Secularism = Political Atheism

[Altai]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Religious people have all the same rights as anyone else, and have to obey the same laws as anyone else.

You are welcome to use the state schools, you are not welcome to change them to suit your unique desires.

Who creates these laws in a secular governed country ? Secular people creates, is not it ? Why religious people or any other non-secular people are forced to obey secular laws ?

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Altai

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Altai said:

Who creates these laws in a secular governed country ? Secular people creates, is not it ? Why religious people or any other non-secular people are forced to obey secular laws ?

The democratically elected representatives of the citizens create the laws. Everyone is subject to the same laws.

[Argus]

del

Edited January 13, 2017 by Argus

[Altai]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

The democratically elected representatives of the citizens create the laws. Everyone is subject to the same laws.

So statesmen who are given rights by people to represent them in state management. Okay. This is called "secularism" and "democracy" is not it. Its not dictating anything buy just the decision of the majority.

Now, what if people democratically elects religious statesmen and they create religious laws ? Non-religious people will have to obey religious rules, according to your ideology above.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Altai said:

Now, what if people democratically elects religious statesmen and they create religious laws ? Non-religious people will have to obey religious rules, according to your ideology above.

Many of the statesmen that created the laws are/were religious.

[Altai]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Many of the statesmen that created the laws are/were religious.

So you will obey religious laws, if its created by a democratically elected religious government, correct ?

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Altai said:

So you will obey religious laws, if its created by a democratically elected religious government, correct ?

Where did I say that?

I follow Canadian laws because we have developed a country that has a reasonable balance. There are many Canadian laws that I disagree with, and will try to get changed through the established democratic process.

[Altai]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Where did I say that?

I follow Canadian laws because we have developed a country that has a reasonable balance. There are many Canadian laws that I disagree with, and will try to get changed through the established democratic process.

Below, you meant that everyone is responsible from the same laws and everyone have to obey because its created by democratically elected representatives of citizens. You also meant that religious people are welcomed to use secular schools but they dont have right to make requests according to their interests.

All of these things means you will obey religious rules too if its created by a democratically elected government.

What happened ? Just a few posts ago you were defending democracy but now you oppose it just because it started to contradict with your interests ? 

 

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

The democratically elected representatives of the citizens create the laws. Everyone is subject to the same laws.

 

[?Impact]

10 minutes ago, Altai said:

Just a few posts ago you were defending democracy but now you oppose it just because it started to contradict with your interests ?

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.… - Winston Churchill

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 31, 2017 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 31, 2017 by cybercoma

[Ash74]

On January 9, 2017 at 9:09 AM, 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 ? 

So how should governments base their laws?

With so many different cultures and beliefs how should a country or government decide on how a society functions?

[drummindiver]

On Monday, January 09, 2017 at 11:05 PM, hernanday said:

Who says a religion requires belief in a god or "prescribed dogma"?  That is not the definition of a religion.  

Yes it is.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=atheism&biw=360&bih=560&prmd=niv&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3zOr5usDRAhVj1oMKHT4wBd8Q_AUIBSgA&dpr=3

I'm not sure why agnostism is included as synonym.  Atheist is 100% sure God does not exist. Agnostic cannot prove one way or the other but feel there probably isn't a God.

Secularism isn't even a synonym as it just means state without religion.

[kimmy]

2 hours ago, Altai said:

Below, you meant that everyone is responsible from the same laws and everyone have to obey because its created by democratically elected representatives of citizens. You also meant that religious people are welcomed to use secular schools but they dont have right to make requests according to their interests.

All of these things means you will obey religious rules too if its created by a democratically elected government.

What happened ? Just a few posts ago you were defending democracy but now you oppose it just because it started to contradict with your interests ?

In Canada (and the US, and many other countries) laws are only valid if they don't break the rules set out in the Constitution.  Many laws created by Christian politicians have been overturned over the years because they were found to violate the rights of non-Christians.

For example, in many parts of Canada there used to be laws that said that stores and shops have to be closed on Sunday. These laws were struck down because they were found to impose Christian practice on non-Christian Canadians.

