Secularism

Status
Not open for further replies.

mamouth

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Location
Benelux
Anybody in here interested in an exploration of secularism? Does it actually exists?


[Draft]
RELIGIOUS MEDIATION OF SOCIO-CULTURAL:
CONCEPTUAL DIFFICULTY OF SECULARISM


In what follows, an attempt is made to highlight the logical
difficulty there is in the ways of formulating the idea of secularism
as a principle of disjunction between the affairs of spiritual and
natural world. Drawing insights from the historical conditions in
which the conceptual formulation and reformulation of idea of
secularism have become a theoretical imperative for the modern
civilizations, an argument is advanced here to show that secularism
serves to provide a different logic of religion itself. Contrary to
the understanding of religionist, anti-religionist, or agnost
(irreligionist), secularism seems to be a disguised logic of
theologiocracy which has been substituted for theocracy with the
emergence of liberal democracy. Theocracy is a system of governance
where political decisions are made to fulfill the divine will
represented by a particular religious head. Whereas, theologiocracy is
a process of governance in a society with no declared state-religion,
one or many theologies exert political power in their favor. The
intangible means of power-holds of theologiocracy seems felt more
apparent in controlling the social affairs and civil politics of faith
community than in organizing policy decisions of the state.

theologiocracy?
Do visit my blog: www.theologiocracy.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:

mamouth

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Location
Benelux
Depends on what you mean by secularism. Most people who are called secularists by others call themselves humanists.

Hi Richard – thank you for your post. I was quite surprised to get a reaction so soon after I posted and your to the point reply impressed me much. I am teaching Philosophy at a Sanskrit University in Kerala in India and am now preparing for a Workshop concerning Secularism. Professors from many different beliefs and students will attend it. I could need all the feedback I can get. A friend of mine whom is a poster at the Cooler Board suggested I start a thread here and see if there is any interest for the subject. It would be super if our discussions can also flow over to this board. There may be more people here who could provide essential input. After your post I amm quite excited. But I am Newbie and I don’t really know how to incorporate the forum into our activities + whether it will be a success. I think I have much to learn. Are you a long time poster here? What are the contents of your books about? Secularism?
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,139
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Hi Richard – thank you for your post. I was quite surprised to get a reaction so soon after I posted and your to the point reply impressed me much. I am teaching Philosophy at a Sanskrit University in Kerala in India and am now preparing for a Workshop concerning Secularism. Professors from many different beliefs and students will attend it. I could need all the feedback I can get. A friend of mine whom is a poster at the Cooler Board suggested I start a thread here and see if there is any interest for the subject. It would be super if our discussions can also flow over to this board. There may be more people here who could provide essential input. After your post I amm quite excited. But I am Newbie and I don’t really know how to incorporate the forum into our activities + whether it will be a success. I think I have much to learn. Are you a long time poster here? What are the contents of your books about? Secularism?


I'm not a long time poster, only a few months.

Most of what I write is fantasy and science fiction. But I also write science fact.

The study and history of religion is a particular interest of mine, but by most standards I'm a Humanist. I can probably help somewhat. Can you say the context in which you wish to address the subject, it would make it easier to give some subject matter or point toward sources.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
Depends on what you mean by secularism. Most people who are called secularists by others call themselves humanists.

Hm, are you talking about secular humanism, here? That's why it's important to define terms. Secular Humanism is a movement, but secularism can refer to a principle, too, whose political expression is the separation of church and state. Basically, secularism would mean you can't be forced to join a religion. And this principle profits minority religions as much as atheists, so if people support secularism (the ideological principle behind secularisation) they can still be religious, privately. Secularism supports a rule of reason rather than faith, but is typically going into less detail than religions, which is why supporting secularism but being privately religious is compatible.

If that's what we're talking about here, maybe the comparative board would be a better fit? I'm not bothered by this thread being here; I just think that mamouth might get a broader range of opinions there (if we're talking about the ideology behind the process of secularisation rather than about a rejection of faith on principle.)
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,139
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Hm, are you talking about secular humanism, here? That's why it's important to define terms. Secular Humanism is a movement, but secularism can refer to a principle, too, whose political expression is the separation of church and state. Basically, secularism would mean you can't be forced to join a religion. And this principle profits minority religions as much as atheists, so if people support secularism (the ideological principle behind secularisation) they can still be religious, privately. Secularism supports a rule of reason rather than faith, but is typically going into less detail than religions, which is why supporting secularism but being privately religious is compatible.

If that's what we're talking about here, maybe the comparative board would be a better fit? I'm not bothered by this thread being here; I just think that mamouth might get a broader range of opinions there (if we're talking about the ideology behind the process of secularisation rather than about a rejection of faith on principle.)

