What is the problem religionists have with secularism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Secularism is in no position to guarantee anything. It cannot guarantee that it will champion supporting religion in any sense.
Like religion, it can only come to some kind of compromise and to keep watching itself for signs of it's own potential excesses.

Once you realise this then the slogan freedom of religion and freedom from religion looks like what it is, contradictory with freedom from religion only possible through suppression and some kind of apartheid.

Where you are coming from, The notional secular state is the equivalent of a theocracy.
Your view is therefore sentimental since it assumes the slogan will happen automatically and that secularists are somehow automatically virtuous when in reality, like religion, Secularism must be constantly vigilant....against it's own dark potential.

Oh yes of course you are right.

I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...

France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc

Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.

I think that's closer to the truth in some of these places than you would like to admit.

[ProfessorDavey]

Secularism is in no position to guarantee anything. It cannot guarantee that it will champion supporting religion in any sense.
Like religion, it can only come to some kind of compromise and to keep watching itself for signs of it's own potential excesses.

Once you realise this then the slogan freedom of religion and freedom from religion looks like what it is, contradictory with freedom from religion only possible through suppression and some kind of apartheid.

Where you are coming from, The notional secular state is the equivalent of a theocracy.
Your view is therefore sentimental since it assumes the slogan will happen automatically and that secularists are somehow automatically virtuous when in reality, like religion, Secularism must be constantly vigilant....against it's own dark potential.

Oh yes of course you are right.

I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...

France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc

Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.

I think that's closer to the truth in some of these places than you would like to admit.

Really !?!?

I can think of many countries which genuinely restrict religious freedoms, but most (not all) aren't secular but theocracies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Secularism is in no position to guarantee anything. It cannot guarantee that it will champion supporting religion in any sense.
Like religion, it can only come to some kind of compromise and to keep watching itself for signs of it's own potential excesses.

Once you realise this then the slogan freedom of religion and freedom from religion looks like what it is, contradictory with freedom from religion only possible through suppression and some kind of apartheid.

Where you are coming from, The notional secular state is the equivalent of a theocracy.
Your view is therefore sentimental since it assumes the slogan will happen automatically and that secularists are somehow automatically virtuous when in reality, like religion, Secularism must be constantly vigilant....against it's own dark potential.

Oh yes of course you are right.

I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...

France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc

Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.

I think that's closer to the truth in some of these places than you would like to admit.

Really !?!?

I can think of many countries which genuinely restrict religious freedoms, but most (not all) aren't secular but theocracies.

These secular states though can't guarantee the attitude of it's populace though .
I note that people like the NSS and BHA think the secularist program has not gone far enough and have shown they are more than capable of conjuring up ''an age old wrong'' that ''only more secularism'' can solve.

[Shaker]

I think that's closer to the truth in some of these places than you would like to admit.

Which ones out of

France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand

exactly?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that's closer to the truth in some of these places than you would like to admit.

Which ones out of

France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand

exactly?

Well there is the impending exodus of Jews from France and not just because of extreme islamists, then there is the discomfort of Muslims in the Netherlands and Australia in fact even today there is an article on some of the Australian PM's statements in the Guardian.....As I say Secularism cannot guarantee it's supposed self appointed role to defend religion while wanting it's elimination.....And as I also say the best it can do is to be vigilant against it's own excessive and sweeping generalisations.

[Shaker]

Once you realise this then the slogan freedom of religion and freedom from religion looks like what it is, contradictory with freedom from religion only possible through suppression and some kind of apartheid.

If, as per Jeremy Bentham, there's nonsense on stilts, this is bullshit with wings. Freedom of religion entails that people are free to adhere to whatever religious belief system they choose (within certain limits, although those limits are notably looser than would obtain in a non-religious context: for example, the slaughtering of animals and the genital mutilation of infants). Freedom from religion ensures that other people who do not share those beliefs are not compelled to abide by whatever strictures they impose.

Where you are coming from, The notional secular state is the equivalent of a theocracy.

This is incoherent and doesn't even attempt to make sense in any variety of normal English.

[Shaker]

Well there is the impending exodus of Jews from France and not just because of extreme islamists

Source?

then there is the discomfort of Muslims in the Netherlands and Australia in fact even today there is an article on some of the Australian PM's statements in the Guardian

So when I asked for an example of in which country religious believers can fear "a boot against the door," your response is the supposed "discomfort" of some Muslims?

