Secularist Discussions I: The Independence of The State

[The Parkus Empire]

Just how broad is "religious influence"?

I think a lot of this depends on the country. Venerating the flag is considered fine in school, but having a cross for students to venerate isn't because that goes against our cultural ideology. But if your cultural ideology is Christian, obviously it makes sense to have things like public prayer and veneration of the cross and so on.

[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WE REPEALED A GAY RIGHTS LAW, just because the zealots worked their bureaucratic magic.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?

I really don't want to leave this place, it honestly sounds like I'm fleeing the battlefield. I want to make this place less of an impoverished and crappy place.

That's the purpose of this thread.

EDIT: Living in this place may sound like a drag, but I can see a great future ahead of us, with a great leadership. Aa of this time, we're WAAAAY too far from that. Hope we elect a better leader next time. I really hope we still make it far..... Far until 2022.

[Pasong Tirad]

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?

I really don't want to leave this place, it honestly sounds like I'm fleeing the battlefield. I want to make this place less of an impoverished and crappy place.

That's the purpose of this thread.

EDIT: Living in this place may sound like a drag, but I can see a great future ahead of us, with a great leadership. Aa of this time, we're WAAAAY too far from that. Hope we elect a better leader next time. I really hope we still make it far..... Far until 2022.

I don't see how wanting to rid the government of Church influence is going to change that much. The Church as an institution that influences the government is no different from secular institutions such as NGOs and lobbying groups that also wish to influence government policy. If the Church can't use its influence to, say, preventing the passage of the Reproductive Health Law, then it wouldn't make sense to allow an pro-animal rights NGO to, for example, influence the passage of an anti-cockfighting law.

Don't forget, over 30 years ago it was a Cardinal who called the people into action, sparking a revolution.

[Katganistan]

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.

That is pure baloney.

You know why society abhors murder? Because it's fucking disruptive. People fear being murdered, and then society needs to take care of widows or widowers and the children left behind. Therefore, society has an enlightened self-interest in preventing and punishing murder.

You know why society abhors theft? Because it's fucking disruptive. People fear and get angry over being stolen from, and then it causes trouble when the robbed finds out who the robber was. To prevent people starving from being stolen from, or people being murdered when one finds out who took one's wide screen tv, we have laws against theft.

There is no biblical injunction against SPEEDING, but we still have laws about that, don't we?

There is no biblical injunction against parking in a no standing zone, but we have laws about that.

There is no biblical injunction about granting the physically disabled access to public places -- but there are laws about that too.

So don't try to hand out the ridiculous nonsense that without religion, there would be no law, because it is demonstrably untrue.

[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.

That is pure baloney.

You know why society abhors murder? Because it's fucking disruptive. People fear being murdered, and then society needs to take care of widows or widowers and the children left behind. Therefore, society has an enlightened self-interest in preventing and punishing murder.

You know why society abhors theft? Because it's fucking disruptive. People fear and get angry over being stolen from, and then it causes trouble when the robbed finds out who the robber was. To prevent people starving from being stolen from, or people being murdered when one finds out who took one's wide screen tv, we have laws against theft.

There is no biblical injunction against SPEEDING, but we still have laws about that, don't we?

There is no biblical injunction against parking in a no standing zone, but we have laws about that.

There is no biblical injunction about granting the physically disabled access to public places -- but there are laws about that too.

So don't try to hand out the ridiculous nonsense that without religion, there would be no law, because it is demonstrably untrue.

Society may abhor murder, but first you have to define what murder is, and you can't do that without a moral epistemology. That was my point, not that every law is inspired by religion, but that our ideas of what is moral come from religious ideas. If you can't separate morality from law, that's a wholly separate issue.

[Katganistan]

That is pure baloney.

You know why society abhors murder? Because it's fucking disruptive. People fear being murdered, and then society needs to take care of widows or widowers and the children left behind. Therefore, society has an enlightened self-interest in preventing and punishing murder.

You know why society abhors theft? Because it's fucking disruptive. People fear and get angry over being stolen from, and then it causes trouble when the robbed finds out who the robber was. To prevent people starving from being stolen from, or people being murdered when one finds out who took one's wide screen tv, we have laws against theft.

There is no biblical injunction against SPEEDING, but we still have laws about that, don't we?

There is no biblical injunction against parking in a no standing zone, but we have laws about that.

