Secularist Discussions I: The Independence of The State

[Helladic Empire]

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.

We have both biological and religious books here and we personally choose in high school, I have chosen creationism because it sounds more logical and it explains alot of things

[Albrenia]

As long as you are given the choice, that's at least somewhat acceptable. Probably better if schools stuck to teaching actual scientific knowledge only, but it is what it is.

[Pasong Tirad]

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or that interest - such as when the SOGIE equality bill was passed just recently (and which you erroneously said was repealed - no, it wasn't) thanks to the efforts of LGBT groups such as Ladlad and UP Babaylan.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.

Then you're not arguing for secularism, you're arguing for anti-theism. Imposing religion on public institutions is different from allowing people's personal religious beliefs to influence how they would like said public institutions to govern.

[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.

We have both biological and religious books here and we personally choose in high school, I have chosen creationism because it sounds more logical and it explains alot of things

Then your school is failing to educate you properly.

[Helladic Empire]

We have both biological and religious books here and we personally choose in high school, I have chosen creationism because it sounds more logical and it explains alot of things

Then your school is failing to educate you properly.

So my school failed to educate me because I don't abide by your personal beliefs?

Nice.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Then your school is failing to educate you properly.

So my school failed to educate me because I don't abide by your personal beliefs?

Nice.

No, your school failed to educate you because they taught falsehoods as fact.

[UKCS]

So my school failed to educate me because I don't abide by your personal beliefs?

Nice.

No, your school failed to educate you because they taught falsehoods as fact.

I wouldn't advise trying to discuss fact and reason with Helladic, he's immune to it.

[Albrenia]

Creationism is pretty much void of scientific merit, but if someone wants to keep themselves ignorant of the facts I'm not gonna force them.

[Prestrainiskiy]

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.

Then you're not arguing for secularism, you're arguing for anti-theism. Imposing religion on public institutions is different from allowing people's personal religious beliefs to influence how they would like said public institutions to govern.

See, would a non-thiestic government allow the CHURCH to halt laws that they deem unfit for their religion? To truly achieve a secularist state, we shall create a barrier dividing the state and religion, and if that means suspending the legislative influence of the church, I'm for it.

[Pasong Tirad]

Then you're not arguing for secularism, you're arguing for anti-theism. Imposing religion on public institutions is different from allowing people's personal religious beliefs to influence how they would like said public institutions to govern.

See, would a non-thiestic government allow the CHURCH to halt laws that they deem unfit for their religion? To truly achieve a secularist state, we shall create a barrier dividing the state and religion, and if that means suspending the legislative influence of the church, I'm for it.

Um, yes. That's how lobbying works. Peasant groups are able to lobby, corporations are able to lobby, workers unions, student groups, doctors, lawyers and everything in between have a right to ask their government to work for them, much like the Church. To halt one institution's freedom to influence government policy to benefit them would mean you'd have to legally halt everybody's rights to lobby to their politicians and to hold them accountable. To ask for the removal of the Church's ability to influence government policy would mean asking literally everybody who isn't part of the civil service to fuck off and that would be terrible, it'd mean that politicians would be accountable to absolutely nobody but each other.

I don't see what the big problem is, really. We're not as big a theocracy as you think we are. In recent years (especially this past year), the Church has spent more time worrying about the plight of the poor amidst Duterte's "Drug" war AND making sure the bill to reenact the death penalty still hasn't gone through - or has that slipped your mind as well? Or has it slipped your mind that the SOGIE Equality Bill has actually already passed the House and is on its way to the Senate floor and the only person who actually has a problem with that is a Bible-thumping Born Again Boxer-Who-Thinks-He's-A-Legislator who isn't part of the Church?

[Old Tyrannia]

No, your school failed to educate you because they taught falsehoods as fact.

I wouldn't advise trying to discuss fact and reason with Helladic, he's immune to it.

Knock off the personal attacks.

[Prestrainiskiy]

See, would a non-thiestic government allow the CHURCH to halt laws that they deem unfit for their religion? To truly achieve a secularist state, we shall create a barrier dividing the state and religion, and if that means suspending the legislative influence of the church, I'm for it.

Um, yes. That's how lobbying works. Peasant groups are able to lobby, corporations are able to lobby, workers unions, student groups, doctors, lawyers and everything in between have a right to ask their government to work for them, much like the Church. To halt one institution's freedom to influence government policy to benefit them would mean you'd have to legally halt everybody's rights to lobby to their politicians and to hold them accountable. To ask for the removal of the Church's ability to influence government policy would mean asking literally everybody who isn't part of the civil service to fuck off and that would be terrible, it'd mean that politicians would be accountable to absolutely nobody but each other.

