An attack on secularism?

[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...