[PeteStarr]

I suspect you'll disagree strongly with what I've said because it's not very secular to get into the "nitty gritty" of someone's religion

Au contraire mon amie! I don't believe there is any reason why the nitty-gritty of a religion cannot be dissected and criticised. Naturally any illegal elements can be dealt with without further ado...

I am not saying that secularism should be binned. I just think it should become more muscular and less PC

I tend to agree that things are too PC - I think I made the same point a few posts back when I said that we can be too nice. I think we should show our teeth more when objectionable things are happening and this is not against any principle of secularism.

It is possible to have a secularism which is not theocratic but at the same time willing to denounce poisonous ideologies.

erm... Not only is it possible it is necessary for it NOT to be theocratic given they're mutually exclusive! There is no difficulty with dealing with poisonous ideologies as long as we don't allow another ideology to determine what is poisonous.

This thing about all beliefs being equal is staggeringly stupid.

Agreed, it's also not a consequence of secular thinking - I don't know where you get the idea that it is. All situations can be judged on their own merits according to statute & law. Exactly as they are in any system of government.

I can't find the exact article I was reading but here is one source. If you search for secularism and Poland you may get more results.

[PeteStarr]

I mainly agree with this

Secularism is not a cause - it is a result. You cannot 'blame' it for any of the ills you perceive.

but not this...

It is what you get when human society slowly empties itself of religiosity, and tries to manage itself solely on the basis of human interpretation of scientific data of the world around it.

It is what you get when multiple competing religions each claiming divine revealed wisdom need to coexist under common civil law. A world organising itself purely on the basis of its scientific observations would be simpler, easier to manage and would dramatically reduce, but not eliminate, sources of conflict. In fairness, a single religious ideology could accomplish the same thing.

Pure secularism (if it existed) would be religion-neutral.

There can never be 'pure' secularism as it is a democratic coalition made up of representatives of its constituent members. It necessitates compromise & so is inherently impure. But then again, there is never any pure anything in human society - if a country was 100% one religion it would still disagree on interpretation and government - this would still necessitate compromise although the scope for disagreement would be much narrower...

[PeteStarr]

Ok I see, I think I've only seen the disordered version of secularism.

Maybe you could point me in the direction of this pure secularism, surely there's a working example of it somewhere in the world?

I think that this is a 'herring rouge'!!!

There is no example of 'pure' secularism just as there is no perfect 'pure' system of government ever in human history! It's an oxymoron. But so is anti-religious secularism - it cannot exist as it's rules are determined by its members - a proportion of which, it is to be assumed, are themselves religious!!! Actually - it is theoretically possible to have competing atheist ideologies coexisting under common agreement & in some way that could be anti-religious secularism. Or is it? If we go back to the definition we get back to 'not relating to religion' or the Christian Latin meaning of matters pertaining to the world, as opposed to the church. Ironic that the term was, in all probability, coined by early Christians - presumably to square their emerging religion with Roman government and law.

[Maryh]

There is no example of 'pure' secularism just as there is no perfect 'pure' system of government ever in human history! It's an oxymoron

This exactly Pete! Back in B.C. era, God sent so many kings to rule over people, people wanted wise and just leaders but most or all of them became corrupt. Even king David; a man after God's heart, failed and succumbed to temptation.
God sent prophets but they were treated badly and killed. They didn't like the truths they were telling people about repentance etc.
Prophets had direct messages from God to pass on to the people.
This is why Jesus mission was to come in the first place- he was obedient to the ways of God perfectly as the son of God & showed us the way to live.
Jesus REFUSED to be made a king & ran from the folk who tried to make him one. I wonder why?
He didn't want to be head of any government per se.
I think he knew how fickle human hearts really are; how we're influenced by the lure of power, prestige, appearances, pride and ego. We're easily impressed at the expense of what's really important.
One minute they loved him, next they hated him. In the end everyone voted for him to die. Jesus won no popularity contest. Even his friends were pretty flaky when all was said and done.
His kingdom was not of this world.
Only by obeying Gods laws & respecting God as God can we make heaven on earth.

