Secularist Discussions I: The Independence of The State

[Prestrainiskiy]

This is a thread dedicated to people who want to discuss secularism, state and religious affairs. I really want to discuss on this topic so much, yet I don't have much people who I can discuss with.

What is Secularism?
Secularism is the belief that state affairs and religion should be seperate. (i.e. Banning religious influence in public schools or institutions)

All about Secular reading materials:
https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/secular-humanism

All about Secularism:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

[Arkinesia]

What exactly is a discussion topic you had in mind? I'm interested in this thread as well.

[Katganistan]

While I am in fact a Christian, I believe in a secular state government.

In the first place, to bring up the US and its constitution simply as an example why -- the founding fathers saw that religion was both used to oppress religious groups that were not the 'state religion' in European nations, and recognized that imposing religious laws on people who did not share that faith was unfair.

For the same reasons, I believe there must be a separation of church and state.

Does this mean that I don't believe the individual has a right to practice his or her own faith, and must hide it? No, absolutely not.

But as an educator in a public school, I will not discuss matters of my personal faith in the classroom. It is inappropriate to impose on a captive audience of young people, especially when they have their own beliefs.

Will I discuss how a writer's religious background shaped their work? Yes.

Will I discuss in terms of English history how Protestantism and Catholicism were tearing apart the nation as backers of each sect fought for the crown? Yes.

Will I explain how the Church of England came into being? Yes.

Will I discuss the Massachusetts Bay Colony and their theocratic system of law when talking about The Crucible? Of course.

Will I acknowledge holidays my students may be celebrating, with a "Have a wonderful Eid/Rosh Hashanah/Lunar New Year?" Yes.

We can have discussions about the different faiths as long as I promote none as being superior; I have told my students that if they want to discuss matters of personal faith they can meet me in the department office (not during class time). I have been a visitor at the Christian, Jewish and Muslim clubs at my school as well.

What I find cringey is trying to impose religious beliefs on the unwilling through acts of law. That is not ok, not ever. So don't bar people from saying a quick grace over their own meal, or praying in a public place (though the Bible has its say on that, if done with the intention of being very public and attention seeking) but also don't force people to be a captive audience by insisting on a prayer everyone must listen to/take part of in a secular setting. Like a football game.

Matters of faith should be personal, not imposed through legislation. Otherwise, they are utterly meaningless. People should want to follow their faith out of a deep desire for what they consider good, not be forced to it unwilling.

[Destructive Government Economic System]

Coming from a follower of the Holy Trinity, secularism is a very sensible way to govern a nation, or any city, based off the history of the past and the present.

For the past, I have recently been reading a book called Give Me Liberty! - The Fourth Addition. The first few chapters discuss the history of how America came to be. It primarily talked about Puritanism, which was the complete opposite of secularism at the time. You had to be Christian to vote, and those who questioned the Church were quickly excommunicated from their society. They were complete busy-bodies, and while they were economically sufficient during their reign over Massachusetts, nobody really wanted to stay there. Roger Williams, a questioner of Puritan governance, was one of those people who didn't want to stay there, and quickly founded Rhode Island, the first ever colony to have adopted secularism. It allowed for complete religious freedom for all types of beliefs, and religion was not a requirement to vote (which led to less internal conflicts). Also, what I found ironic of the Puritans was that while they believed that they were "the peaceful chosen ones by God," they inhumanely drove out the Native American tribes without the consideration to convert them into Christians as well. Self-centered people without much care for others, I know. Religion in politics was simply a no-no for the Puritans, since it both caused people to dissent against the Massachusetts Bay Colony government, and both raised questions since they are a religious colony, yet they didn't have the urge to convert others, primarily Indians, to Christianity. It was just a big mess for them.

As for the present, well, we have those Middle Eastern countries to think of. A clump of those nations run themselves through a religion that's even more questionable than the Puritanism belief in the late 16th century.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

As for the present, well, we have those Middle Eastern countries to think of. A clump of those nations run themselves through a religion that's even more questionable than the Puritanism belief in the late 16th century.

They're corrupt dictatorships, not Islamic nations.

[Katganistan]

As for the present, well, we have those Middle Eastern countries to think of. A clump of those nations run themselves through a religion that's even more questionable than the Puritanism belief in the late 16th century.

They're corrupt dictatorships, not Islamic nations.

