Secularism: Good or Bad?

[Galloism]

*looks around at the general state of arms of the fundamentalist Christians in the US*

And?

Most Americans tolerate fundamentalist Christians precisely because they haven't started any wars. So I don't see your point here.

Just that, in my experience, there is significant overlap between fundamentalist Christians and people with lots of guns.

I was making a joke.

[Communist Volkstrad]

Because Science is NOT Religion, nor is biology a Religion. So your comparison is crap.

Science has many features of religion when in the hands of non-scientists: Ethics and morality (global warming, climate destruction), theories about the creation of the universe (big bang, evolution), missionaries (public education), and even theories about consciousness are developing. That doesn't mean it's completely incompatible with other religions. I for one am both Christian and I believe in climate change, big bang, evolution, standard cosmology, and scientific inquiry. People who believe what scientists say without actually understanding the evidence aren't being scientific, they're just like people who trust whatever their priests say. This popular science isn't scientific at all, as blind, unquestioning trust is the opposite of scientific inquiry.

Too many people here know science is true without knowing why it's true. Climate change is real because anyone can see for themselves that the climate is changing. You can see how species dwindled and died out, many times only because of human interaction. It's extremely easy to verify Newton, and once you have Newtonian physics with constant speed of light, Einstein's equations are confirmed. You can see how the Earth always casts a circular shadow on the moon and say it's spherical. The movements of the planets suggest the Earth orbits the sun, and the observation that everything moves away from everything else in space leads to big bang.

Science has nothing to do with ethics and morality, at least directly. It tries to understand the universe. Anything that comes of that is a bi-product of that search.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Because Science is NOT Religion, nor is biology a Religion. So your comparison is crap.

Science has many features of religion when in the hands of non-scientists: Ethics and morality (global warming, climate destruction), theories about the creation of the universe (big bang, evolution), missionaries (public education), and even theories about consciousness are developing. That doesn't mean it's completely incompatible with other religions. I for one am both Christian and I believe in climate change, big bang, evolution, standard cosmology, and scientific inquiry. People who believe what scientists say without actually understanding the evidence aren't being scientific, they're just like people who trust whatever their priests say. This popular science isn't scientific at all, as blind, unquestioning trust is the opposite of scientific inquiry.

Too many people here know science is true without knowing why it's true. Climate change is real because anyone can see for themselves that the climate is changing. You can see how species dwindled and died out, many times only because of human interaction. It's extremely easy to verify Newton, and once you have Newtonian physics with constant speed of light, Einstein's equations are confirmed. You can see how the Earth always casts a circular shadow on the moon and say it's spherical. The movements of the planets suggest the Earth orbits the sun, and the observation that everything moves away from everything else in space leads to big bang.

I reiterate my request: define religion in such a way to include biology without including anal sex. I bet you can't do it without ad-hoc exceptions and special pleading.

[WestRedMaple]

Ah, so there is the problem, you're confused about the meaning of secularism.

It does NOT mean making religion submit to government.

In reference to French Laicite. Yes, yes it about making religion submit to the state.

So you don't have a point. France is not relevant. You are making a false claim about what is inherent to secularism.

The challenge is still out there to demonstrate any such inherent violence

We both know you cannot meet it

[WestRedMaple]

Your statement is not true. People at my school regularly wore religious jewelry. There is no honestly claiming that there is anything inherently violent about secularism.

Do you live in France? Because if you do, you'd be doing so illegally.

So you're confused. France is in no way relevant to the post.

[Norstal]

so you want a state church, temples, mosques, temples, and the such?

*facepalm* I advocate for a system like the UK

So Jihadists can grow in converts because of their alienation by the government and acceptance by the multi-cultural public?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either have system like Saudi Arabia where Islam is the only true religion, or you have the US system where there's only religious freedom.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And, imagine if we had wars over differences in religion throughout the course of our own history as a nation.

My joke netted nary a chuckle. I has a sad.

There's two ways of looking at it:

1) The people involved in those religious wars are all dead. Why antagonize the descendants?

2) The descendants are prone to religious violence as well. Why are we antagonizing people prone to violence?

That was quite the obscure tone

Anyways, as to the questions:

1. Well, it depends on what you mean by "Why antagonize?" the main problem is that, historically, there have been wars over these things in France, so to not repeat that mistake the government has taken a very rigid position on secularism, but not to the point of religious oppression.

2. Because hindering the government from siding with any religion or letting its employees take sides in religious squabbles within the office is better than giving people a chance to do so.

[Galloism]

My joke netted nary a chuckle. I has a sad.

There's two ways of looking at it:

1) The people involved in those religious wars are all dead. Why antagonize the descendants?