Absolute power corrupts and in this life, push does come to shove. It just does. Jesus was like a sword amongst families even.
Truth can divide people. Lots of people are in denial of a lot of things that are true. That's why Jesus said to 'forgive them they know not what they do'.

That's my take on governments really; I don't know what the solution would look like on a practical level but I'm not liking what I'm seeing when it comes to governments. They're getting all bent out of shape and warped by trying to please all the people, all the time. And there is a high price to pay they won't even acknowledge.

But Would you vote for Trump v Hillary??

As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning.
Exodus 17:11

Moses was holding up his hands in prayer to God. Only with God is the victory.

[PeteStarr]

But Would you vote for Trump v Hillary??

I'm afraid that does rather seem like Hobson's choice. I have enough trouble trying to get to grips with British politics never mind anywhere else! I think if I had to guess (cause that's all it could be) I would say that Hillary is the lower risk but please don't tackle me on this as I'm clueless!

I rather liked the cynical humorist that said "Why choose between the left nut and the right nut when you can have the whole Johnson"! It was funny, but not helpful.

[ActionReq]

Pete,
From all the options you've mentioned,
and after reading all these comments,
I think segregation is the best
solution for the worlds troubles.
This secularism and its quest for
pluralistic societies clearly leads to war
because it doesn't let the flowers bloom.
It is too repressive.

[PeteStarr]

Pete,
From all the options you've mentioned,
and after reading all these comments,
I think segregation is the best
solution for the worlds troubles.
This secularism and its quest for
pluralistic societies clearly leads to war
because it doesn't let the flowers bloom.
It is too repressive.

Great! Where are you going to move to??? The world does not have enough discrete territories to divide it between the proliferation of different world views! Besides... It's never been too successful in history so I'm not sure what you base your thoughts on....

I thought tolerance was part of the deal with you guys...?

[Prodigals]

[quote="PeteStarr"]It is what you get when multiple competing religions each claiming divine revealed wisdom need to coexist under common civil law.[quote]
Like I said, a world moving away from religiosity, for whatever reason you wish to ascribe.

[quote="PeteStarr"]A world organising itself purely on the basis of its scientific observations would be simpler, easier to manage and would dramatically reduce, but not eliminate, sources of conflict.[quote]
This is your hypothesis.

[quote="PeteStarr"] In fairness, a single religious ideology could accomplish the same thing.[quote]
Mandatory state approved religion? Believe or die? I trust you were offering a hypothetical.

[quote="PeteStarr"]There can never be 'pure' secularism . . . [quote]
That was exactly my point. Nothing man does is perfect, and in his hubris filled imperfect attempts at perfection, people die (see Air France Flight 447 - man's conceit killing men). Thinking that mankind could ever deploy a pure secularism which was completely religion-neutral is as you have said a 'herring rouge"

In the disordered secularism we are left with, the religious component to existence is discarded, and man says "lets just keep trying to make it better without the childish distraction of God-talk". The person of faith says, in this fallen wounded existence we are in since the Fall, the only possibility of it getting better is with God. That is the story in a nutshell of the Old Testament.

But for now, never the twain shall meet. For now . . . .

[ActionReq]

so I'm not sure what you base your thoughts on....

Well just on the comments here.

[PeteStarr]

so I'm not sure what you base your thoughts on....

Well just on the comments here.

Seriously though - how would you implement it?

[Medjugorjeprayers]

I don't think any society, government or institution will be effective aside from God as that's where everything good comes from:
Just laws, wisdom, peace, abundance, giving people the value and dignity they deserve, etc.
Human beings are not designed to be able to manage power effectively as though THEY are Gods. There is evidence everywhere of how absolute power corrupts.

This is a good point Maryh. The Roman's even though they had their own God's to worship acted as a secular govt and showed a certain level of tolerance to the Israeli people by allowing them to practice their religion. This tolerance was brutally maintained without mercy in some situations.

You made the point that if enough secular govt leaders do not share in Christian values, the system becomes corrupt.
If the number of non-believers out weighs the believers, the system will become bias towards the majority rule. This is exactly what has happened in the US.

This doesn't mean the majority of people who vote them in are non-believers, rather, it means that their faith is not as important to them as their other priorities such as money or looks or what ever else motivated them to vote the way they did. A majority of Catholics in the US vote for candidates who support abortion. This never made sense to me especially since the teaching of the Church is clearly against abortion.

