Secularist Discussions I: The Independence of The State

[Helladic Empire]

Damn, the replies in threads like this one are disappointing..

[Helladic Empire]

Damn, the replies in threads like this one are disappointing..

[The Empire of Pretantia]

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".

This is the classical era, there are no parties. There is only Caesar.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

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

This is the classical era, there are no parties. There is only Caesar.

I run away from Caesar.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

This is the classical era, there are no parties. There is only Caesar.

I run away from Caesar.

You get crucified.

[Republic of the Cristo]

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?

Give unto the material world what is material and set your sights on Godly things - you realize that is what the quote means right?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

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

Give unto the material world what is material and set your sights on Godly things - you realize that is what the quote means right?

No, I didn't. I've seen Christians citing this verse on multiple occasions to complain at what they perceive as the state interfering in religious matters (the state "taking" marriage from God, for instance). Apparently they are misusing it, and so I misunderstood the verse.

I run away from Caesar.

You get crucified.

I don't know. That particular Caesar was pretty old by the time of Jesus. I think I could outrun him.

[Prestrainiskiy]

We have to strictly have Secularist discussions here. Please keep it that way.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

We have to strictly have Secularist discussions here. Please keep it that way.

There is no thread ownership on NSG. Your OP is broad enough that any discussion of secularism is going to be on topic.

[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."

I would like to reiterate my belief. I also want to open this up again.

I am glad that the church isn't messing with our progressive policies, but the religious influence in schools, legislation and other government institutions is still strong. Other secularist countries, like Singapore, do not allow religious influence regarding public order, health and morality. Though their social policy is different from other developed nations, they are enforcing Secularism excellently throughout their legislation and executive branches of government.

Article 15 of the Singaporean constitution says (excerpt from a Wikipedia page on the Singaporean constitution:
Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is entitled "Freedom of religion" and reads as follows:

15.— (1) Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it.

(2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

(3) Every religious group has the right —

(a) to manage its own religious affairs;
(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and
(c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.
(d) This Article does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

Some parts of the Article bear resemblance to ours, though one feature differs from ours:

This Article does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

Though our Constitution provides "the seperation of church and state", we still have religious influence on it, we can even read it in the preamble:

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

If we really wanted a seperation of church and state, those words wouldn't have been put there, lobbying groups who lobby under religious ground are to be ignored and legislation can go on and run smoothly (yes, we can see that now with the passage of the SOGIE bill in Congress, as you said.).

[Kubra]

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

So the solution is forbid christianity

[Pasong Tirad]

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."

I would like to reiterate my belief. I also want to open this up again.

I am glad that the church isn't messing with our progressive policies, but the religious influence in schools, legislation and other government institutions is still strong. Other secularist countries, like Singapore, do not allow religious influence regarding public order, health and morality. Though their social policy is different from other developed nations, they are enforcing Secularism excellently throughout their legislation and executive branches of government.

I get that you have a boner for Singapore, but believe it or not, our state is pretty capable of not letting the Church overreach its influence when it doesn't want it to. The Church is just like any other branch of government or any other NGO or body of citizens: it's a check on the powers of the state. They are most definitely within their right to try and use their influence on things regarding public order, health, and morality. It's called lobbying and I've already mentioned it a few times.

Article 15 of the Singaporean constitution says (excerpt from a Wikipedia page on the Singaporean constitution:
Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is entitled "Freedom of religion" and reads as follows:

15.— (1) Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it.

(2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

(3) Every religious group has the right —

(a) to manage its own religious affairs;
(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and
(c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.
(d) This Article does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

Some parts of the Article bear resemblance to ours, though one feature differs from ours:

This Article does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

Though our Constitution provides "the seperation of church and state", we still have religious influence on it, we can even read it in the preamble:

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

If we really wanted a seperation of church and state, those words wouldn't have been put there, lobbying groups who lobby under religious ground are to be ignored and legislation can go on and run smoothly (yes, we can see that now with the passage of the SOGIE bill in Congress, as you said.).