2) The descendants are prone to religious violence as well. Why are we antagonizing people prone to violence?

That was quite the obscure tone

Anyways, as to the questions:

1. Well, it depends on what you mean by "Why antagonize?" the main problem is that, historically, there have been wars over these things in France, so to not repeat that mistake the government has taken a very rigid position on secularism, but not to the point of religious oppression.

2. Because hindering the government from siding with any religion or letting its employees take sides in religious squabbles within the office is better than giving people a chance to do so.

1) I would consider restriction on jewelry based on the message rather than size/weight a form of religious oppression. If I can wear a 1lb piece of jewelry in the shape Barney, but not a 1lb piece of jewelry shaped as a cross, I am being suppressed based on the content of my message and not based on any secular notions.

2) School students are not employees. Employees may quit and seek more religiously accommodating work. Students are compelled to attend.

Incidentally, it happened a long time ago is not a good reason to oppress now. I have not in the last 100 years even once feared being scalped by a Native American.

[Greater-London]

I think the problem with secularism is when it turns into state atheism - the two of course are very different. For instance if the state has no official religion that shouldn't bar a government official from putting up a Christmas tree in the office building they work in, talk about their faith openly ETC.

[Confederate Ramenia]

My posts are devolving into shitposting and trolling. But I shall not stop.

Science has many features of religion when in the hands of non-scientists: Ethics and morality (global warming, climate destruction), theories about the creation of the universe (big bang, evolution), missionaries (public education), and even theories about consciousness are developing. That doesn't mean it's completely incompatible with other religions. I for one am both Christian and I believe in climate change, big bang, evolution, standard cosmology, and scientific inquiry. People who believe what scientists say without actually understanding the evidence aren't being scientific, they're just like people who trust whatever their priests say. This popular science isn't scientific at all, as blind, unquestioning trust is the opposite of scientific inquiry.

Too many people here know science is true without knowing why it's true. Climate change is real because anyone can see for themselves that the climate is changing. You can see how species dwindled and died out, many times only because of human interaction. It's extremely easy to verify Newton, and once you have Newtonian physics with constant speed of light, Einstein's equations are confirmed. You can see how the Earth always casts a circular shadow on the moon and say it's spherical. The movements of the planets suggest the Earth orbits the sun, and the observation that everything moves away from everything else in space leads to big bang.

I reiterate my request: define religion in such a way to include biology without including anal sex. I bet you can't do it without ad-hoc exceptions and special pleading.

Okay, if religion is defined in any way that includes a basic biology, then there could be some religions that don't care about anal sex, some that think it's impossible, some that forbid it, and there could even be a Church of Phallus in Anus that venerates anal sex. That's why freedom of religion and Secularism are necessary, so you will be free to choose how you feel about anal sex.

[The Seleucids (Ancient)]

I'm a big supporter of Secularism and its sad that there are only a very selected few nations who are indeed secular.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

That was quite the obscure tone

Anyways, as to the questions:

1. Well, it depends on what you mean by "Why antagonize?" the main problem is that, historically, there have been wars over these things in France, so to not repeat that mistake the government has taken a very rigid position on secularism, but not to the point of religious oppression.

2. Because hindering the government from siding with any religion or letting its employees take sides in religious squabbles within the office is better than giving people a chance to do so.

1) I would consider restriction on jewelry based on the message rather than size/weight a form of religious oppression. If I can wear a 1lb piece of jewelry in the shape Barney, but not a 1lb piece of jewelry shaped as a cross, I am being suppressed based on the content of my message and not based on any secular notions.

2) School students are not employees. Employees may quit and seek more religiously accommodating work. Students are compelled to attend.

Incidentally, it happened a long time ago is not a good reason to oppress now. I have not in the last 100 years even once feared being scalped by a Native American.

Schools have compelling interests that overrule certain rights of students. In this circumstance, the school must be able to eliminate certain distractions where the rights lost are not undue burdens. If you want to wear swastikas, tough shit. Confederate flags, tough shit. Nudity, tough shit. Bible verses, anything obstructive, and all sorts of jewelery are often banned and removed in US schools. If you think a giant, obtrusive cross is necessary for your religious observance, you and the sihk who won't give up his sabre both get suspended.

[The Seleucids (Ancient)]

I think the problem with secularism is when it turns into state atheism - the two of course are very different. For instance if the state has no official religion that shouldn't bar a government official from putting up a Christmas tree in the office building they work in, talk about their faith openly ETC.

I agree, but that just a matter of deviding state and people. People should always be able to express their religion, even while they are presidents and such, and as long as it isn't brought into the government it should be alright. Their personal lives should be their own time and nobody should try to interfear with that.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

My posts are devolving into shitposting and trolling. But I shall not stop.