My answer to your question about voting for Trump or Hillary would be Trump. Definitely not the ideal candidate by as my pastor told me, you have a moral obligation to vote for the lessor of the two evils. He told me that by not voting, you would be guilty of the sin of omission. I agree with his advice especially since this election is more about the supreme court selection than the presidency. A supreme court nomination is for life. Trump promised a conservative pro-life selection and Hillary a liberal who supports abortion and further repression of religious freedom. That is enough for me to decide.... If Trump is a bad president we can vote him out in 4 years but the same is not true for the supreme court.

[PeteStarr]

It is what you get when multiple competing religions each claiming divine revealed wisdom need to coexist under common civil law.

Like I said, a world moving away from religiosity, for whatever reason you wish to ascribe.

I'm not sure how my statement supports that point?

A world organising itself purely on the basis of its scientific observations would be simpler, easier to manage and would dramatically reduce, but not eliminate, sources of conflict.

This is your hypothesis.

Yes it is - I don't think it's unfounded but then again, I have no evidence to support it!

In fairness, a single religious ideology could accomplish the same thing.

Mandatory state approved religion? Believe or die? I trust you were offering a hypothetical.

Not exactly - I meant a theocracy really, not a religious dictatorship. Something along the lines of the segregated society Stunnedbyit & ActionReq appear to be advocating - it's still hypothetical but i was intending it as a concession implied by my hypothesis...

In the disordered secularism we are left with, the religious component to existence is discarded

I don't agree with this. I'm fairly certain that 'disordered secularism' is only disordered to the same extent as any other arrangement, therefore the disordered-ness is not a property of secularism but of some more fundamental property of humanity - as I think we agreed. I don't think that the religious component is discarded either - it is just not permitted any state support to gain advantage over any other. That's a different matter completely!

[ActionReq]

so I'm not sure what you base your thoughts on....

Well just on the comments here.

Seriously though - how would you implement it?

I fear it is impossible to implement.

However if you want a solution:
enlightened despotism might
be an option.
Were it not that the despot
doesn't live forever and will be
succeeded by somebody not
so enlightened. So there is no
option that leads to "nirvāņa"

besides that there is no rich
without poor. There will always
be something to complain about

[stunnedbyit]

[Not exactly - I meant a theocracy really, not a religious dictatorship. Something along the lines of the segregated society Stunnedbyit & ActionReq appear to be advocating

I think it's pushing it to say I was calling for a segregated society.
I think it's quite obvious that it's not segregating people which I advocate - it is routing out the cancerous elements of certain communities. I don't see why we should share the same country as people who support the barbaric side of Sharia - that doesn't mean that I want an actual policy of segregation. I have never said that ALL Muslims are proponents of violence and subjugation.

Going back to an earlier point Pete, if we are agreed that there is no real alternative to secularism at this point in time, how does a secular country prevent itself from eventually being overtaken by Sharia? A secular country (by and large) will be generous on immigration so how does it on one hand keep bringing people in while ensuring that the conditions are NEVER there for Sharia to take over?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but could Sharia not take shape in a secular country simply by enough people wanting it? How does a secular country protect itself if a majority of people want something which is counter-productive and damaging?
I am not asking these questions while sneakily thinking that I know the answers - I bow down to your better knowledge on secularism!

[stunnedbyit]

[

This thing about all beliefs being equal is staggeringly stupid.

Agreed, it's also not a consequence of secular thinking - I don't know where you get the idea that it is. All situations can be judged on their own merits according to statute & law. Exactly as they are in any system of government.
.

Ok, but secularism dictates that all faiths are treated equally. This means that bad religion can live alongside peaceful religions. Bad religion is given the same air to breathe, and this is how you end up with radical preachers like Anjem Choudary getting away with promoting hate and terrorism for over a decade.
You already admitted that secularism is not perfect and can run into difficulties - I am just making the point that secularism does contribute to atrocious ideas being spread.
While a secular government would not say that radical Islam (for example) is just as good as other faiths, it feels compelled to treat it as an equal.
A fair point?

