Secularism Vs Your religious duty

Stabshauptmann

Would it be fair to say that many people who advocate the secular state and institutions only do so because the religion/beliefs being pushed arent their own - or they dont believe them sincerly.

I mean, if I saw someone pouring oil into their water tank at a petrol station I'd tell them, its not my job but I couldnt stand by and let them wreck their car.
So if you ferverently believed someone was going to hell but simple things could save their eternal soul, wouldnt you be negligent and even selfish/lazy not to help?

*Arguements expressed may not neccessarily be the opinion of the poster

stevenmu

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Would it be fair to say that many people who advocate the secular state and institutions only do so because the religion/beliefs being pushed arent their own - or they dont believe them sincerly.

I guess it's fair to say many people do view it like that. I think many others though, myself included, look at it from a more libertarian point of view, i.e. that it's not right to impose your own beliefs on others. To use your analogy, I'd certainly warn someone putting oil in their petrol tank, but I wouldn't try to prevent them doing it if they insisted on it. It's their car, as long as they don't try to put oil in my tank too, they can do whatever the hell they want with it.

hairyheretic

As of yet, no religious belief has been proven. No one has come back to say "Yes, this is the way." To claim your beliefs are right and someone else's (or every other belief) wrong is arrogance of the highest order.

Believe whatever you choose to, but remember that they are your beliefs ... not everyones.

Zillah

It is a very tricky question to answer. Especially so without sounding arrogant and condescending. So I'll just be straight forward and come what may.

I am Agnostic (leaning Atheistic). I believe this is the most logical position one can come to. I believe this is the result of an extremely intelligent and balanced form of thinking. I also believe that secular state is important, because it prevents any of the other biased religions imposing their view on people of other religions, or on the unreligious.

I also believe that one must lack such an intelligent and balanced form of thinking to be any way dedicated to a particular religion. So the question of "But what if you had a religion, and therefore felt a religious duty?" doesn't matter. The result would be that I would be a more biased and irrational person, so the point is moot.

monkeyfudge

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I mean, if I saw someone pouring oil into their water tank at a petrol station I'd tell them, its not my job but I couldnt stand by and let them wreck their car.
So if you ferverently believed someone was going to hell but simple things could save their eternal soul, wouldnt you be negligent and even selfish/lazy not to help?

But pouring oil into the water tank is a bad thing, and that's a fact. Trying to impose your views about religion on people is completely different as it is merely your opinion and can't be backed up by any facts.

stevenmu

monkeyfudge wrote:

But pouring oil into the water tank is a bad thing, and that's a fact. Trying to impose your views about religion on people is completely different as it is merely your opinion and can't be backed up by any facts.

To many people their beliefs are as strong a fact as oil in the water tank being bad. The ultimate example being abortion. Many people believe for religious reasons that abortion is plain murder, and it's largely because of Catholicism that abortion is illegal in Ireland.

Stabshauptmann

monkeyfudge wrote:

But pouring oil into the water tank is a bad thing, and that's a fact. Trying to impose your views about religion on people is completely different as it is merely your opinion and can't be backed up by any facts.

I think you dont understand the people you are disagreeing with. stevenmu took the words right out of my mouth, its not an opinion to that person, to them it is as real as the nose on my face.

Zillah wrote:

It is a very tricky question to answer. Especially so without sounding arrogant and condescending. So I'll just be straight forward and come what may.

I am Agnostic (leaning Atheistic). I believe this is the most logical position one can come to. I believe this is the result of an extremely intelligent and balanced form of thinking. I also believe that secular state is important, because it prevents any of the other biased religions imposing their view on people of other religions, or on the unreligious.

I also believe that one must lack such an intelligent and balanced form of thinking to be any way dedicated to a particular religion. So the question of "But what if you had a religion, and therefore felt a religious duty?" doesn't matter. The result would be that I would be a more biased and irrational person, so the point is moot.

A few things strike me about that post.
1)You believe your own belief to be right, absolutly so, and everyone else has somesort of mental retardation for not agreeing with you.
Besides that being arrogant etc. surely its a little hypocritical?

2)Your opposition to an establismentarianist state is based mainly on the religious imposing their view on other religions and the unreligious. In a democracy the majority will always impose their will on the minority, but you cant impose your opinion very easily. I would have thought a better reason to hold a secularist view would have been unbiased education, state institutions, equality of opportunities, democratic deficits etc etc

Your post confirms my belief that (at least the majority of) those advocating the secular do so merely because its not their belief being promoted by the state.

3)I dont think the point becomes moot. People of strong faith from many denominations exist, and I think they should have the right to persue that faith. An element of that faith often includes or manifests itself in saving society from themselves. At what point does that right infringe on other peoples rights?

