stick it. Religion has a lot of institutionalised privileges, such as tax immunity being one of the biggest. This lead to people like Hubbard doing 'scienfictionology' just so he can cash in on this tax-free status.

Also, I remember the athiest bus campaign, when all the religious peoples were trying to silence athiests/agnostics again, trying to file discrimination lawsuits simply because they said "There may not be a God" on a banner on the side of the bus.

I don't see what that has to do with the bit you quoted from me. Naturally, no religion should have privileges, and I would have no problem with a campaign to remove them. The issue this thread is about is when 'secularists' demand that religious beliefs, unlike any other belief, be banned from the political sphere.

Nope, you are clearly not knowing what you are talking about. Secular Humanism is from the Humanist movement, which has Christian, Muslim and other branches as well. Secular Humanism is simply the non-religious version based on the values of Humanism.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism

And here is information on the Humanist movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Humanism is an approach in study, philosophy, or practice that focuses on human values and concerns. The term has a complex history and is used to mean several things, most notably, (1) an educational movement, associated especially with the Italian Renaissance, that emphasized the study of Greek and Roman literature, rhetoric, and moral philosophy – the humanities – in the formation of character. Historically, this revival of Greek and Roman learning was seen as complementing rather than conflicting with religion. Today, the terms humanist, humanism, and humanistic in this historical sense have broadened in meaning to encompass all literary culture (not just Greek and Roman), and indeed, cultural activity in general.[1] And (2) a secular ideology that espouses benevolence through the use of reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making. This latter use characterizes modern organized Secular Humanism as a specific humanistic life stance.[2] Thus, in modern times Humanism has come to connote a rejection of appeals to the supernatural or to some higher authority.[3][4] This development of Humanism arose from a trajectory extending from the deism and anti-clericalism of the Enlightenment to the various secular movements of the nineteenth century (such as positivism) and the overarching expansion of the scientific project. However, in traditional religious circles, humanism is still not seen as conflicting with religious dogma.

Yeah I know about the origins of humanism, I just don't see what the history of humanism has go to do with this thread or anything I said.

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?

[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.

[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?