You are actually taking the piss now, aren't you?

[Nearly Sane]

On Jewish people leaving France, these amongst others



http://www.aish.com/jw/s/Jews-Leaving-France.html?mobile=yes


http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Poll-Three-out-of-four-French-Jews-mull-leaving-France-352779
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/10/jews-france-leaving_n_6448418.html

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well there is the impending exodus of Jews from France and not just because of extreme islamists

Source?

then there is the discomfort of Muslims in the Netherlands and Australia in fact even today there is an article on some of the Australian PM's statements in the Guardian

So when I asked for an example of in which country religious believers can fear "a boot against the door," your response is the supposed "discomfort" of some Muslims?

You are actually taking the piss now, aren't you?

BBC News, Guardian, Irish News, Newsweek, Jerusalem Post.

Whose taking the piss? Davey with his hyperbole about the boot at the door.
So he thinks everything is fair in secularism and only a problem when the boot goes in?
Despicable but are you taking that to task? are you fuck!

Your attitude to this stinks. You have failed to be vigilant about your own excessive secular fundamentalism.....and THAT is the problem religionists have with secularism.

[Shaker]

BBC News, Guardian, Irish News, Newsweek, Jerusalem Post.

Can you be rather more specific? (In fact, a lot more specific rather than merely listing the first news outlets that leapt into your head).

Whose taking the piss?

You are (or perhaps I should say 'yours').

Davey with his hyperbole about the boot at the door.

This is the hyperbole with which you agreed when you said: "... I think that's ["a boot against the door"] closer to the truth in some of these places than you would like to admit."

So he thinks everything is fair in secularism and only a problem when the boot goes in?
Despicable but are you taking that to task? are you fuck!

I'm not taking it to task because he was, quite rightly, taking the piss out of your histrionic wibble. I agree with him fully.

Your attitude to this stinks. You have failed to be vigilant about your own excessive secular fundamentalism

Which is what, exactly? Saying rude things about religion?

.....and THAT is the problem religionists have with secularism.

They should concentrate on their bigger problem - understanding what it actually means.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

BBC News, Guardian, Irish News, Newsweek, Jerusalem Post.

Can you be rather more specific? (In fact, a lot more specific rather than merely listing the first news outlets that leapt into your head).

I think i'll leave the information there and you appearing wilfully ignorant over it.

 Besides in your wrath you have ignored the references supplied on the pending exodus by Nearly Sane.

[ippy]

Am I allowed to have disdain for rudeness, Ippy?

You're always swearing I haven't complained about that although I'm none to keen on it.

ippy

[Rhiannon]

Am I allowed to have disdain for rudeness, Ippy?

You're always swearing I haven't complained about that although I'm none to keen on it.

ippy

How on earth does that justify using ordinary words to mock and wound somebody?

[ProfessorDavey]

These secular states though can't guarantee the attitude of it's populace though .

But they might be able to. If you enshrine privilege and discrimination on the basis of religion or lack thereof within your constitution (i.e. a non secular state) you haven't got a hope of achieving fairness and equality and both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Your attitude is a bit like saying because some of the populace are racist (or sexist) then a state should even bother to enshrine equality on the basis of race (or gender) but should specifically ensure some racial groups (or gender) are given special status and special privilege.

Sure secularism doesn't necessarily achieve complete fairness and equality in practice, but it does embed it in law and aspire to achieve this in principle. A non secular state doesn't even bother to set itself up to achieve fairness and equality in principle, let alone in practice.

[Harrowby Hall]

Oh yes of course you are right.

I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...

France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc

Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.

I have mentioned before that I own property in France.

In the commune where my house is situated there are three churches. In secular France with its secular constitution these churches are all owned by the commune. They are maintained and cherished and are a source of pride to the commune.

In addition, they are available to be used for religious purposes. The church in my village is used for Catholic masses and for Anglican holy communion services.

An excellent example of how a secular state thrusts the jackboot of secularism into the throat and solar plexus of religion.

[ProfessorDavey]

Whose taking the piss? Davey with his hyperbole about the boot at the door.
So he thinks everything is fair in secularism and only a problem when the boot goes in?
Despicable but are you taking that to task? are you fuck!