Since the OP was talking about teaching it in a class, I assumed it was Humanism. It works either on this board or comparative, I think.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
Since the OP was talking about teaching it in a class, I assumed it was Humanism. It works either on this board or comparative, I think.

You're likely right. I'm a bit confused about "Does it acutally exist?" Both humanism and secularisation are observable phenomena.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,139
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
You're likely right. I'm a bit confused about "Does it acutally exist?" Both humanism and secularisation are observable phenomena.

We'll have to wait for the OP who's in India, I think. I got the impression that it was a question of whether Secularism could be seen as an organized formal teachable subject in a comparative theology type class.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
What I hear people call 'secularism' is basically separation of church and state. e.g. it is secularist to expect law and politics to be conducted in a religiously neutral way--and a 'secularist state' does this.
 

mamouth

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Location
Benelux
I'm not a long time poster, only a few months.

Most of what I write is fantasy and science fiction. But I also write science fact.

The study and history of religion is a particular interest of mine, but by most standards I'm a Humanist. I can probably help somewhat. Can you say the context in which you wish to address the subject, it would make it easier to give some subject matter or point toward sources.


We'll have to wait for the OP who's in India, I think. I got the impression that it was a question of whether Secularism could be seen as an organized formal teachable subject in a comparative theology type class.

Sorry it took so long for me to reply. I am in small villages at the moment and internet connection is no good. Electricity fail out. I made the bloq and testing it and the draft paper is write. I really think I can use the Write board for discussion. The discussion can go more international once the posters and student from the bloq come here. I see that all the comments here is about 'concepts' and their meaning. This is a very good way to approach the topic. But it is the first time I do this and must learn much still. I too think I have discovered a new concept and that have think much about it. I give the first paragraph of the draft copy - you can see from it which direction the workshop go.


[Draft modified]
RELIGIOUS MEDIATION OF SOCIO-CULTURAL:
CONCEPTUAL DIFFICULTY OF SECULARISM


In what follows, an attempt is made to raise certain logical
difficulty involved in the ways of formulating the idea of secularism
as a principle of disjunction between the affairs of spiritual and
natural world. Drawing insights from the historical conditions in
which the conceptual formulation and reformulation of idea of
secularism have become a theoretical imperative for the modern
civilizations, an argument is advanced here to show that secularism
serves to provide a different logic of religion itself. Contrary to
the understanding of religionist, anti-religionist, or agnost
(irreligionist), secularism seems to be a disguised logic of
theologiocracy which has been substituted for theocracy with the
emergence of liberal democracy. Theocracy is a system of governance
where political decisions are made to fulfill the divine will
represented by a particular religious head. Whereas, theologiocracy is
a process of governance in a society with no declared state-religion,
one or many theologies exert political power in their favor. The
intangible means of power-holds of theologiocracy seems felt more
apparent in controlling the social affairs and civil politics of faith
community than in organizing policy decisions of the state.

theologiocracy?
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
So, it's pretty much what I said.

In what follows, an attempt is made to raise certain logical
difficulty involved in the ways of formulating the idea of secularism
as a principle of disjunction between the affairs of spiritual and
natural world.


There are problems with secularism as a philosophy that encourages separating church and state.

Drawing insights from the historical conditions in
which the conceptual formulation and reformulation of idea of
secularism have become a theoretical imperative for the modern
civilizations, an argument is advanced here to show that secularism
serves to provide a different logic of religion itself.


We will look at how history lead most developed nations to be secular, and how this changed the way people think about religion.

Contrary to
the understanding of religionist, anti-religionist, or agnost
(irreligionist), secularism seems to be a disguised logic of
theologiocracy which has been substituted for theocracy with the
emergence of liberal democracy.


We think that these secular states aren't as free from religion as they seem.

Theocracy is a system of governance
where political decisions are made to fulfill the divine will
represented by a particular religious head. Whereas, theologiocracy is
a process of governance in a society with no declared state-religion,
one or many theologies exert political power in their favor.


Because religious entities still have political power.

The
intangible means of power-holds of theologiocracy seems felt more
apparent in controlling the social affairs and civil politics of faith
community than in organizing policy decisions of the state.


This part is incomprehensible to me.