I think we can recognize that they are indeed corrupt dictatorships, and perhaps also agree that they do use the excuse of faith to impose religion-based laws?

[Prestrainiskiy]

What exactly is a discussion topic you had in mind? I'm interested in this thread as well.

I live in a very religious country, and I AM PISSED by the way religion holds our legislators by the neck. Our population is uncontrollable, poverty is everywhere, though I see my nation's overattachment to religion as a barrier for pro-contraception, even abortion, laws that will hopefully help distribute national resources in a small amount of people and reduce, even eradicate poverty altogether.

[Prestrainiskiy]

While I am in fact a Christian, I believe in a secular state government.

In the first place, to bring up the US and its constitution simply as an example why -- the founding fathers saw that religion was both used to oppress religious groups that were not the 'state religion' in European nations, and recognized that imposing religious laws on people who did not share that faith was unfair.

For the same reasons, I believe there must be a separation of church and state.

Does this mean that I don't believe the individual has a right to practice his or her own faith, and must hide it? No, absolutely not.

But as an educator in a public school, I will not discuss matters of my personal faith in the classroom. It is inappropriate to impose on a captive audience of young people, especially when they have their own beliefs.

Will I discuss how a writer's religious background shaped their work? Yes.

Will I discuss in terms of English history how Protestantism and Catholicism were tearing apart the nation as backers of each sect fought for the crown? Yes.

Will I explain how the Church of England came into being? Yes.

Will I discuss the Massachusetts Bay Colony and their theocratic system of law when talking about The Crucible? Of course.

Will I acknowledge holidays my students may be celebrating, with a "Have a wonderful Eid/Rosh Hashanah/Lunar New Year?" Yes.

We can have discussions about the different faiths as long as I promote none as being superior; I have told my students that if they want to discuss matters of personal faith they can meet me in the department office (not during class time). I have been a visitor at the Christian, Jewish and Muslim clubs at my school as well.

What I find cringey is trying to impose religious beliefs on the unwilling through acts of law. That is not ok, not ever. So don't bar people from saying a quick grace over their own meal, or praying in a public place (though the Bible has its say on that, if done with the intention of being very public and attention seeking) but also don't force people to be a captive audience by insisting on a prayer everyone must listen to/take part of in a secular setting. Like a football game.

Matters of faith should be personal, not imposed through legislation. Otherwise, they are utterly meaningless. People should want to follow their faith out of a deep desire for what they consider good, not be forced to it unwilling.

I get your point, and sadly, that is very common here in my nation.

[Arkinesia]

What exactly is a discussion topic you had in mind? I'm interested in this thread as well.

I live in a very religious country, and I AM PISSED by the way religion holds our legislators by the neck. Our population is uncontrollable, poverty is everywhere, though I see my nation's overattachment to religion as a barrier for pro-contraception, even abortion, laws that will hopefully help distribute national resources in a small amount of people and reduce, even eradicate poverty altogether.

I think pushing for better education standards is a path with lesser resistance and a path to improved prosperity outcomes. The rest of socially progressive policy is itself a natural product of that state of affairs.

[Destructive Government Economic System]

What exactly is a discussion topic you had in mind? I'm interested in this thread as well.

I live in a very religious country, and I AM PISSED by the way religion holds our legislators by the neck. Our population is uncontrollable, poverty is everywhere, though I see my nation's overattachment to religion as a barrier for pro-contraception, even abortion, laws that will hopefully help distribute national resources in a small amount of people and reduce, even eradicate poverty altogether.

If you don't mind, what country do you even live in, or at least what continent? The reason why I'm asking this is because you seem to be living in the most non-secular place in the entire world.

[Prestrainiskiy]

I live in a very religious country, and I AM PISSED by the way religion holds our legislators by the neck. Our population is uncontrollable, poverty is everywhere, though I see my nation's overattachment to religion as a barrier for pro-contraception, even abortion, laws that will hopefully help distribute national resources in a small amount of people and reduce, even eradicate poverty altogether.

I think pushing for better education standards is a path with lesser resistance and a path to improved prosperity outcomes. The rest of socially progressive policy is itself a natural product of that state of affairs.