 

Religious people have the same right to participate in politics as everyone else. And if they get elected to office they can certainly try to promote their values, whatever those might be.  However, the process of getting a law passed in the first place requires a lot of consensus.  And, once a law is passed, it can be overturned if it is against the rules of the Constitution.

If somebody wrote a law that required everyone to pray to Blalalo the Chicken God, it is very unlikely that this law would ever get approved in Parliament. If it somehow did get approved in Parliament, the Senate would reject it because they know it would never survive a court challenge. If it did somehow get approved in the Senate, no Crown Prosecutor would ever attempt to seek a conviction under that law, because they would know their case would be challenged and overturned by a higher court. If this law did somehow make it to a court of law, the law would be challenged and struck down because it violates the defendant's Constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Even if a politician wanted to, they couldn't make a law requiring everyone to pray, or requiring women to dress a certain way, or so on.

 -k

[H10]

7 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Yes it is.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=atheism&biw=360&bih=560&prmd=niv&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3zOr5usDRAhVj1oMKHT4wBd8Q_AUIBSgA&dpr=3

I'm not sure why agnostism is included as synonym.  Atheist is 100% sure God does not exist. Agnostic cannot prove one way or the other but feel there probably isn't a God.

Secularism isn't even a synonym as it just means state without religion.

no it isn't some religions don't have a god.

[msj]

15 hours ago, cybercoma said:

Religious people can and do create secular laws. Laws are given validity by interpretations of the constitution and charter of rights. The charter ensures that everyone in society has equal rights.

Which is not to say that conflicts do not arise from time to time. 

Majority of churches/synagogues/mosques will not marry gay people. 

Muslims like to segregate themselves within certain mosques, for example.  Allowed under our religious freedom, presumably. 

I have a thread in the gender section about women and Orthodox Jews on a plane showing another type of conflict thanks to the prejudicial insanity of religion. 

These conlficts are real, hopefully more annoying rather than truly harmful, and often inspired by the stupidity of religious beliefs - hence the need for the secular way of life. 

[-1=e^ipi]

17 hours ago, ?Impact said:

The democratically elected representatives of the citizens create the laws. Everyone is subject to the same laws.

I said the exact same thing and got blocked, lol.

[-1=e^ipi]

14 hours ago, drummindiver said:

 Atheist is 100% sure God does not exist.

Incorrect. Atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a god.

[Michael Hardner]

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

Incorrect. Atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a god.

We have had this discussion here umpteen times.  "lacks a belief in god" vs "believes in no god".  And does "no god" mean no spirit world, no polytheism etc. ?

I would be able to buy your definition if it weren't indistinguishable from agnosticism to me.

[-1=e^ipi]

An agnostic is someone who believes that they do not know a god/gods exists.

 

Atheism is a question of belief, agnosticism is a question of knowledge.

 

An agnostic atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god/gods but does not think they know if god/gods exists or not.

A gnostic atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god/gods and thinks they are sure that god/gods does not exist.

An agnostic theist is someone who beliefs in a god or gods, but does not think they know if god/gods exist or not.

[msj]

I think most people who would call themselves atheists would admit that there is an infinitesimally small chance of somekind of "god" or "power" out there that we don't understand.

But it is so unlikely, especially to be a personal god like in the Bible/Koran, that to waste time on such things is foolish, if not destructive (as history has shown).  

 

[drummindiver]

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

Incorrect. Atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a god.

Incorrect.

Atheist is 100% certain god does not exist.

There is no vascilating. Hitchens was an atheist.

An agnostic lacks certainy as there is no proof one way or the other. ...though their logic usually dictates their belief is no God. Dawkins is agnostic.

[drummindiver]

17 hours ago, ?Impact said:

The democratically elected representatives of the citizens create the laws. Everyone is subject to the same laws.

Demonstrably untrue. Ask any FN person or English entrepreneur in Quebec. In fact,  ask any person in Quebec.

[-1=e^ipi]

1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

Atheist is 100% certain god does not exist.

No, that's gnostic atheist. Agnostic Atheists also exist; I am one.

[drummindiver]

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

No, that's gnostic atheist. Agnostic Atheists also exist; I am one.

You're just playing an endless semantics game. For someone who doesn't like labels you're sure trying to put yoitself in one.