There is no biblical injunction about granting the physically disabled access to public places -- but there are laws about that too.

So don't try to hand out the ridiculous nonsense that without religion, there would be no law, because it is demonstrably untrue.

Society may abhor murder, but first you have to define what murder is, and you can't do that without a moral epistemology. That was my point, not that every law is inspired by religion, but that our ideas of what is moral come from religious ideas. If you can't separate morality from law, that's a wholly separate issue.

No, you really can define murder without religion. Murder is killing someone without a need to do it. We don't need to kill because we don't like someone, or because we want their stuff. We might need to kill someone to defend our life.

Murder does not need religion for society to know it's bad.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Society may abhor murder, but first you have to define what murder is, and you can't do that without a moral epistemology. That was my point, not that every law is inspired by religion, but that our ideas of what is moral come from religious ideas. If you can't separate morality from law, that's a wholly separate issue.

No, you really can define murder without religion. Murder is killing someone without a need to do it. We don't need to kill because we don't like someone, or because we want their stuff. We might need to kill someone to defend our life.

Murder does not need religion for society to know it's bad.

In a very simplistic sense, but there are more specific situations where there are difficulties in such simplistic definitions. What if someone is invading your property, but posing no threat to you? What if your life is threatened by the government? How do we count the lives of different people, based on category, etc.? These are all questions whose answers vary by society.

Moreover, how do you define the need? How urgent is it? Is immediate threat needed, or can a threat to your economic well-being be justification for killing someone?

[Prestrainiskiy]

I really don't want to leave this place, it honestly sounds like I'm fleeing the battlefield. I want to make this place less of an impoverished and crappy place.

That's the purpose of this thread.

EDIT: Living in this place may sound like a drag, but I can see a great future ahead of us, with a great leadership. Aa of this time, we're WAAAAY too far from that. Hope we elect a better leader next time. I really hope we still make it far..... Far until 2022.

I don't see how wanting to rid the government of Church influence is going to change that much. The Church as an institution that influences the government is no different from secular institutions such as NGOs and lobbying groups that also wish to influence government policy. If the Church can't use its influence to, say, preventing the passage of the Reproductive Health Law, then it wouldn't make sense to allow an pro-animal rights NGO to, for example, influence the passage of an anti-cockfighting law.

Don't forget, over 30 years ago it was a Cardinal who called the people into action, sparking a revolution.

The church has no place in state matters. They should not impose their religious beliefs on th government and influence legislation. Those two examples are very different. The church wants to halt and prevent the passage so that they can control the state affairs, further extending the reach of their influence. The animal rights groups, on the other hand, are doing this for ethical reasons, not for total control of progressive policies.

[Prestrainiskiy]

Society may abhor murder, but first you have to define what murder is, and you can't do that without a moral epistemology. That was my point, not that every law is inspired by religion, but that our ideas of what is moral come from religious ideas. If you can't separate morality from law, that's a wholly separate issue.

No, you really can define murder without religion. Murder is killing someone without a need to do it. We don't need to kill because we don't like someone, or because we want their stuff. We might need to kill someone to defend our life.

Murder does not need religion for society to know it's bad.

It's a matter of being ethical rather than moral. The two are often mixed up, and as a result, the word "ethical" falls in the definition of religion and morality.

EDIT: Katganistan really gets my point.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, you really can define murder without religion. Murder is killing someone without a need to do it. We don't need to kill because we don't like someone, or because we want their stuff. We might need to kill someone to defend our life.

Murder does not need religion for society to know it's bad.

It's a matter of being ethical rather than moral. The two are often mixed up, and as a result, the word "ethical" falls in the definition of religion and morality.

EDIT: Katganistan really gets my point.

Ethics and morality are mixed up because they are synonyms. Ethics is just another word for moral philosophy.

[The Alexanderians]

Society may abhor murder, but first you have to define what murder is, and you can't do that without a moral epistemology. That was my point, not that every law is inspired by religion, but that our ideas of what is moral come from religious ideas. If you can't separate morality from law, that's a wholly separate issue.

No, you really can define murder without religion. Murder is killing someone without a need to do it. We don't need to kill because we don't like someone, or because we want their stuff. We might need to kill someone to defend our life.

Murder does not need religion for society to know it's bad.

Rhetorical question: Why would it be wrong to kill you?