Your attitude to this stinks. You have failed to be vigilant about your own excessive secular fundamentalism.....and THAT is the problem religionists have with secularism.

Who started the hyperbole? Oh yes that would be you with the following:

'contradictory with freedom from religion only possible through suppression and some kind of apartheid.

Where you are coming from, The notional secular state is the equivalent of a theocracy.
Your view is therefore sentimental since it assumes the slogan will happen automatically and that secularists are somehow automatically virtuous when in reality, like religion, Secularism must be constantly vigilant....against it's own dark potential.'

My comment about boots at the door was a sarcastic repost to your self evidently dumb hyperbole about the supposed link between secularism and 'apartheid', 'equivalent to theocracy', 'suppression' and 'dark potential'.

A quick look at secular countries reveal no such link. We could of course take a quick look at some theocracies (which in Vlad's fantasy world are equivalent to secular states) and check out their commitment to freedom of religion and freedom from religion, for example:

Saudi Arabia
Iran
Afghanistan
Pakistan
etc

And of course the developing state that ISIS are trying to create.

Complete freedom of religion and freedom from religion by the populace in those countries - hmm of no that's wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh yes of course you are right.

I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...

France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc

Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.

I have mentioned before that I own property in France.

In the commune where my house is situated there are three churches. In secular France with its secular constitution these churches are all owned by the commune. They are maintained and cherished and are a source of pride to the commune.

In addition, they are available to be used for religious purposes. The church in my village is used for Catholic masses and for Anglican holy communion services.

An excellent example of how a secular state thrusts the jackboot of secularism into the throat and solar plexus of religion.

Indeed - this is what Vlad seems to be unable to understand.

That secularism doesn't mean religion is banned, nor that religion isn't valued. It means that religion (or a particular religion) and people adhering to religion (or a particular region) are not favoured in the context of laws and the state, over another religion (or no religion) and people adhering to another religion (or no religion).

In a secular world people are treated fairly and equally under the law regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

[ippy]

Am I allowed to have disdain for rudeness, Ippy?

You're always swearing I haven't complained about that although I'm none to keen on it.

ippy

How on earth does that justify using ordinary words to mock and wound somebody?

I'm sure this is a discussion forum, isn't it?

Like a lot of people that hold unsupportable ideas if the veracity of an idea can't be established why should anyone spend time discussing it and as with any unsupportable idea it's bound to be the victim of various kinds of derision from time to time, I'm sure that you and I've heard a saying something about heat and kitchens.

We all get some stick from time to time on here as far as I'm concerned it's peoples ideas that are under attack not the person, I detest the ideas some of the contributers have as they probably detest mine, but thats discussion forums.

Although there are contested views here I'm sure 99% of the people that have these differing views are mostly decent people as I'm sure you are and I'm sorry if you find my view offensive but I can't help it those are my views and they wont be changing unless some evidence is found that would bury my own point of view in such a way that it's me that has to change or look stupid.

ippy 

 

[ProfessorDavey]

Secularism is in no position to guarantee anything. It cannot guarantee that it will champion supporting religion in any sense.
Like religion, it can only come to some kind of compromise and to keep watching itself for signs of it's own potential excesses.

Once you realise this then the slogan freedom of religion and freedom from religion looks like what it is, contradictory with freedom from religion only possible through suppression and some kind of apartheid.

Where you are coming from, The notional secular state is the equivalent of a theocracy.
Your view is therefore sentimental since it assumes the slogan will happen automatically and that secularists are somehow automatically virtuous when in reality, like religion, Secularism must be constantly vigilant....against it's own dark potential.

Oh yes of course you are right.

I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...

France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc

Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.

I think that's closer to the truth in some of these places than you would like to admit.

Really !?!?

I can think of many countries which genuinely restrict religious freedoms, but most (not all) aren't secular but theocracies.

These secular states though can't guarantee the attitude of it's populace though .
I note that people like the NSS and BHA think the secularist program has not gone far enough and have shown they are more than capable of conjuring up ''an age old wrong'' that ''only more secularism'' can solve.

Well if old Vlad won't believe me directly, perhaps he will believe the highly respected Pew Research Center which has conducted extensive research looking at restrictions to religious freedom in pretty well every country in the world. They have looked at both Government restrictions on freedom of religion, and also social hostilities (a measure of the hostility of the populous to people with certain beliefs).