I don't see what the big problem is, really. We're not as big a theocracy as you think we are. In recent years (especially this past year), the Church has spent more time worrying about the plight of the poor amidst Duterte's "Drug" war AND making sure the bill to reenact the death penalty still hasn't gone through - or has that slipped your mind as well? Or has it slipped your mind that the SOGIE Equality Bill has actually already passed the House and is on its way to the Senate floor and the only person who actually has a problem with that is a Bible-thumping Born Again Boxer-Who-Thinks-He's-A-Legislator who isn't part of the Church?

Just as long as religious influence is far from legislation, I can be at ease.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

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.

What kind of school were you going to, mate?

[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.

What kind of school were you going to, mate?

London state primary (two of them, actually). Not faith schools.

I don't know how normal my experience was; schools are required by law to take part in some Christian worship, but maybe my teachers were more zealous than average. We'd have the usual songs and prayers in assemblies (which I assume all schools do) but we'd also have stories from the Bible (including Genesis) given to us with no preface about it being myth or a matter of belief.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

What kind of school were you going to, mate?

London state primary (two of them, actually). Not faith schools.

I don't know how normal my experience was; schools are required by law to take part in some Christian worship by law, but maybe my teachers were more zealous than average. We'd have the usual songs and prayers in assemblies (which I assume all schools do) but we'd also have stories from the Bible (including Genesis) given to us with no preface about it being myth or a matter of belief.

Ahh, that is a bit strange, I had thought that you went to some kind of faith orientated school.

[Pasong Tirad]

Um, yes. That's how lobbying works. Peasant groups are able to lobby, corporations are able to lobby, workers unions, student groups, doctors, lawyers and everything in between have a right to ask their government to work for them, much like the Church. To halt one institution's freedom to influence government policy to benefit them would mean you'd have to legally halt everybody's rights to lobby to their politicians and to hold them accountable. To ask for the removal of the Church's ability to influence government policy would mean asking literally everybody who isn't part of the civil service to fuck off and that would be terrible, it'd mean that politicians would be accountable to absolutely nobody but each other.

I don't see what the big problem is, really. We're not as big a theocracy as you think we are. In recent years (especially this past year), the Church has spent more time worrying about the plight of the poor amidst Duterte's "Drug" war AND making sure the bill to reenact the death penalty still hasn't gone through - or has that slipped your mind as well? Or has it slipped your mind that the SOGIE Equality Bill has actually already passed the House and is on its way to the Senate floor and the only person who actually has a problem with that is a Bible-thumping Born Again Boxer-Who-Thinks-He's-A-Legislator who isn't part of the Church?

Just as long as religious influence is far from legislation, I can be at ease.

So much for freedom of religion, I guess.

And I guess I might as well be talking to a wall, because out of all my arguments all you've offered as a rebuttal is "NYE NYE NYE NYE DON'T LET THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INFLUENCE THEIR DECISIONS I CAN'T HEAR YOU BLAHBLAHBLAH."

[Prestrainiskiy]

Just as long as religious influence is far from legislation, I can be at ease.

So much for freedom of religion, I guess.

And I guess I might as well be talking to a wall, because out of all my arguments all you've offered as a rebuttal is "NYE NYE NYE NYE DON'T LET THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INFLUENCE THEIR DECISIONS I CAN'T HEAR YOU BLAHBLAHBLAH."

Damn, I accept my loss, okay? I'm not that good of a debater as you are, but I will keep my beliefs.

[Cedoria]

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.



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.

That sentiment applies to every country, and every polity.

That said, the Phillipines is one of the worst examples. I wish you good luck and sincere solidarity in your quest to try and change things:)

[Neo-Cristo]

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.

Colossians 1:16-17 ESV

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Christianity forbids secularism

[Anywhere Else But Here]

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.

Colossians 1:16-17 ESV

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Christianity forbids secularism

It doesn't seem at all clear that that's what that verse means. What about rendering unto Casesar?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Colossians 1:16-17 ESV

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Christianity forbids secularism

It doesn't seem at all clear that that's what that verse means. What about rendering unto Casesar?

If Caesar told you to jump off a bridge would you do it?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

It doesn't seem at all clear that that's what that verse means. What about rendering unto Casesar?

If Caesar told you to jump off a bridge would you do it?

I don't know. Is there a good reason?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If Caesar told you to jump off a bridge would you do it?

I don't know. Is there a good reason?

Your Caesar commands it.

[Albrenia]

I don't know. Is there a good reason?

Your Caesar commands it.

Caesars these days, so demanding.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I don't know. Is there a good reason?

Your Caesar commands it.

I think I'll set up a political party to oppose Caesar, running on a platform of "no state-mandated jumping off of bridges".