I reiterate my request: define religion in such a way to include biology without including anal sex. I bet you can't do it without ad-hoc exceptions and special pleading.

Okay, if religion is defined in any way that includes a basic biology, then there could be some religions that don't care about anal sex, some that think it's impossible, some that forbid it, and there could even be a Church of Phallus in Anus that venerates anal sex. That's why freedom of religion and Secularism are necessary, so you will be free to choose how you feel about anal sex.

Ok. So you have admitted that you can't call education in biology religion unless anal sex is also a religion. Therefore, you have no reason to keep anal sex out of government.

Gay people are now allowed to have anal sex anywhere in government facilities at any time, and you can't do anything about it because you, A. have a moronic conception of religion and B. reject secularism.

[CTALNH]

This sentence does not make sense except if there is human being called million years.

You rang?

No go back to your force sensitive bat cave Galloism!

Which is also full of Tuk'ata.

[Greater-London]

I agree, but that just a matter of deviding state and people. People should always be able to express their religion, even while they are presidents and such, and as long as it isn't brought into the government it should be alright. Their personal lives should be their own time and nobody should try to interfear with that.

I concur. Although when It comes to the state/personal divide I'm quite relaxed. Religious things in public buildings during periods of religious observance for instance are fine it only gets too far when you have things like prayers on the agenda of town meetings ETC.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1) I would consider restriction on jewelry based on the message rather than size/weight a form of religious oppression. If I can wear a 1lb piece of jewelry in the shape Barney, but not a 1lb piece of jewelry shaped as a cross, I am being suppressed based on the content of my message and not based on any secular notions.

2) School students are not employees. Employees may quit and seek more religiously accommodating work. Students are compelled to attend.

Incidentally, it happened a long time ago is not a good reason to oppress now. I have not in the last 100 years even once feared being scalped by a Native American.

Schools have compelling interests that overrule certain rights of students. In this circumstance, the school must be able to eliminate certain distractions where the rights lost are not undue burdens. If you want to wear swastikas, tough shit. Confederate flags, tough shit. Nudity, tough shit. Bible verses, anything obstructive, and all sorts of jewelery are often banned and removed in US schools. If you think a giant, obtrusive cross is necessary for your religious observance, you and the sihk who won't give up his sabre both get suspended.

In France, to point the obvious.

In America, there's a bit more tolerance.

[Galloism]

1) I would consider restriction on jewelry based on the message rather than size/weight a form of religious oppression. If I can wear a 1lb piece of jewelry in the shape Barney, but not a 1lb piece of jewelry shaped as a cross, I am being suppressed based on the content of my message and not based on any secular notions.

2) School students are not employees. Employees may quit and seek more religiously accommodating work. Students are compelled to attend.

Incidentally, it happened a long time ago is not a good reason to oppress now. I have not in the last 100 years even once feared being scalped by a Native American.

Schools have compelling interests that overrule certain rights of students. In this circumstance, the school must be able to eliminate certain distractions where the rights lost are not undue burdens. If you want to wear swastikas, tough shit. Confederate flags, tough shit. Nudity, tough shit. Bible verses, anything obstructive, and all sorts of jewelery are often banned and removed in US schools. If you think a giant, obtrusive cross is necessary for your religious observance, you and the sihk who won't give up his sabre both get suspended.

Actually, when the government restricts on message is my issue.

Hence my comparison - a 1lb purple Barney a-ok. A 1lb cross, shun the believer!

If the school insisted no jewelry, or no jewelry above a certain size, I may think its a little silly, but hardly a freedom of religion issue. Your comparison of a swastika also fails, as a cross is no more offensive than a giant Barney. The nudity comparison also fails, as an inanimate cross is not inherently disruptive.

Incidentally, in the thread we had on the Sikh student, given the Sikh knife is dulled, I supported him being allowed to carry it as a religious symbol. It's not a threatening object.

[Shaggai]

Yes, church and state should be separated. That means that the church doesn't tell the state what to do, but it also means that the state doesn't tell the church what to do.

Schools have compelling interests that overrule certain rights of students. In this circumstance, the school must be able to eliminate certain distractions where the rights lost are not undue burdens. If you want to wear swastikas, tough shit. Confederate flags, tough shit. Nudity, tough shit. Bible verses, anything obstructive, and all sorts of jewelery are often banned and removed in US schools. If you think a giant, obtrusive cross is necessary for your religious observance, you and the sihk who won't give up his sabre both get suspended.

Actually, when the government restricts on message is my issue.

Hence my comparison - a 1lb purple Barney a-ok. A 1lb cross, shun the believer!