I like what stevenmu said, "I wouldn't try to prevent them doing it if they insisted on it. It's their car, as long as they don't try to put oil in my tank too, they can do whatever the hell they want with it."

seamus

Many religions aren't as evangelical or righteous as Jehovah's Witnesses or Islam. Plenty of religions (most notably Buddhism) teach tolerance and acceptance of other religions. So pushing for a secular state isn't necessarily hypocritical.

Zillah

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

A few things strike me about that post.
1)You believe your own belief to be right, absolutly so, and everyone else has somesort of mental retardation for not agreeing with you.
Besides that being arrogant etc. surely its a little hypocritical?

My position is somewhat unique when compared to religion. Mine is scientifically and logicaly viable. The same cannot be said of religions advocating super natural elements.

2)Your opposition to an establismentarianist state is based mainly on the religious imposing their view on other religions and the unreligious. In a democracy the majority will always impose their will on the minority, but you cant impose your opinion very easily. I would have thought a better reason to hold a secularist view would have been unbiased education, state institutions, equality of opportunities, democratic deficits etc etc

I don't see how they're mutually exclusive, as you seem to be applying.

Your post confirms my belief that (at least the majority of) those advocating the secular do so merely because its not their belief being promoted by the state.

Thats not a fair conclusion. Like I said, the secular position is unqiue in its intellectual viability.

3)I dont think the point becomes moot. People of strong faith from many denominations exist, and I think they should have the right to persue that faith. An element of that faith often includes or manifests itself in saving society from themselves. At what point does that right infringe on other peoples rights?

Yes, the point is moot, and nothing you just said had anything to do with the point I was making. Reread my other post, I believe it was relatively clear. Im not saying the question of the rights of the religious is moot, im saying the question of "but what if you did have religious beliefs" is moot.

stevenmu

Zillah wrote:

My position is somewhat unique when compared to religion. Mine is scientifically and logicaly viable. The same cannot be said of religions advocating super natural elements.

So absence of proof constitutes proof of absence ?

There's currently an interesting and relevant thread on AH about Jehovah's Witnesses and the medical issues that go along with that faith. Essentially parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses will refuse to allow their children recieve certain medical treatments, such as blood transfusions, even if their lives depend upon it. To the parents involved, this is more or less sacrificing their childs physical body to save their soul (which if one believes in such things is obviously the right choice to make).

To atheists, agnostics and many people of other faiths this must seem like something akin to child abuse. Science and logic doesn't accept the existence of the soul, or of any God who demands that the child not recieve the treatment they need, therefore the child is being let die for no good reason. Anyone with any morality (and I'm not the kind of person who thinks you need religion to be moral) would have to think that is wrong and try to put a stop to it.

But, in this case the position of science and logic is just as unviable as the position of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Athiests/agnostics can't prove that the parents are not saving the childs immortal soul by refusing treatment any more than the parents can prove that they are.

I think this demostrates the basis for secularism, it's not about who is 'right' or who's reasoning and logic is better, it's about accepting that there is a sibjective 'right' which may differ from individual to individual, and accepting that we can not impose our version of right and wrong on others

seamus wrote:

Many religions aren't as evangelical or righteous as Jehovah's Witnesses or Islam. Plenty of religions (most notably Buddhism) teach tolerance and acceptance of other religions. So pushing for a secular state isn't necessarily hypocritical.

Tolerance and acceptance are very important parts of other religions too, certainly Christianity, and I'm pretty sure too, unfortunatly too many people seem to ignore that.

Zillah

stevenmu wrote:

So absence of proof constitutes proof of absence ?

No, I said I was Agnostic.

I think this demostrates the basis for secularism, it's not about who is 'right' or who's reasoning and logic is better, it's about accepting that there is a sibjective 'right' which may differ from individual to individual, and accepting that we can not impose our version of right and wrong on others

If they can prove that their child will be harmed by a blood transfusion then fine. If they can't then it should be given no more respect than any other baseless assumption. Religion shouldn't get special treatment.

Tolerance and acceptance are very important parts of other religions too, certainly Christianity, and I'm pretty sure too, unfortunatly too many people seem to ignore that.

Tolerance and acceptance are all well and good up to the point where someone will allow their child to die needlessly based on a single line in a religious book that may well be primarily fiction in the first place.

I think this demostrates the basis for secularism, it's not about who is 'right' or who's reasoning and logic is better

With respect, I disagree. It is about who is right and wrong. Science can prove that giving a blood transfusion will save that child's life, it can also prove that for every identifiable purpose, it will cause him no harm. The parent's point of view holds no such evidence, and should be made secondary to the life of the child.