Buy books by AWers

If this site is helpful to you,
Please consider a voluntary subscription to defray ongoing expenses.


 

Welcome to the AbsoluteWrite Water Cooler! Please read The Newbie Guide To Absolute Write

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 93

Thread: Secularism

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Sockpuppet
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Benelux
    Posts
    39

    Secularism

    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 by mamouth; 03-30-2012 at 09:49 AM.

  2. #2
    Mankind is my Business AW Moderator RichardGarfinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Walking the world
    Posts
    10,045
    Quote Originally Posted by mamouth View Post
    Anybody in here interested in an exploration of secularism? Does it actually exists?
    Depends on what you mean by secularism. Most people who are called secularists by others call themselves humanists.
    Undermine Pedantic Dadaism.




    Now on Smashwords

  3. #3
    Sockpuppet
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Benelux
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle View Post
    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?

  4. #4
    Mankind is my Business AW Moderator RichardGarfinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Walking the world
    Posts
    10,045
    Quote Originally Posted by mamouth View Post
    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.
    Undermine Pedantic Dadaism.




    Now on Smashwords

  5. #5
    Sockpuppet
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Benelux
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle View Post
    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?

  6. #6
    Mankind is my Business AW Moderator RichardGarfinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Walking the world
    Posts
    10,045
    Quote Originally Posted by mamouth View Post
    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.
    Undermine Pedantic Dadaism.




    Now on Smashwords

  7. #7
    punny user title, here
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    2,716
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle View Post
    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.)

  8. #8
    Mankind is my Business AW Moderator RichardGarfinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Walking the world
    Posts
    10,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnstorm View Post
    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.
    Undermine Pedantic Dadaism.




    Now on Smashwords

  9. #9
    punny user title, here
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    2,716
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Mankind is my Business AW Moderator RichardGarfinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Walking the world
    Posts
    10,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnstorm View Post
    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.
    Undermine Pedantic Dadaism.




    Now on Smashwords

  11. #11
    volitare nequeo AW Moderator veinglory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    27,940
    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.
    Emily Veinglory

  12. #12
    volitare nequeo AW Moderator veinglory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    27,940
    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.
    Emily Veinglory

  13. #13
    Sockpuppet
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Benelux
    Posts
    39

    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 by mamouth; 03-30-2012 at 03:15 PM.

  14. #14
    Mankind is my Business AW Moderator RichardGarfinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Walking the world
    Posts
    10,045
    Quote Originally Posted by mamouth View Post
    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.
    Undermine Pedantic Dadaism.




    Now on Smashwords

  15. #15
    Sockpuppet
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Benelux
    Posts
    39

    understanding theologiocracy

    Thank you for all the quality input! My bloq is also done. It is at http://theologiocracy.blogspot.com/
    I think we should concentrate on concepts to start off.
    Last edited by mamouth; 03-28-2012 at 08:49 PM.

  16. #16
    volitare nequeo AW Moderator veinglory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    27,940
    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 by veinglory; 03-26-2012 at 04:01 AM.
    Emily Veinglory

  17. #17
    Sockpuppet
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Benelux
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by veinglory View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    volitare nequeo AW Moderator veinglory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    27,940
    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.
    Emily Veinglory

  19. #19
    Sockpuppet
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Benelux
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by veinglory View Post
    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...

  20. #20
    Trust: that most precious coin. little_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,742
    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.

  21. #21
    Sockpuppet
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Benelux
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by little_e View Post
    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!

  22. #22
    Mankind is my Business AW Moderator RichardGarfinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Walking the world
    Posts
    10,045
    Quote Originally Posted by mamouth View Post
    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.
    Undermine Pedantic Dadaism.




    Now on Smashwords

  23. #23
    Sockpuppet
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Benelux
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle View Post
    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.
    I am not clear what you mean here by blurring ideas into one word. It may be useful if we proceed with clarity. by ethical consideration of secularism, I mean that possibility of adopting it as a norm for interpersonal relationship while we living together in a community. I would like to know whether you take the statement that 'The ethical consideration that society should not be dominated by religion is not solely a secular one', is based on ethical or religious consideration?
    I presume you have a secular look, and that is justified even for religionists. If so you would be maintaining a sharp contrast between religion and ethics/social. Am I correct?

  24. #24
    Mankind is my Business AW Moderator RichardGarfinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Walking the world
    Posts
    10,045
    Quote Originally Posted by mamouth View Post
    I am not clear what you mean here by blurring ideas into one word. It may be useful if we proceed with clarity. by ethical consideration of secularism, I mean that possibility of adopting it as a norm for interpersonal relationship while we living together in a community. I would like to know whether you take the statement that 'The ethical consideration that society should not be dominated by religion is not solely a secular one', is based on ethical or religious consideration?
    I presume you have a secular look, and that is justified even for religionists. If so you would be maintaining a sharp contrast between religion and ethics/social. Am I correct?
    Tricky question since the scale at which secularism usually matters is that of establishment of religion rather than the smaller scale of the interpersonal.

    But I would say that Humanism is vital in interpersonal relations because it is based on respect of person to person. If religion dominates interpersonal relations than it would be socially acceptable to evangelize at all times and places and to treat with contempt all people who do not share one's religious views. This can poison interpersonal relations.

    If the ground state of human to human interactions is humanistic respect, such as this board uses, people can discuss any topic including religion without feeling imposed on.
    Undermine Pedantic Dadaism.




    Now on Smashwords

  25. #25
    Sockpuppet
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Benelux
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle View Post
    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.
    i was absconding, no? yes, i had to be so due to certain reasons. i beg your pardon. i wish if i could make a come back !!!

    yes, you are right in saying that religious figures themselves regard the presence of religion in political sphere is corrosive to religions themselves. by saying so, you also seem to be suggesting that it is possible to have pure religion/spirituality sans the mark of social or this worldly imaginations.
    an argument for a spiritual purity seems to remain a theoretical feasibility, and hence it can be contested.
    Last edited by mamouth; 01-06-2013 at 12:15 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Custom Search