Check out the figure here:

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/12/17/religious-restrictions-in-the-50-most-populous-countries/

This is of the most populous countries in the world - those in the bottom left have the greatest religious freedom (low government restrictions and low social hostility), those toward the top right, the least religious freedom (high government restrictions and high social hostility). So what do we find when we look at the extremes and check whether they are secular or not.

Well of the 21 countries in the bottom left 4 blocks (i.e. those with the most religious freedom) all but 3 (UK, Thailand and Argentina) are secular.

Of the 16 countries in the top right 4 blocks (i.e. those with the least religious freedom) just 3 (Russia, India and Turkey) are secular.

So not much evidence there that not being secular protects religious freedom and plenty of evidence that a secular state is far more likely to result in greater religious freedom (both in terms low low levels of government restrictions and social hostility).

Job done - Vlad proven wrong (yet again).

[Shaker]

Secularism has been explained so clearly, so well and so often by now (especially by the Prof.) that the sole reason for Vlad's continued misunderstanding of the concept is that it's the only thing that allows him to continue to think of it as Stalinist anti-theistic repression.

[Nearly Sane]

Secularism has been explained so clearly, so well and so often by now (especially by the Prof.) that the sole reason for Vlad's continued misunderstanding of the concept is that it's the only thing that allows him to continue to think of it as Stalinist anti-theistic repression.

Says the prime proponent of the jackbootery of philosophical materialism, ready to imprint Dawkins across every forehead (or some such)

[Shaker]

Well, yeah, but apart from that ...

[Rhiannon]

Am I allowed to have disdain for rudeness, Ippy?

You're always swearing I haven't complained about that although I'm none to keen on it.

ippy

How on earth does that justify using ordinary words to mock and wound somebody?

I'm sure this is a discussion forum, isn't it?

Like a lot of people that hold unsupportable ideas if the veracity of an idea can't be established why should anyone spend time discussing it and as with any unsupportable idea it's bound to be the victim of various kinds of derision from time to time, I'm sure that you and I've heard a saying something about heat and kitchens.

We all get some stick from time to time on here as far as I'm concerned it's peoples ideas that are under attack not the person, I detest the ideas some of the contributers have as they probably detest mine, but thats discussion forums.

Although there are contested views here I'm sure 99% of the people that have these differing views are mostly decent people as I'm sure you are and I'm sorry if you find my view offensive but I can't help it those are my views and they wont be changing unless some evidence is found that would bury my own point of view in such a way that it's me that has to change or look stupid.

ippy 

 

Ippy, your views aren't offensive - in fact I think the only logical positions are to accept all belief is rubbish or all belief is possible. And nothing you say keeps me awake at night - believe me, if you are open as a pagan you have to expect derision ('kit off in woods whoar you all think you're Harry Potter') along with frightened ignorance ('Satan worshippers' 'time of baal' etc etc.)

You are free to express your disdain in whatever way you wish, but rudeness isn't debate or discussion and making assumptions about what people do and believe rather than asking or listening doesn't help either.

But I am sure you are a decent sort also and I always welcome your DIY advice. 

[ippy]

Secularism has been explained so clearly, so well and so often by now (especially by the Prof.) that the sole reason for Vlad's continued misunderstanding of the concept is that it's the only thing that allows him to continue to think of it as Stalinist anti-theistic repression.

Says the prime proponent of the jackbootery of philosophical materialism, ready to imprint Dawkins across every forehead (or some such)

I take it from your answer that you want the religious to continue having privileges instead of us all being as equal as can be.

As per the OP title: "What is the problem religionists have with secularism"? which part of secularism is it N S that you are having difficulty understanding?

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Secularism has been explained so clearly, so well and so often by now (especially by the Prof.) that the sole reason for Vlad's continued misunderstanding of the concept is that it's the only thing that allows him to continue to think of it as Stalinist anti-theistic repression.

Says the prime proponent of the jackbootery of philosophical materialism, ready to imprint Dawkins across every forehead (or some such)

I take it from your answer that you want the religious to continue having privileges instead of us all being as equal as can be.

As per the OP title: "What is the problem religionists have with secularism"? which part of secularism is it N S that you are having difficulty understanding?

ippy

It would seem that my impersonation of Vlad is convincing.