Yeah ok you've proven that Singapore is a pretty secular country - so what? What works in a tiny city-state like Singapore isn't necessarily going to work for a large island nation like the Philippines. Religion has never really played as important a role in Singaporean history as it has in Philippine history (correct me if I'm wrong, Singaporean friends).

Yeah ok you've proven that the belief in God is already in our constitution - um, duh? The People Power revolution was brought about in part with the help of the Catholic Church, priests and a devout widow were part of the team that made said constitution and religion is still a big deal for the majority of Filipinos - now, are you suggesting taking away their god? Because that's pretty cold. And as I've said many times (and you still haven't been able to counter-argue), lobbying under religious grounds is perfectly fine. It's their right and it's no different from lobbying under non-religious grounds (ethical grounds, personal grounds, whatever). To ban one would mean needing to ban them all or face being hypocritical in which lobbying groups you approve of or not. Your objection to lobbying under religious grounds isn't being pro-secularist, it's being anti-theist. Try and reevaluate what you mean when you say you want our country to be "more secular." I totally agree that we do need to be a lot more secular, but removing the Church's lobbying ability in influencing legislation? That's impossible because, among other things, majority of Filipinos are religious and religion plays a huge part in their lives and it's inseparable from their identity. Wanting the state to not favor the Catholic Church over non-Catholic Christians, Muslims, and folk/traditional religions? That, I can get behind.

[Prestrainiskiy]

I would like to reiterate my belief. I also want to open this up again.

I am glad that the church isn't messing with our progressive policies, but the religious influence in schools, legislation and other government institutions is still strong. Other secularist countries, like Singapore, do not allow religious influence regarding public order, health and morality. Though their social policy is different from other developed nations, they are enforcing Secularism excellently throughout their legislation and executive branches of government.

I get that you have a boner for Singapore, but believe it or not, our state is pretty capable of not letting the Church overreach its influence when it doesn't want it to. The Church is just like any other branch of government or any other NGO or body of citizens: it's a check on the powers of the state. They are most definitely within their right to try and use their influence on things regarding public order, health, and morality. It's called lobbying and I've already mentioned it a few times.

Some parts of the Article bear resemblance to ours, though one feature differs from ours:



Though our Constitution provides "the seperation of church and state", we still have religious influence on it, we can even read it in the preamble:



If we really wanted a seperation of church and state, those words wouldn't have been put there, lobbying groups who lobby under religious ground are to be ignored and legislation can go on and run smoothly (yes, we can see that now with the passage of the SOGIE bill in Congress, as you said.).

Yeah ok you've proven that Singapore is a pretty secular country - so what? What works in a tiny city-state like Singapore isn't necessarily going to work for a large island nation like the Philippines. Religion has never really played as important a role in Singaporean history as it has in Philippine history (correct me if I'm wrong, Singaporean friends).

Yeah ok you've proven that the belief in God is already in our constitution - um, duh? The People Power revolution was brought about in part with the help of the Catholic Church, priests and a devout widow were part of the team that made said constitution and religion is still a big deal for the majority of Filipinos - now, are you suggesting taking away their god? Because that's pretty cold. And as I've said many times (and you still haven't been able to counter-argue), lobbying under religious grounds is perfectly fine. It's their right and it's no different from lobbying under non-religious grounds (ethical grounds, personal grounds, whatever). To ban one would mean needing to ban them all or face being hypocritical in which lobbying groups you approve of or not. Your objection to lobbying under religious grounds isn't being pro-secularist, it's being anti-theist. Try and reevaluate what you mean when you say you want our country to be "more secular." I totally agree that we do need to be a lot more secular, but removing the Church's lobbying ability in influencing legislation? That's impossible because, among other things, majority of Filipinos are religious and religion plays a huge part in their lives and it's inseparable from their identity. Wanting the state to not favor the Catholic Church over non-Catholic Christians, Muslims, and folk/traditional religions? That, I can get behind.

How are we going to be secular in a very religious state if we continue to allow the Church or any religion to lobby?

It'd be useless to take steps in removing religion from the state if they're going to stop it at the first place.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

We have to strictly have Secularist discussions here. Please keep it that way.