[The of Japan]

obviously the government itself should be devoid of religion, but that doesn't mean that people lose their 1st amendment right to religion while inside a public place like a school or library or park.

[Albrenia]

It is usually wrong to kill someone, yes. You do not need religion for it to be against the law (or morally wrong) to kill someone. Religion does not make it wrong to kill someone just because a fictional character says so.

Killing being wrong has exceptions. Even the so-called 'objective' morality of religious folk allow self-defence killings and the like, despite books like the Bible sometimes not even mentioning said caveats.

[The of Japan]

It is usually wrong to kill someone, yes. You do not need religion for it to be against the law (or morally wrong) to kill someone. Religion does not make it wrong to kill someone just because a fictional character says so.

Killing being wrong has exceptions. Even the so-called 'objective' morality of religious folk allow self-defence killings and the like, despite books like the Bible sometimes not even mentioning said caveats.

It does help when the strong belief that something is wrong is emplaced at birth.

[Areulder]

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.

That is pure baloney.

You know why society abhors murder? Because it's fucking disruptive. People fear being murdered, and then society needs to take care of widows or widowers and the children left behind. Therefore, society has an enlightened self-interest in preventing and punishing murder.

You know why society abhors theft? Because it's fucking disruptive. People fear and get angry over being stolen from, and then it causes trouble when the robbed finds out who the robber was. To prevent people starving from being stolen from, or people being murdered when one finds out who took one's wide screen tv, we have laws against theft.

As an aside; the reason we have a separation of church and state is the same. Mixing the two is fucking disruptive.

[Pasong Tirad]

I don't see how wanting to rid the government of Church influence is going to change that much. The Church as an institution that influences the government is no different from secular institutions such as NGOs and lobbying groups that also wish to influence government policy. If the Church can't use its influence to, say, preventing the passage of the Reproductive Health Law, then it wouldn't make sense to allow an pro-animal rights NGO to, for example, influence the passage of an anti-cockfighting law.

Don't forget, over 30 years ago it was a Cardinal who called the people into action, sparking a revolution.

The church has no place in state matters. They should not impose their religious beliefs on th government and influence legislation. Those two examples are very different. The church wants to halt and prevent the passage so that they can control the state affairs, further extending the reach of their influence. The animal rights groups, on the other hand, are doing this for ethical reasons, not for total control of progressive policies.

Those two examples are not different. The Church is an institution, much like any other NGO or private educational institution, they'd prefer to see government enact policies and laws that benefit them - because of the belief (false or not) that what is beneficial to them is beneficial to society - an argument that may be supported by scientific data, by international law, by tradition, or by moral and ethical grounds (which is usually the case with the Church). I don't understand how you can see one group hypothetically trying to influence government policy as wanting to do it for "ethical reasons," but then when the Church does it it's "wanting to control state affairs." I'm much a secularist as any regular guy (really, I am), but what you're asking for is freeing government from lobbying groups (which includes the Church) - which would only rid the government of the valuable pressure groups that sway government policy to this interest or that interest - such as when the SOGIE equality bill was passed just recently (and which you erroneously said was repealed - no, it wasn't) thanks to the efforts of LGBT groups such as Ladlad and UP Babaylan. Those are institutions that help pressure government policy and they're no different from the Church, the only difference being the Church's pockets are deeper and its influence is stronger.

I do believe in wanting a secular society, but you're not going to do that by getting rid of lobbying groups that favor the Church - laws can be enacted even with the Church extending its pressure, such as the enactment of the RH law, for example - it's a law, but parts of it are suspended thanks to Church pressure, but well, you get what you can. There are much better ways to make sure the Philippines is a secular nation - such as getting rid of priests on the CHED boards, because public schools are supposed to be secular institutions, for example.

[MERIZoC]

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.

If you're that mad about Catholic influence, you should be pretty happy with the current govt, no? It's no secret Duterte hates the church.

[Pasong Tirad]

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.

If you're that mad about Catholic influence, you should be pretty happy with the current govt, no? It's no secret Duterte hates the church.

Yeah, but that's just because Duterte hates anybody who opposes him, really. Such is the way of the authoritarian.

[MERIZoC]

If you're that mad about Catholic influence, you should be pretty happy with the current govt, no? It's no secret Duterte hates the church.

Yeah, but that's just because Duterte hates anybody who opposes him, really. Such is the way of the authoritarian.

