Secularism = Political Atheism

[Altai]

I think that secularism is the adapted version of atheism to the state laws and therefore its a dictatorship. Because in secular governments, religious persons are forced to comply with secular laws. 


Secularism = Political Atheism


What do you think ? 

[Guest]

In any government, the people are forced to comply with the laws.  The laws should have no basis in religion. 

[kimmy]

Secularism is more like political agnosticism.

We have many religious groups in our country, which is why no religious group is allowed to impose overtly religious rules upon others.

No politician is prohibited from participating in their own religious beliefs. They are prohibited from using law to impose religious beliefs upon others. This is done to protect religious minorities from being compelled to violate their beliefs.

 -k

[H10]

There is no such thing as no religion, a religion is a system of beliefs, even athiesm is therefore by definition a religion.

[DogOnPorch]

Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power.

Atheism: Not that.

[Ash74]

Running a state on an ancient concept is not a way for a state to be run.

Look at Saudia Arabia, treating women as a lesser life forms. 

The Catholic Church is against birth control in a world that is over populated.

The American bible belt that discriminates gays,Muslims, jews and just about everything else that is not white. Looking at these few examples are exactly why church and state must be separated. It was one of the best concepts ever for creating a government.

[bush_cheney2004]

28 minutes ago, Ash74 said:

...The American bible belt that discriminates gays,Muslims, jews and just about everything else that is not white. Looking at these few examples are exactly why church and state must be separated. It was one of the best concepts ever for creating a government.

 

The Canadian government discriminated against Gays for well over 100 years in policies and law, regardless of religious discrimination.   Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms has the following preamble:   "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law"

Separation of church and state was not created by government...the concept evolved over time.

[Omni]

The concept was coined by a fellow named Thomas Jefferson and is featured in various articles of the constitution. I'd say it was created by government, at least in the legal sense.

[Benz]

6 hours ago, Altai said:

I think that secularism is the adapted version of atheism to the state laws and therefore its a dictatorship. Because in secular governments, religious persons are forced to comply with secular laws. 


Secularism = Political Atheism


What do you think ? 

Kimmy gave you a good answer. I will just add the following.

Secularism is more comparable to agnostic than atheism. Because the atheists beleive it is impossible that a god could exist. While the agnostics say that it is possible that god(s) could exist but, the existence of a god is irrelevent. The atheists deny the possibility of a god. The agnostics do not deny the possibility.

You can find secularism in countries where religions are very presents and actives. There are muslim countries practicing secularism. I think your country is, or was one of them. Tunesia too? I do not remember for sure.

The need for secularism is to allow a clear separation of the state and the religion. It is important for a country having different religions on its soil. Even for a country with one single religion but, with various interpretations or different level of appliance in the practices.

I will give you a fictive example. Imagine a country with two different fictive religions, Abism and Baism. When a couple separate, the Abists believe, the man should win all the patrimony for itself. The Baists believe the opposite, the woman should get all of it. This is obviously two opposite values that are not near to get resolved. So in a secular society, the justice (as long as it is not manipulated by one or the other religions) and the politics would probably end up with the conclusion that it is easier and more fair to separate fifty-fifty between the two members of the couple. None of the two religions would be pleased but, both would have equal share and it is an accepting compromise. The advantage of secularism, is to have rules that are not dictated by the religions and are more objectives to reach out a solution. The atheists has nothing to do with it. You can have a secular government and justice and still have not a single atheist in that country.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Benz

[msj]

3 hours ago, hernanday said:

There is no such thing as no religion, a religion is a system of beliefs, even athiesm is therefore by definition a religion.

This is a false equivalency. 

Atheism only requires the non-belief in a god/gods.  

There is no prescribed dogma, no messiah, no systems of belief to not believe in any god/gods. 

If you happen to think the probability of a God/gods is unlikely then you are, effectively, an atheist.  That's it. 

The advantage of our politics being free of religion is that not only does this allow people to practice their religion privately, at least to the extent that it does not conflict with secular law, but it allows public policy to be based on evidence and rationale rather than the dominant demographic's religious beliefs which, at times in the past and in many modern day theocracies, can lead to oppressive policies - Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc being examples of various degrees of oppression. 

 

[msj]

9 minutes ago, Benz said:

 

Secularism is more comparable to agnostic than atheism. Because the atheists beleive it is impossible that a god could exist. While the agnostics say that it is possible that god(s) could exist but, the existence of a god is irrelevent. The atheists do not want you to beleive in your god, the agnostics do not care what god you believe in.

 

False.

To the extent that religious people keep their crazy beliefs out of public policy then I have no problem with people believing whatever stupid belief system they want. 

I have no desire to convert people to accepting one less god than they currently do. 

But I will fight like hell with the religious zealots who will not allow gays to marry, or do not want women to have a choice, or won't allow people to eat shellfish because some stupid book tells them this is morally righteous. 

 

 

[Benz]

3 minutes ago, msj said:

False.

To the extent that religious people keep their crazy beliefs out of public policy then I have no problem with people believing whatever stupid belief system they want. 

I have no desire to convert people to accepting one less god than they currently do. 

