Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Secularism & The Gospel

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    IRLConor wrote: »
    The consensus of the populace, ideally. (Which changes, unlike religious rules which tend not to change. IMHO this is a major weakness of religious law.)

    Your statement above seems to be based on an oft-repeated notion that morals/ethics are derived from god/religion alone. The logical implication of this is that there can never be a moral atheist, no?

    In practice, I believe that it's a good thing for atheists/agnostics to study the moral and ethical codes of religions because there is a lot to learn from them. At the very least, it allows one to work through the laundry list of moral/ethical scenarios presented in religious literature/holy books and make up one's own mind.

    One problem here is that the consensus of the populace may still be totally wrong. An example of this would be the ban on capital punishment in the UK. If the tabloid newspapera are to be believed (a big 'if' admittedly) the majority of Britons would prefer a return of the death penalty - yet lawmakers recognise such a step would be wrong.

    I think a secular state is just as capable as a religious state as recognising that absolute standards of right and wrong exist. Racial discrimination, for example, is wrong - even if the majority of the populace harbour racist tendencies. As IRLConor points out, most secularists are prepared to adopt moral principles that are derived from religious sources.

    Speaking from a historical perspective, I don't think religious States have done any better than secular States in determining what is good and evil - often the religious ones have been worse. A religious State inevitable discriminates in favour of one form of religion, and that is bad both for religion and for society. I do not want to live in a society that is controlled by one religion, not even (in fact especially not) my own.


  • Options
    #33
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    IRLConor wrote: »
    "One Nation Under God"?

    "In God We Trust"?

    Both of those statements are promulgated by the state.

    Both those statements were added (to paper currency and to the pledge of allegience) in the 1950s during the hight of the "red scare", and have been ruled unconstitutional a good few times, being left in due simply to loop holes (such as Newdow trial).

    Unfortunately those who challenge this federal endorsement of religion are met with (sometime violent) hostilities from Christains who believe that America is a Christian country and the government should reflect this.

    Constitutionalists have been rather inventive in how they protest this unconstitutional matter

    180px-Igwtcontro.jpg
    IRLConor wrote: »
    The country is secular by law but not by practice.

    Certainly not by practice for a lot of them.

    It is a rather fascinating fact about America, the number of red white and blue blooded patriotic American loving citizens who actually despise one of Americans most fundamental founding principles and who would remove the secular protection tomorrow if they had their way.


  • Options
    #34
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    PDN wrote: »
    One problem here is that the consensus of the populace may still be totally wrong.

    Indeed, you are very correct here. However, I don't believe that the consensus of the populace is any more or less likely to be wrong than any religion. The difference unfortunately is that wrong decisions made by religions tend to be immutable.
    PDN wrote: »
    I think a secular state is just as capable as a religious state as recognising that absolute standards of right and wrong exist. Racial discrimination, for example, is wrong - even if the majority of the populace harbour racist tendencies.

    Many things, like racial discrimination don't even have to be decided on moral grounds. Racial discrimination can be easily prohibited on the grounds that it is both objectively unfair and it leads to public disorder.

    You are correct that for other things that are harder to objectively decide on, an absolute standard of right and wrong can be helpful and secular governments are well capable of developing them.


Advertisement