I think we should look at it this way. Our huge population can't be controlled. Higher population = lower public service to the individual. Public services such as healthcare and education are compromised for we have larger class sizes and more people to cure or provide healthcare to. I believe that if we start with, yes, education, and accompany it with pro-abortion and mandatory or incentive-based one to two child policies (depending on the math done on population growth), it can drastically reduce population and improve educational and medical standards (unsure about the medical part though).

[Prestrainiskiy]

I live in a very religious country, and I AM PISSED by the way religion holds our legislators by the neck. Our population is uncontrollable, poverty is everywhere, though I see my nation's overattachment to religion as a barrier for pro-contraception, even abortion, laws that will hopefully help distribute national resources in a small amount of people and reduce, even eradicate poverty altogether.

If you don't mind, what country do you even live in, or at least what continent? The reason why I'm asking this is because you seem to be living in the most non-secular place in the entire world.

I live in a Southeast-Asian country (definitely not Singapore), the Philippines, in particular. I hate this place so much, if not for my national pride (i really lack national pride, but I feel like it's a quest for me to change this nation, delusional I know), i would've fucking left this goddamned shithole of a country.

Catholic zealots shitting over my government. They're assholes. I hope they all burn in hell.

WE REPEALED A GAY RIGHTS LAW, just because the zealots worked their bureaucratic magic. Oh wow. WOW.

[Prestrainiskiy]

If you don't mind, what country do you even live in, or at least what continent? The reason why I'm asking this is because you seem to be living in the most non-secular place in the entire world.

I live in a Southeast-Asian country (definitely not Singapore), the Philippines, in particular. I hate this place so much, if not for my national pride (i really lack national pride, but I feel like it's a quest for me to change this nation, delusional I know), i would've fucking left this goddamned shithole of a country.

The educational system is a fucking piece of crap. I hate the education system here so much. You don't learn anything, facility-wise, facilities are shit. TOILETS ARE GODDAMNED CLOGGED. CLOGGED!

[Prestrainiskiy]

Now if you're offended by my statements, LIVE HERE. Live here for a change and see what I mean.

[Destructive Government Economic System]

I live in a Southeast-Asian country (definitely not Singapore), the Philippines, in particular. I hate this place so much, if not for my national pride (i really lack national pride, but I feel like it's a quest for me to change this nation, delusional I know), i would've fucking left this goddamned shithole of a country.

The educational system is a fucking piece of crap. I hate the education system here so much. You don't learn anything, facility-wise, facilities are shit. TOILETS ARE GODDAMNED CLOGGED. CLOGGED!

This is an overused sentence that everybody uses when having concern over others, but people say it for a reason: because they truly do feel concerned.

That sentence is: I send my best wishes in which you may improve the quality of your lifestyle.

Now if you're offended by my statements, LIVE HERE. Live here for a change and see what I mean.

My mother came from China, and she said that it's a great country. I wouldn't want to live in Asian countries, like, at all. One of those reasons is because they literally eat domestic canines for celebratory purposes. It's just too chaotic and poverty is really common in that place (as a whole).

[Prestrainiskiy]

The educational system is a fucking piece of crap. I hate the education system here so much. You don't learn anything, facility-wise, facilities are shit. TOILETS ARE GODDAMNED CLOGGED. CLOGGED!

This is an overused sentence that everybody uses when having concern over others, but people say it for a reason: because they truly do feel concerned.

That sentence is: I send my best wishes in which you may improve the quality of your lifestyle.

Now if you're offended by my statements, LIVE HERE. Live here for a change and see what I mean.

My mother came from China, and she said that it's a great country. I wouldn't want to live in Asian countries, like, at all. One of those reasons is because they literally eat domestic canines for celebratory purposes. It's just too chaotic and poverty is really common in that place (as a whole).

If only the legislators would distance themselves fron zealots, this place would've been much better.

[Hakons]

What exactly is a discussion topic you had in mind? I'm interested in this thread as well.

I live in a very religious country, and I AM PISSED by the way religion holds our legislators by the neck. Our population is uncontrollable, poverty is everywhere, though I see my nation's overattachment to religion as a barrier for pro-contraception, even abortion, laws that will hopefully help distribute national resources in a small amount of people and reduce, even eradicate poverty altogether.

Effectively sterilizing the poor is a terrible way to combat poverty.

