A nasty case of secular overreach

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://news.sky.com/story/dalai-lama-says-his-successor-to-be-born-outside-china-13326231

But Beijing does not agree.

[Stranger]

Yet again Vlad shows that he doesn't know what secularism means....

[Maeght]

https://news.sky.com/story/dalai-lama-says-his-successor-to-be-born-outside-china-13326231

But Beijing does not agree.

China isn't a secular country.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

China isn't a secular country.

The it's a religious country???
It's a secular authority, a non religious authority, pronouncing on a supernatural event in a weird attempt at secularisation.

Doesn't only happen in China.
Secularists have made pronouncements on what constitutes the Holy in the UK as well as good and bad holiness.

[Outrider]

The it's a religious country???

Who said that?

It's a secular authority, a non religious authority,

Those are two different things, only one of which applies to China.

pronouncing on a supernatural event in a weird attempt at secularisation.

China is not a secular authority - you can be secular and religious, you can be non-religious and not be secular, they are not two opposite ends of a spectrum.

Doesn't only happen in China.

Doesn't even happen in China, as it turns out.

Secularists have made pronouncements on what constitutes the Holy in the UK as well as good and bad holiness.

And? Why shouldn't, say, a secularist priest have an opinion on what constitutes 'Holy'?

O.

[Maeght]

The it's a religious country???
It's a secular authority, a non religious authority, pronouncing on a supernatural event in a weird attempt at secularisation.

Doesn't only happen in China.
Secularists have made pronouncements on what constitutes the Holy in the UK as well as good and bad holiness.

It isn't a secular authority it is an irreligious one which is officially an atheist state.

Which secularists have made pronouncements on what constitutes the Holy in the UK? Remembering that a secularist is 'someone who believes that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country: Secularists condemn Christian influence in the public sphere.' (Cambridge dictionary).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who said that?

Those are two different things, only one of which applies to China.

China is not a secular authority - you can be secular and religious, you can be non-religious and not be secular, they are not two opposite ends of a spectrum.

Doesn't even happen in China, as it turns out.

And? Why shouldn't, say, a secularist priest have an opinion on what constitutes 'Holy'?

O.

I don't know whether your definition of the term secular is standard or the peculiar Religionethics concensus definition.

MPs have expressed a desire to make rulings on what constitutes holy matrimony and who can have one or perform one and thus have sought to define holiness.

Although, as far as I know, they haven't gone as far as ruling where the next major miracle will be.

I think the ruling on silent prayer is still contentious.

[jeremyp]

I don't know whether your definition of the term secular is standard or the peculiar Religionethics concensus definition.

MPs have expressed a desire to make rulings on what constitutes holy matrimony and who can have one or perform one and thus have sought to define holiness.

Have they? Did they succeed?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have they? Did they succeed?

Not really, secular authorities trying to rule on the spiritual and miraculous, while trying to remain secular is laughable in my opinion.

[Outrider]

I don't know whether your definition of the term secular is standard or the peculiar Religionethics concensus definition.

The standard definition of secular, which is to say the belief that the state should not be advocating for or against positions on a religious basis. China is in no way a secular state, they firmly believe that ALL areas of life within China are under the control of central political authority.

MPs have expressed a desire to make rulings on what constitutes holy matrimony and who can have one or perform one and thus have sought to define holiness.

Have they? I'm aware that they've passed legislation on marriage, as it's a CIVIC function, and they've carved out what they believe is an historically sensitive warding around religious marriage to keep that part of the same process without fully exposing them to all the same egalitarian expectations, but I'm not aware that the state has suggested it has something to say on what is or is not 'holy', or even if that means anything at all.

I think the ruling on silent prayer is still contentious.

Do you? Do you think religion is being singled out, or do you think that religious speech is just being treated as all speech in that situation - an entirely secular approach, which doesn't treat religious sentiment as anything more or less than anything else?

O.

[jeremyp]

Not really, secular authorities trying to rule on the spiritual and miraculous, while trying to remain secular is laughable in my opinion.

By an unfortunate accident of history, the Church of England is subject to the government, which attempts to be secular. In practical terms, I think the government succeeds mostly in avoiding too much meddling in CofE affairs but that doesn't mean there aren't issues every now and then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The standard definition of secular, which is to say the belief that the state should not be advocating for or against positions on a religious basis. China is in no way a secular state, they firmly believe that ALL areas of life within China are under the control of central political authority.

Have they? I'm aware that they've passed legislation on marriage, as it's a CIVIC function, and they've carved out what they believe is an historically sensitive warding around religious marriage to keep that part of the same process without fully exposing them to all the same egalitarian expectations, but I'm not aware that the state has suggested it has something to say on what is or is not 'holy', or even if that means anything at all.