But I will fight like hell with the religious zealots who will not allow gays to marry, or do not want women to have a choice, or won't allow people to eat shellfish because some stupid book tells them this is morally righteous. 

 

 

Indeed, that last sentence was wrong and I changed it.

But hernanday is right. The Atheist believe there cannot be such thing as a god. They believe it can't exist. Unlike the agnostics who beleive there could be one, although there are no proof that one exist, because there are also no proof that it can't exist.

That is why the atheism is considered as a belief, even if it does not have a religious system, nor specific practices like the other religions.

[msj]

To believe something as unlikely, or improbable, is a belief, sure. 

That does not make it a religion.  

There are no hoards of atheists going to atheist church. 

Sure, in general, atheists usually are going to agree on certain political beliefs but to claim that we are somehow organised to the extent that religious institutions are, with all their tax benefits/breaks,  is a ridiculous claim. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

The concept was coined by a fellow named Thomas Jefferson and is featured in various articles of the constitution. I'd say it was created by government, at least in the legal sense.

 

The concept was not part of the U.S. Constitution or Union, which included colonies/states with their own government religions (e.g. Connecticut).   It wasn't until after 1800 that U.S. courts and law ruled/codifed such separation.

Canada's government was still protecting specific religions as a matter of law well after 1867...several provinces still have funded religious preferences.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The concept was not part of the U.S. Constitution or Union, which included colonies/states with their own government religions (e.g. Connecticut).   It wasn't until after 1800 that U.S. courts and law ruled/codifed such separation.

Canada's government was still protecting specific religions as a matter of law well after 1867...several provinces still have funded religious preferences.

Still not mentioned in our Constitution, we rely on the Supreme Court, but we achieve the same effect.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada's government has several official references to "God" (e.g. national anthem).   Canada's monarch is the "Defender of the Faith".

[Omni]

We have references that nobody really cares much about, but we also don't acquiesce. We really don't even have a "bible belt".

[Goddess]

Secularism DOES NOT equal Atheism, no matter how much religious extremists want it to be or how many times they claim it is, such as in the title of this thread.  They are not synonyms, just because Altai says so.

Secularists believe strongly in separation of church and state, freedom of religion and freedom from religion.  Which of course, religious extremists are fearful of.

You can be a secularist and not be an atheist.

 

 

Quote

 

Atheism –

• a disbelief in the existence of deity

Secularism –

• the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society

 

 

 

To say they are the same word is either ignorance or intentional deception.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, hernanday said:

There is no such thing as no religion, a religion is a system of beliefs, even athiesm is therefore by definition a religion.

I disagree   Just as not believing in Fairies, the Loch Ness Monster, or Santa Claus is not a system of beliefs, not believing in God is not one either.

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, hernanday said:

There is no such thing as no religion, a religion is a system of beliefs, even athiesm is therefore by definition a religion.

A religion is not just a system of beliefs.  That's what an ideology is.

[Moonlight Graham]

21 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Secularism DOES NOT equal Atheism, no matter how much religious extremists want it to be or how many times they claim it is, such as in the title of this thread.  They are not synonyms, just because Altai says so.

Secularists believe strongly in separation of church and state, freedom of religion and freedom from religion.  Which of course, religious extremists are fearful of.

You can be a secularist and not be an atheist.

To say they are the same word is either ignorance or intentional deception.

Exactly.

[Goddess]

9 hours ago, Altai said:

Because in secular governments, religious persons are forced to comply with secular laws. 

Because in secular religious governments, religious persons atheists are forced to comply with secular religious laws. 

Does this still sound fair to you, in the reverse?

[-1=e^ipi]

3 hours ago, Benz said:

Because the atheists beleive it is impossible that a god could exist.

Incorrect. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. One can be an agnostic atheist, for example.

[Omni]

15 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Incorrect. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. One can be an agnostic atheist, for example.

Atheism is about what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about what you don't know. There's a difference.

[H10]

7 hours ago, msj said:

This is a false equivalency. 

Atheism only requires the non-belief in a god/gods.  

There is no prescribed dogma, no messiah, no systems of belief to not believe in any god/gods. 

If you happen to think the probability of a God/gods is unlikely then you are, effectively, an atheist.  That's it. 

The advantage of our politics being free of religion is that not only does this allow people to practice their religion privately, at least to the extent that it does not conflict with secular law, but it allows public policy to be based on evidence and rationale rather than the dominant demographic's religious beliefs which, at times in the past and in many modern day theocracies, can lead to oppressive policies - Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc being examples of various degrees of oppression. 

 

Who says a religion requires belief in a god or "prescribed dogma"?  That is not the definition of a religion.  A religion is a system of beliefs, that is it.  There are other religions beside athiesm which do not recognize a god.  Our poitics is not free of religion, even athiest have beliefs, they have religion.  Some people even worship money, sex, drugs, materialism, they make those their false gods, their religion.  And you are fooling yourself if you think religions without organized temples do not contradict secular law, there are plenty of materialistic leaders who rob their nations blind and break all kinds of laws ie donald trump.

Ironically you did not even bother to research the countries you named, Turkey is a secular state. Has been secular since the Ottoman empire days and it was probably one o the first european nation to embrace multicultural modern secularism.