I think the author mistakes being verbose for being original. I see nothing new beyond some unnecessary neologisms. But that's just me, I guess.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,139
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Sorry it took so long for me to reply. I am in small villages at the moment and internet connection is no good. Electricity fail out. I made the bloq and testing it and the draft paper is write. I really think I can use the Write board for discussion. The discussion can go more international once the posters and student from the bloq come here. I see that all the comments here is about 'concepts' and their meaning. This is a very good way to approach the topic. But it is the first time I do this and must learn much still. I too think I have discovered a new concept and that have think much about it. I give the first paragraph of the draft copy - you can see from it which direction the workshop go.


[Draft modified]
RELIGIOUS MEDIATION OF SOCIO-CULTURAL:
CONCEPTUAL DIFFICULTY OF SECULARISM


In what follows, an attempt is made to raise certain logical
difficulty involved in the ways of formulating the idea of secularism
as a principle of disjunction between the affairs of spiritual and
natural world. Drawing insights from the historical conditions in
which the conceptual formulation and reformulation of idea of
secularism have become a theoretical imperative for the modern
civilizations, an argument is advanced here to show that secularism
serves to provide a different logic of religion itself. Contrary to
the understanding of religionist, anti-religionist, or agnost
(irreligionist), secularism seems to be a disguised logic of
theologiocracy which has been substituted for theocracy with the
emergence of liberal democracy. Theocracy is a system of governance
where political decisions are made to fulfill the divine will
represented by a particular religious head. Whereas, theologiocracy is
a process of governance in a society with no declared state-religion,
one or many theologies exert political power in their favor. The
intangible means of power-holds of theologiocracy seems felt more
apparent in controlling the social affairs and civil politics of faith
community than in organizing policy decisions of the state.

theologiocracy?

I think there's a lack of distinction here between a secular state and a state without an established religion.

A fully secular state would accord no status or recognition to religion at all, treating them as no more than private clubs.

A state without an established religion might still recognize that each religion is important to its people and accord them a special status over other organizations (which the United States does for example in its First Amendment). In this case, each religion while lacking direct power still maintains a strong voice and a presence in the councils of the country.

In the latter case gives to the religions avenues to exercise indirect power. In the former case, religions can influence individuals who may then choose to exercise that influence on behalf of the religions.

The strongest force for religions in either such state is the respect or lack thereof the religion is given by the people of the society. The fact that respect is the needful element rather than direct exercise of power does create a strong distinction between a theocracy or either of the above two non-theocratic states.
 

mamouth

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Location
Benelux
understanding theologiocracy

my intention is to initiate a discussion on 'understanding theologiocracy'. this is an attempt to understand the nature of working of religion, especially in the modern era. how does religion function in society once it has been confined to the domain of personal belief by secularism and democracy? the concept theologiocracy is brought in in order to characterise the working of religion affecting/influencing the power equilibrium and equations in various aspects of socio-cultural life of people in a post-theocratic society. by saying secularism is the logic of religion, i did not mean that it became another religion. it means only that secularism only provides a convenient logic for the functional division between religious and civil institutions in a democracy. but the argument given for this division cannot be based on viable separation between religion and social. since a radical isolation or dismissal of religion is not possible in relation to socio-cultural affairs, secularism cannot be taken as a non-religious, or anti-religious doctrine.

For details: Do visit the blog:www.theologiocracy.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,139
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
my intention is to initiate a discussion on 'understanding theologiocracy'. this is an attempt to understand the nature of working of religion, especially in the modern era. how does religion function in society once it has been confined to the domain of personal belief by secularism and democracy? the concept theologiocracy is brought in in order to characterise the working of religion affecting/influencing the power equilibrium and equations in various aspects of socio-cultural life of people in a post-theocratic society. by saying secularism is the logic of religion, i did not mean that it became another religion. it means only that secularism only provides a convenient logic for the functional division between religious and civil institutions in a democracy. but the argument given for this division cannot be based on viable separation between religion and social. since a radical isolation or dismissal of religion is not possible in relation to socio-cultural affairs, secularism cannot be taken as a non-religious, or anti-religious doctrine.

I think the study of what happens to religions when they lack the advantages of establishment and the power to control what is said about them as well as lacking the ability to control how they change within social context is certainly interesting, and I wish you luck with it.

But I gather that you are seeing then secular society not as another religion but as the framework in which the religions will be acting and which they will be working to modify.

If that's the case, I think you have a problem because you are treating all non-theological governments as a single kind of government and that doesn't hold too well. The manners in which religions work in dictatorships usually involve either trying to win over dictators or supporting revolutions. Whereas in Republics they usually try to influence parties to push their agendas.

You may need to divide the course of study by government type.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
Before you edited it your original post didn't even mentioned the concept you now say that thread is about. The word is found online only on your blog.

If you invented a word and want to talk about whether it is a useful neologism, why not just say so?