[ActionReq]

In the quest for solutions:

how does a secular country prevent itself from eventually being overtaken by Sharia?

Allow me to answer this. Muslim
women are not allowed to marry
non Muslims. Not even to talk to
them. They segregate themselves
and I think that is what causes the
so called problems.

To avoid mixing from happening, they
have some rules.

1- A non moslim can become a muslim,
however a muslim can never stop
being a muslim. Apostacy (riddah) is
considered a crime under sharia law.
Most imams will say that it should be
punished with death. So a muslim
will think twice before stopping.

Small teaching great consequences.

2- A moslim man can marry a non
muslim woman (only Christian or
Jewish for some reason), muslim
women must marry a moslim man,
because not doing so affects her
status as a muslim. Because the
woman becomes property of the
man, and must do his will. They
think this way.
So if she does marry a non muslim
anyways that must be punished
with death (through above point 1)
Most muslim woman will not take
that risk because they are legally
intimidated.

Small teaching great consequences.

3- Muslim women must cover their
faces. Therefore they are less attractive
for western men.

Small teaching great consequences.

4- Muslim women are allowed to study
under very strict muslim rules that
avoid at-ta'arrub ba'd al-hijra
Or so to say that may cause the loss
of muslim faith, which redirects again
to point 1 of this list.

5- Muslim women must obey the muslim
men in their muslim men rights. If you
want to know these rights look them up.

All these house-rules are to protect
muslim interest and we are not allowed
to judge and I will not, because secular
law always allows to have "unwritten"
"hardly spoken" house-rules.

Strictly a muslim woman in a western
country can do as she wishes because
of our secular law.
However she is bound to the above rules
and there are many examples of women
that were killed in western countries
because of the above.

Muslim contingency is based on these
pillars. And secular ruling can't cope
with this, because there are too many
dead muslim women convincing the
still living exemplars even here in
western society.

However they have a point of weakness.

Their problem is that muslim women
are women and they are beautiful.

And there are western men wanting to
marry muslim women, and there are
muslim women dying to marry western
men. However their unspoken existing
rules and occasional follow up on those
rules (be it criminal in our eyes), avoid just
that from happening.

While there is nothing we can do about
house-rules, secular law hates injustice
and loves freedom. So we "hate" these
house rules and we simply say that they
are unlawful and the crimes are more
coincidental than rule. So we conclude
that if a muslim woman marries a muslim
man, then that was her free decision,
because she lives in a free country.

We must free muslim women from that
burden, and a secular government must
agree that this is justice.

The way to do this is as always: money.
We can subsidize the marriage between
muslim women and non muslim men.
Giving tax exempts to the parents of the
muslim woman. And giving house loan
advantages to the married couple.
Make everybody happy.

Just my thoughts.

[Prodigals]

secularism dictates that all faiths are treated equally.

Only in the case of a pure textbook version, if such existed. But that does not exist.
So we are left with a secularism that can do anything it pleases with any religion(s), regardless of whether they are "good" or "bad".

You said that there is no real alternative to secularism. But there is, and the world is increasingly rejecting it. That's exactly why Our Lady came to Medjugorje - "I've come to tell the world that God exists.

The world's downward spiral from religiosity to secularism is entropy - a measure of of the degree of disorder of mankind abandoning a Supreme Being. To people of faith, it is the entropy that began with the Fall. Pete, of course, wouldn't agree with that as he would propose that mankind's ills all all self-inflicted, and have nothing to do with a fictitious deity.

[Prodigals]

I don't think that the religious component is discarded either - it is just not permitted any state support to gain advantage over any other.

Yes, in a textbook pure version of secularism. And we have all said that it does not exist (nor will it ever).
So we are left with disordered secularism - in varying stages depending on epoch, nation, leader, etc. And in it's disordered-ness, it does not have to be fair about its treatment of religion, and can do anything it pleases.

[stunnedbyit]

In

The way to do this is as always: money.
We can subsidize the marriage between
muslim women and non muslim men.
Giving tax exempts to the parents of the
muslim woman. And giving house loan
advantages to the married couple.
Make everybody happy.

Just my thoughts.

Interesting idea, but I doubt that money would convince women to make enemies and endanger their own lives.