He's had a history of opposition to them though, and seems to be a genuine backer of LGBT rights. Maybe I'm missing something being an outsider though.

[Pasong Tirad]

Yeah, but that's just because Duterte hates anybody who opposes him, really. Such is the way of the authoritarian.

He's had a history of opposition to them though, and seems to be a genuine backer of LGBT rights. Maybe I'm missing something being an outsider though.

Oh yeah I believed that too, but he was just pandering.He went back on a campaign promise to help promote LGBT rights. His history of opposition to the Church is basically "They don't agree with me, therefore I hate them" which is pretty much his stance on anybody that doesn't support his policies.

[MERIZoC]

He's had a history of opposition to them though, and seems to be a genuine backer of LGBT rights. Maybe I'm missing something being an outsider though.

Oh yeah I believed that too, but he was just pandering.He went back on a campaign promise to help promote LGBT rights. His history of opposition to the Church is basically "They don't agree with me, therefore I hate them" which is pretty much his stance on anybody that doesn't support his policies.

Duterte clarified that he had nothing against homosexuals but made it clear that the Philippines should not be forced to adopt the mindset of the west with regard to gender.

“Tingnan mo ‘yung (Look at) Time magazine ngayon. Wala nang (there is no more) gender because you can be a he or she,” the president said during a meeting with the Filipino community in Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar.

Damn wow that's a reversal. Shame.

[Ramune and Chocolate]

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.

Most secularists generally accept religious influences on their culture and ethical system, you are just erecting a strawman. It's just that they generally justify the maintenance of said influences under axiomatic moral system somewhat distinct from that ordained by religious striptures and institutions, and reject those that violated said system.

[Prestrainiskiy]

The church has no place in state matters. They should not impose their religious beliefs on th government and influence legislation. Those two examples are very different. The church wants to halt and prevent the passage so that they can control the state affairs, further extending the reach of their influence. The animal rights groups, on the other hand, are doing this for ethical reasons, not for total control of progressive policies.

Those two examples are not different. The Church is an institution, much like any other NGO or private educational institution, they'd prefer to see government enact policies and laws that benefit them - because of the belief (false or not) that what is beneficial to them is beneficial to society - an argument that may be supported by scientific data, by international law, by tradition, or by moral and ethical grounds (which is usually the case with the Church). I don't understand how you can see one group hypothetically trying to influence government policy as wanting to do it for "ethical reasons," but then when the Church does it it's "wanting to control state affairs." I'm much a secularist as any regular guy (really, I am), but what you're asking for is freeing government from lobbying groups (which includes the Church) - which would only rid the government of the valuable pressure groups that sway government policy to this interest or that interest - such as when the SOGIE equality bill was passed just recently (and which you erroneously said was repealed - no, it wasn't) thanks to the efforts of LGBT groups such as Ladlad and UP Babaylan. Those are institutions that help pressure government policy and they're no different from the Church, the only difference being the Church's pockets are deeper and its influence is stronger.

I do believe in wanting a secular society, but you're not going to do that by getting rid of lobbying groups that favor the Church - laws can be enacted even with the Church extending its pressure, such as the enactment of the RH law, for example - it's a law, but parts of it are suspended thanks to Church pressure, but well, you get what you can. There are much better ways to make sure the Philippines is a secular nation - such as getting rid of priests on the CHED boards, because public schools are supposed to be secular institutions, for example.

We can let the lobbyists continue, as long as we don't let them lobby under religious ground. People can practice their religion, as long as they don't impose this on public institutions. Honestly though, I cannot blame humans, for religion is natural to us.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Is this the "complain about ways our countries aren't secular enough" thread?

Because the presence of religion in the British education system really pisses me off. It got downright creationist at my primary school.

[Helladic Empire]

I don't really care for the rest of the countries, but here in Greece secularism would be tearing down our history and culture,

Upon our country's creation, in 1821, we have been under heavy Orthodox influence, the church played a big role upon the shape of modern Greece's history and today the church is still fortunally involved with the state, they refresh and change the really bad educational system to the better having projects for schools etc. They even help in the community giving food to the poor cooperating with the socialist plague of a government, surprised our government hasn't yet separated the church from the state, but if they do the country will be flipped around.

You socialists don't appreciate cultural and historical values, socialism is a good example of when-modernization-is-too-much.