An attack on secularism?

[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.

[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?