[PeteStarr]

I am not asking these questions while sneakily thinking that I know the answers - I bow down to your better knowledge on secularism!

And I am not answering them thinking I have addressed all the questions! Sorry for misrepresentation - I take your point!

[PeteStarr]

Right! With a few beers on board & a couple of large whiskers I think it's high time I told you all what I really think of you...

I think you're all awesome! Thanks for the lively debate - the fact that there can be one is fantastic!

Right, some excellent points made that deserve responses but better tackled sober ... Good night x

[stunnedbyit]

I am not asking these questions while sneakily thinking that I know the answers - I bow down to your better knowledge on secularism!

And I am not answering them thinking I have addressed all the questions! Sorry for misrepresentation - I take your point!

Fair enough Pete.
I can understand if you want to drop this particular topic - please accept my apologies if I have had you going around in circles.

[PeteStarr]

I can understand if you want to drop this particular topic - please accept my apologies if I have had you going around in circles.

Not at all! And I don't accept the need for you to apologise for looping around - if it was easy there would be no need to discuss it!

[PeteStarr]

I think it's pushing it to say I was calling for a segregated society.
I think it's quite obvious that it's not segregating people which I advocate - it is routing out the cancerous elements of certain communities. I don't see why we should share the same country as people who support the barbaric side of Sharia - that doesn't mean that I want an actual policy of segregation. I have never said that ALL Muslims are proponents of violence and subjugation.

I'm sorry - I did not intend to put words in your mouth. I also certainly did not mean to imply through segregation that the motive was because all other people support intolerable behaviour. I meant segregation to permit people with the same values to live together; religion is one obvious way of doing this. I don't support it though as it's impractical and I think historically has not worked.

Going back to an earlier point Pete, if we are agreed that there is no real alternative to secularism at this point in time, how does a secular country prevent itself from eventually being overtaken by Sharia?...

I don't think it is secularism that permits this but democracy. This is similar to MedjugorjePrayers & MaryH's point earlier where the majority could vote in laws that support practically anything. I guess that's true although with my half full glass I'm far from convinced the worst will happen. There are alternatives but I like all of them less ... if it's not democratic then it has to be some sort of ideological totalitarianism / dictatorship where everyone is told what they can or cannot do according to some higher authority & without a voice to influence the rules. Doesn't it?

What I'm not seeing is a clear picture of how any alternative would work. You might say, we (Christians) know that we're right, God is the answer to everything and everybody must get over this liberal, moderate hogwash and knuckle down and face the facts. He's what you can and can't do.... But you know what that begins to sound like, right? And besides, in just 2000 years of Christianity look how many different versions have sprung into existence - some with significantly different interpretations of the one truth - some form of moderation is going to be required and I think you end up with same challenge on how to coexist with different sets of values. I agree that the scope for disagreement in my caricature above is less than some of the examples you've mentioned but the challenge remains.

I'm not saying this is what you advocate but in the absence of any clear suggestions I'm just exploring ideas - as much to test my own thinking as well as challenge yours. There's a lot of reactive talk about secularism but no one, apart from ActionReq has said how they think it should be! I have not fully digested all the other posts so alologies if I'm going off half cocked! When typing on an iPhone it's much easier to take one post at a time!!

[stunnedbyit]

It's a difficult issue. I guess it could be written into a European constitution that Sharia could never have a place at the table. I acknowledge however, that this could easily be ripped up if/when a majority of people voted for an Islamic leaning party.
Perhaps European leaders have to be more vigilant on demographic percentages, i.e. Sharia could only ever be a threat if its proponents outnumbered the rest.
I am guessing however, that it would go against the principles of secularism to deliberately try and control the growth of a certain group of people.
As Europeans, we have to ask ourselves if Sharia would be good, neutral or bad. If we decide it would be bad, then there have to be serious discussions which take into account current demographics and also immigration rates. We also can't ignore the fact that non Muslims are having less children - that weakens our efforts to ensure that democracy continues.
We can still have an "open society" without putting ourselves in a position of being a minority group. That would only make sense if Sharia would be good or neutral.
In the future, if there was an Islamic party (in the UK for example) I think that even "moderate" Muslims would feel compelled/intimidated to vote for it.