Discussions on secularism are inevitably going to lead into discussions of religion. Suck it up and accept it.

[Pasong Tirad]

I get that you have a boner for Singapore, but believe it or not, our state is pretty capable of not letting the Church overreach its influence when it doesn't want it to. The Church is just like any other branch of government or any other NGO or body of citizens: it's a check on the powers of the state. They are most definitely within their right to try and use their influence on things regarding public order, health, and morality. It's called lobbying and I've already mentioned it a few times.


Yeah ok you've proven that Singapore is a pretty secular country - so what? What works in a tiny city-state like Singapore isn't necessarily going to work for a large island nation like the Philippines. Religion has never really played as important a role in Singaporean history as it has in Philippine history (correct me if I'm wrong, Singaporean friends).

Yeah ok you've proven that the belief in God is already in our constitution - um, duh? The People Power revolution was brought about in part with the help of the Catholic Church, priests and a devout widow were part of the team that made said constitution and religion is still a big deal for the majority of Filipinos - now, are you suggesting taking away their god? Because that's pretty cold. And as I've said many times (and you still haven't been able to counter-argue), lobbying under religious grounds is perfectly fine. It's their right and it's no different from lobbying under non-religious grounds (ethical grounds, personal grounds, whatever). To ban one would mean needing to ban them all or face being hypocritical in which lobbying groups you approve of or not. Your objection to lobbying under religious grounds isn't being pro-secularist, it's being anti-theist. Try and reevaluate what you mean when you say you want our country to be "more secular." I totally agree that we do need to be a lot more secular, but removing the Church's lobbying ability in influencing legislation? That's impossible because, among other things, majority of Filipinos are religious and religion plays a huge part in their lives and it's inseparable from their identity. Wanting the state to not favor the Catholic Church over non-Catholic Christians, Muslims, and folk/traditional religions? That, I can get behind.

How are we going to be secular in a very religious state if we continue to allow the Church or any religion to lobby?

It'd be useless to take steps in removing religion from the state if they're going to stop it at the first place.

Religious/devout population =/= religious state.

We're a secular state with religious organizations that have lobbying power and with politicians that are constitutionally allowed to vote using their conscience and religious beliefs. Every single secular state has this. Every single one. The difference with us is the Church and the cult passing off as a religious denomination known as the Iglesia Ni Cristo have more lobbying power than most. And that Church leaders can often be found in advisory roles in government - that, I agree, shouldn't be allowed (like having a priest on the MTRCB). But again, that's not just what you want. You want people with religious beliefs to not have a say in government. That's not very democratic, and it's not secular but anti-theist. I feel like I'm just repeating myself now.

[Asherahan]

I am Anti theist guess my position?

[Cedoria]

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.

Contraception does not sterilize people.

And actually, most evidence suggests it's probably the leading contributor to the empowerment of women, which is itself the principle cure for poverty (as anybody with even the tiniest experience on the subject will tell you)

It's actually a pretty damn good way of doing it.

[Cedoria]

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?

It is true that giving people control over their reproductive cycle is a rudimentary, but very effective cure for poverty. Many studies on the subject are available. So yes, it does work, despite the best attempts of Church and faith-based groups to argue the contrary.

[Asherahan]

I run away from Caesar.

You get crucified.

The Romans also impaled people you know.

[Cedoria]

I run away from Caesar.

You get crucified.

The Caesar in charge at the time was old and stuck on Capri. Somehow, I'm not worried. As long as I'm not a certain Praetorian Guard prefect that is...

[Cedoria]

You get crucified.

The Romans also impaled people you know.

and burned them, and buried them alive, and decapitated them, and threw them off cliffs and...

You get the idea.

[Pilarcraft]

I'm confused at what the discussion on this Secularist Discussion is really about right now... something about Caesar?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You get crucified.

The Romans also impaled people you know.

Yeah, to a cross.

[Pilarcraft]

The Romans also impaled people you know.

Yeah, to a cross.

Always thought it was an X or a Y...

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Yeah, to a cross.

Always thought it was an X or a Y...

You watch too much Game of Thrones.