[Hakons]

I don't have a high opinion of secularism. I think people tend to take it to far. Religion is not a "private matter." Religious people must be able to express their beliefs in public. Government officials and employees should be free to talk about religion. They can even verbally encourage certain views, but they cannot force citizens to adopt those views. As for legislating religious principals, I don't see how this is different from legislating non-religious principals. Both come from a source of ethics. Secular ethics are not magically better than religious ethics (and I would say secular ethics have already been strongly influenced by religion).

[Belle Ilse en Terre]

What exactly is a discussion topic you had in mind? I'm interested in this thread as well.

I live in a very religious country, and I AM PISSED by the way religion holds our legislators by the neck. Our population is uncontrollable, poverty is everywhere, though I see my nation's overattachment to religion as a barrier for pro-contraception, even abortion, laws that will hopefully help distribute national resources in a small amount of people and reduce, even eradicate poverty altogether.

Are you suggesting that abortion ends poverty? Are you suggestion abortion is the solution to poverty?

I understand correlation, but I think your conclusion is faulty. While it is true that kids, to be raised, require money, but it is a great leap to declare that children are the only drain in money. Decision-making skills, for example, are probably more useful than avoiding the consequences of engaging in activities that lead to children. Some people are poor for their addictions, to drugs or alcohol, which which in some cases leads to circumstances in which you would consider abortion a helpful choice. Would it not be better to educate them about choosing to avoid drugs, and to make themselves appealing to employers, one way of which is to lead a moral life, to overcome addictions and to have self-mastery?

[United Muscovite Nations]

True secularism is impossible because it is religion that created most of our cultural ideas of morality. When you remove the absoluteness of religious reasoning from moral discussions, then anything that can be argued for can be justified with enough public support.

[Pasong Tirad]

If you don't mind, what country do you even live in, or at least what continent? The reason why I'm asking this is because you seem to be living in the most non-secular place in the entire world.

I live in a Southeast-Asian country (definitely not Singapore), the Philippines, in particular. I hate this place so much, if not for my national pride (i really lack national pride, but I feel like it's a quest for me to change this nation, delusional I know), i would've fucking left this goddamned shithole of a country.

Catholic zealots shitting over my government. They're assholes. I hope they all burn in hell.

WE REPEALED A GAY RIGHTS LAW, just because the zealots worked their bureaucratic magic. Oh wow. WOW.

No, we didn't.

If you hate this place so much, well, I'm not going to tell you to leave but hey it sounds like you're capable of taking that route. If you're not going to leave, well, then you're pretty much stuck here hating everything, aren't you?

[Prestrainiskiy]

I don't have a high opinion of secularism. I think people tend to take it to far. Religion is not a "private matter." Religious people must be able to express their beliefs in public. Government officials and employees should be free to talk about religion. They can even verbally encourage certain views, but they cannot force citizens to adopt those views. As for legislating religious principals, I don't see how this is different from legislating non-religious principals. Both come from a source of ethics. Secular ethics are not magically better than religious ethics (and I would say secular ethics have already need strongly influenced by religion).

That's not the point of secularism. Secularism aims to free the government and public institutions of religion. You can still practice your faith, though you can't put it in schools or legislation.

[Prestrainiskiy]

True secularism is impossible because it is religion that created most of our cultural ideas of morality. When you remove the absoluteness of religious reasoning from moral discussions, then anything that can be argued for can be justified with enough public support.

What I want is an ethical state, not a moral one.

[Prestrainiskiy]

I live in a Southeast-Asian country (definitely not Singapore), the Philippines, in particular. I hate this place so much, if not for my national pride (i really lack national pride, but I feel like it's a quest for me to change this nation, delusional I know), i would've fucking left this goddamned shithole of a country.

Catholic zealots shitting over my government. They're assholes. I hope they all burn in hell.

WE REPEALED A GAY RIGHTS LAW, just because the zealots worked their bureaucratic magic. Oh wow. WOW.

No, we didn't.

If you hate this place so much, well, I'm not going to tell you to leave but hey it sounds like you're capable of taking that route. If you're not going to leave, well, then you're pretty much stuck here hating everything, aren't you?

Though I want to discuss more about this matter, I think it is to be taken in another thread. Care to discuss this further someplace else?

[United Muscovite Nations]

True secularism is impossible because it is religion that created most of our cultural ideas of morality. When you remove the absoluteness of religious reasoning from moral discussions, then anything that can be argued for can be justified with enough public support.

What I want is an ethical state, not a moral one.

Those are synonyms.