Otherwise I think you could more directly address your thesis which is still not clear to me. Especially your starting assumption about what secularism really is. Do you have a definition?

I see it as politics being religiously inclusive, not excluding religion from power.
 
Last edited:

mamouth

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Location
Benelux
Before you edited it your original post didn't even mentioned the concept you now say that thread is about. The word is found online only on your blog.

If you invented a word and want to talk about whether it is a useful neologism, why not just say so?

Otherwise I think you could more directly address your thesis which is still not clear to me. Especially your starting assumption about what secularism really is. Do you have a definition?

I see it as politics being religiously inclusive, not excluding religion from power.

yes, you are right in saying that i did not state the concept theologiocracy at the beginning. I wanted to draw the attention of people to this concept only in the context of the discussion of a more familiar notion of secularism. The debate on secularism takes place in the context of the larger problems related to the happenings like religious fanaticism, fundamentalism, terrorism, etc. A serious attention to these issues is more important than the newness of a concept. discussion need should not be constrained by discussion on neologism. my draft paper is only intended to provide a picture of foregrounding ideas related to the understanding of religious phenomenon. yes, your criticism of lack of clarity is well taken, and will be made it during the course of our discussion. i don't have definition of secularism, but trying to examining the logical viability of prevailing definitions.
 

mamouth

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Location
Benelux
I think there's a lack of distinction here between a secular state and a state without an established religion.

A fully secular state would accord no status or recognition to religion at all, treating them as no more than private clubs.

A state without an established religion might still recognize that each religion is important to its people and accord them a special status over other organizations (which the United States does for example in its First Amendment). In this case, each religion while lacking direct power still maintains a strong voice and a presence in the councils of the country.

In the latter case gives to the religions avenues to exercise indirect power. In the former case, religions can influence individuals who may then choose to exercise that influence on behalf of the religions.

The strongest force for religions in either such state is the respect or lack thereof the religion is given by the people of the society. The fact that respect is the needful element rather than direct exercise of power does create a strong distinction between a theocracy or either of the above two non-theocratic states.


Yes, there is a lack of distinction between the kind of states that you mentioned. that might be helpful for elaborating the problem that I have brought in: the conceptual difficult of secularism.

Here is our bloq http://theologiocracy.blogspot.com/
 
Last edited:

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
Given that we haven't established a shared understanding of secularism we might need to start there. I think you are definely it overly narrowly. Pretty much anything with a none religiously-based governing power and court system is secular IMHO. It doesn't exclude religion from these processes, with a religious majority and a democratic system this would be next to impossible. It just doesn't let religious law (Sharia, Old testament) be the law or religious leaders (Pope etc) be the leaders.
 

little_e

Trust: that most precious coin.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
508
Location
USA
Personally, I think you are putting far too much weight on the nature of the state. What matters is the nature of the culture. For example:

The expression of religion in rural Texas (where much of my family lives) is very different from the expression of religion at MIT in Boston, MA, where I lived for 5 years.

Both Boston and rural TX are in the same country and subject to basically the same laws, but religious (and non-religious) people act differently in these two places.

I have friends from Pakistan (definitely not a secular country) who are more similar to my friends from Boston than my relatives in TX in their religious expression. And I've known people from India (a secular country) who are more like my relatives in TX.

But my experiences with Muslims and Hindus in the US has been the opposite.

Well, I haven't said what this difference actually is, or what I think causes it, yet. There are deeply religious people in Boston, Texas, India, and Pakistan. But in rural TX, one particular religion is very dominant, and most people you meet believe in it--so people just assume that everyone they meet is also part of that religion, and so they talk about and share their beliefs.

MIT, Harvard, and the surrounding cultural area, by contrast, has a much wider diversity of beliefs. (Harvard Law, for example, is 1/3 Jewish.) The chance that the person you've just met is a Christian is very low. So people make a lot fewer assumptions, and by necessity, can't use public spaces as much for expressing their beliefs (though Jews, for example, get to be far more expressive in Boston than in rural TX.)

The net effect is that in TX, religion *comes up* a lot in conversation. In Boston, it doesn't. In Tx, people believe that certain religiously-motivated laws and regulations are just, while in Boston, they don't.

In the case of my Pakistani friend, he comes from an upper-class family, speaks English, has a science degree, and interacts with a lot of people on the internet (how we met,) a location where other people are less likely to be fellow Muslims. So on the internet, at least, he acts like someone from a more diverse, secular society.
The more religious Indians I have met (who certainly do not represent all Indians I have met,) again come from a different cultural background. Likewise, the Indians I have met in the US have been more "assimilated", you might say, bringing them into more contact with different beliefs, while the Muslims have tended to be more insular, and their religious expressions more obvious.