Do you? Do you think religion is being singled out, or do you think that religious speech is just being treated as all speech in that situation - an entirely secular approach, which doesn't treat religious sentiment as anything more or less than anything else?

O.

I’m not against civic weddings and the signing of registers at Religious weddings but the idea of someone like yourself wearing a peaked cap with council on it pushing the vicar and God out the way and taking charge, I find most hilarious. But not for the reasons you might.

[jeremyp]

... pushing the vicar and God out the way ...

Your god seems remarkably easy to push around.

[Outrider]

I’m not against civic weddings and the signing of registers at Religious weddings but the idea of someone like yourself wearing a peaked cap with council on it pushing the vicar and God out the way and taking charge, I find most hilarious. But not for the reasons you might.

Given how far in advance of the birth of Christianity, or even it's Judaism predecessor, pair-bonding rituals and ceremonies are in human history, it's a bit rich for you describe it as the state muscling in  on religion rather than the other way around.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your god seems remarkably easy to push around.

Yesterday he's a cosmic tyrant, today he's a pushover
Make your minds up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given how far in advance of the birth of Christianity, or even it's Judaism predecessor, pair-bonding rituals and ceremonies are in human history, it's a bit rich for you describe it as the state muscling in  on religion rather than the other way around.

O.

As far as I know there is no state older than christianity

[Outrider]

As far as I know there is no state older than christianity

Today's Christianities, though, are not the original Christianity, either, and I'm reasonably confident that the early marriages are probably over and done with by now, too. What's your point, that because modern Greece isn't an absolute 100% direct successor to ancient Greece the history of the concept is invalidated?

Marriage, as a concept, predates Christianity. States formalising such arrangements predates Christianity. It's therefore readily apparent that Christianity has no proprietary claim over the notion, and if anything has been butting into this - and other - state business for an awfully long time. If only there was a philosophy about separating religious notions from the legal statutes and the operation of government....

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Today's Christianities, though, are not the original Christianity, either, and I'm reasonably confident that the early marriages are probably over and done with by now, too. What's your point, that because modern Greece isn't an absolute 100% direct successor to ancient Greece the history of the concept is invalidated?

Marriage, as a concept, predates Christianity. States formalising such arrangements predates Christianity. It's therefore readily apparent that Christianity has no proprietary claim over the notion, and if anything has been butting into this - and other - state business for an awfully long time. If only there was a philosophy about separating religious notions from the legal statutes and the operation of government....

O.

Of course marriage predates Christianity and that is why I now claim no position of judgment over anybody else's marriage. I can't say whose marriage God approves of though since I am not God.

That's probably not good enough for you though. I suppose you want people's approval rather than a live and let live attitude.

[Gordon]

I think the ruling on silent prayer is still contentious.

What ruling?

[jeremyp]

Yesterday he's a cosmic tyrant, today he's a pushover
Make your minds up.

Ι don't have to. I don't believe your god is real, so I can embrace the contradictions in it without cognitive dissonance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ι don't have to. I don't believe your god is real, so I can embrace the contradictions in it without cognitive dissonance.

What “I can talk any contradictory nonsense I like because I’m an atheist”?

Let me remind you that your motivation for suggesting God is both a tyrant and a bit too easy going is to convince me.

[Outrider]

Of course marriage predates Christianity and that is why I now claim no position of judgment over anybody else's marriage. I can't say whose marriage God approves of though since I am not God.

Perhaps, then, I misunderstood what you were going for when you talked about the state butting in to the Church's business.

That's probably not good enough for you though. I suppose you want people's approval rather than a live and let live attitude.

I think a 'live and let live' attitude is a fine stance. I'd be happier if people could be genuinely accepting of human variety, and I'm always curious to see who Christians either revel in or attempt to justify the homophobia of the Bible, but that's an idle curiosity - what we need is more religious believers (and other homophobes, I guess) who take that 'it's not for me, but knock yourself out' look at the situation.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think a 'live and let live' attitude is a fine stance. I'd be happier if people could be genuinely accepting of human variety,

Do you mean that bit about loving your enemy?

[jeremyp]

What “I can talk any contradictory nonsense I like because I’m an atheist”?

No. The contradictory nonsense that you talk doesn't bother me because I don't think your god exists.

Let me remind you that your motivation for suggesting God is both a tyrant and a bit too easy going is to convince me.

I've never said God is tyrant. I don't think God exists, so how can it be a tyrant? What I do say is that the god that Christians claim loves us, is portrayed s a tyrant in some of your most important literature.

Again, it doesn't bother me - I'm certain your god doesn't exist. However, it clearly bothers Christians because whole industries that support thousands of theologists and apologists have grown up to try and resolve the incoherency.

[jeremyp]

Do you mean that bit about loving your enemy?

Human variety is not your enemy, despite the efforts of right wing popularism's to convince you otherwise.