If the school insisted no jewelry, or no jewelry above a certain size, I may think its a little silly, but hardly a freedom of religion issue. Your comparison of a swastika also fails, as a cross is no more offensive than a giant Barney. The nudity comparison also fails, as an inanimate cross is not inherently disruptive.

Incidentally, in the thread we had on the Sikh student, given the Sikh knife is dulled, I supported him being allowed to carry it as a religious symbol. It's not a threatening object.

There were plenty of restrictions on that kirpan, too. I would support anyone being able to carry a completely blunt knife-like object, as long as they had to keep it out of sight at all times.

[CTALNH]

Secularism and freedom of religion is good an all but I would prefer if we took drastic steps to make freedom from religion compulsory for everyone.

[Galloism]

Secularism and freedom of religion is good an all but I would prefer if we took drastic steps to make freedom from religion compulsory for everyone.

What do you mean?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Schools have compelling interests that overrule certain rights of students. In this circumstance, the school must be able to eliminate certain distractions where the rights lost are not undue burdens. If you want to wear swastikas, tough shit. Confederate flags, tough shit. Nudity, tough shit. Bible verses, anything obstructive, and all sorts of jewelery are often banned and removed in US schools. If you think a giant, obtrusive cross is necessary for your religious observance, you and the sihk who won't give up his sabre both get suspended.

Actually, when the government restricts on message is my issue.

Hence my comparison - a 1lb purple Barney a-ok. A 1lb cross, shun the believer!

If the school insisted no jewelry, or no jewelry above a certain size, I may think its a little silly, but hardly a freedom of religion issue. Your comparison of a swastika also fails, as a cross is no more offensive than a giant Barney. The nudity comparison also fails, as an inanimate cross is not inherently disruptive.

Incidentally, in the thread we had on the Sikh student, given the Sikh knife is dulled, I supported him being allowed to carry it as a religious symbol. It's not a threatening object.

I would find a large barney-themed jewelery approximately as disrupting as a cross of equivalent size. The difference comes in when students insist on wearing cross necklaces over their clothes as if it were required by their religion. I've seen many students asked by administrators to cover up jewlery(and tatoos) and nobody ever declined unless it was religiously themed(though I've known of cases where students did decline for non-religious purposes). Those that declined were removed from class regardless of reason for declining.

I don't care if the knife is less sharp. It's a deadly weapon and its presence on school grounds is absolutely unacceptable.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Actually, when the government restricts on message is my issue.

Hence my comparison - a 1lb purple Barney a-ok. A 1lb cross, shun the believer!

If the school insisted no jewelry, or no jewelry above a certain size, I may think its a little silly, but hardly a freedom of religion issue. Your comparison of a swastika also fails, as a cross is no more offensive than a giant Barney. The nudity comparison also fails, as an inanimate cross is not inherently disruptive.

Incidentally, in the thread we had on the Sikh student, given the Sikh knife is dulled, I supported him being allowed to carry it as a religious symbol. It's not a threatening object.

I would find a large barney-themed jewelery approximately as disrupting as a cross of equivalent size. The difference comes in when students insist on wearing cross necklaces over their clothes as if it were required by their religion. I've seen many students asked by administrators to cover up jewlery(and tatoos) and nobody ever declined unless it was religiously themed(though I've known of cases where students did decline for non-religious purposes). Those that declined were removed from class regardless of reason for declining.

I don't care if the knife is less sharp. It's a deadly weapon and its presence on school grounds is absolutely unacceptable.

A school desk is more of a deadly weapon than a blunt knife to be honest.

This obviously means we should ban school desks. *nods*

[CTALNH]

Secularism and freedom of religion is good an all but I would prefer if we took drastic steps to make freedom from religion compulsory for everyone.

What do you mean?

Destroying all religions OF COURSE!

NOT SARCASM/THREAD.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

I would find a large barney-themed jewelery approximately as disrupting as a cross of equivalent size. The difference comes in when students insist on wearing cross necklaces over their clothes as if it were required by their religion. I've seen many students asked by administrators to cover up jewlery(and tatoos) and nobody ever declined unless it was religiously themed(though I've known of cases where students did decline for non-religious purposes). Those that declined were removed from class regardless of reason for declining.

I don't care if the knife is less sharp. It's a deadly weapon and its presence on school grounds is absolutely unacceptable.

A school desk is more of a deadly weapon than a blunt knife to be honest.

You can't hide a desk in your pocket, and good luck carrying a desk out of view of staff to get away with bashing someone into a hospital. Removal of desks is also a non-starter due to my stated views on the subject: that any interventions not constitute some sort of undue burden. It's hard to do much in class without a desk.