I am obviously over-simplifying and compressing a LOT. But you get my drift: culture/environment matters more than the exact laws.
 

mamouth

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Location
Benelux
Personally, I think you are putting far too much weight on the nature of the state. What matters is the nature of the culture. For example:

The expression of religion in rural Texas (where much of my family lives) is very different from the expression of religion at MIT in Boston, MA, where I lived for 5 years.

Both Boston and rural TX are in the same country and subject to basically the same laws, but religious (and non-religious) people act differently in these two places.

I have friends from Pakistan (definitely not a secular country) who are more similar to my friends from Boston than my relatives in TX in their religious expression. And I've known people from India (a secular country) who are more like my relatives in TX.

But my experiences with Muslims and Hindus in the US has been the opposite.

Well, I haven't said what this difference actually is, or what I think causes it, yet. There are deeply religious people in Boston, Texas, India, and Pakistan. But in rural TX, one particular religion is very dominant, and most people you meet believe in it--so people just assume that everyone they meet is also part of that religion, and so they talk about and share their beliefs.

MIT, Harvard, and the surrounding cultural area, by contrast, has a much wider diversity of beliefs. (Harvard Law, for example, is 1/3 Jewish.) The chance that the person you've just met is a Christian is very low. So people make a lot fewer assumptions, and by necessity, can't use public spaces as much for expressing their beliefs (though Jews, for example, get to be far more expressive in Boston than in rural TX.)

The net effect is that in TX, religion *comes up* a lot in conversation. In Boston, it doesn't. In Tx, people believe that certain religiously-motivated laws and regulations are just, while in Boston, they don't.

In the case of my Pakistani friend, he comes from an upper-class family, speaks English, has a science degree, and interacts with a lot of people on the internet (how we met,) a location where other people are less likely to be fellow Muslims. So on the internet, at least, he acts like someone from a more diverse, secular society.
The more religious Indians I have met (who certainly do not represent all Indians I have met,) again come from a different cultural background. Likewise, the Indians I have met in the US have been more "assimilated", you might say, bringing them into more contact with different beliefs, while the Muslims have tended to be more insular, and their religious expressions more obvious.

I am obviously over-simplifying and compressing a LOT. But you get my drift: culture/environment matters more than the exact laws.

Secularism as an ethical consideration appears to be a viable. It may
be so, but still I doubt its depth and durability. Often it happens to be
superficial. Any way we need to analyze the instances that you have
given. Thank you very much for this input!
 

mamouth

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Location
Benelux
Given that we haven't established a shared understanding of secularism we might need to start there. I think you are definely it overly narrowly. Pretty much anything with a none religiously-based governing power and court system is secular IMHO. It doesn't exclude religion from these processes, with a religious majority and a democratic system this would be next to impossible. It just doesn't let religious law (Sharia, Old testament) be the law or religious leaders (Pope etc) be the leaders.


Okey. We may go by our differences first. After all, there is no need of a total agreement. I appreciate your opinion much. Puts me to hard thinking...
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,139
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Secularism as an ethical consideration appears to be a viable. It may
be so, but still I doubt its depth and durability. Often it happens to be
superficial. Any way we need to analyze the instances that you have
given. Thank you very much for this input!

I think that you're blurring ideas into one word. The ethical consideration that society should not be dominated by religion is not solely a secular one. A number of religious figures regard the presence of religion in positions of social power to be corrosive to the religions themselves.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
IMHO secularism is primarily for the religious. It means no specific religion rules. I think it has more to do with one religious power persecuting another than anything else. Secularism =/=atheism.

It emerged in a time where not going to right church could see you fined into the poor house, and going to the wrong church could get you executed. And it started as the right to follow any church you wanted to, without consideration of the option 'none at all'.

i.e. Queen Elizabeth I and: ' I have no desire to make windows into mens souls'
 

little_e

Trust: that most precious coin.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
508
Location
USA
Secularism as an ethical consideration appears to be a viable. It may
be so, but still I doubt its depth and durability. Often it happens to be
superficial. Any way we need to analyze the instances that you have
given. Thank you very much for this input!
I would say that it's less of an ethical consideration as a practical one--if everyone I know is the same religion, I'm going to make different assumptions (and therefore act differently) than if everyone I know follows different religions.

The practical rules society needs to function get justified as ethical (because doing things that interfere with society functioning is generally seen as bad,) but the rules themselves come from the practical needs of the society, not the particular religious beliefs or the fervency of its members. (My opinion, anyway.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.