Secularism & The Gospel

PDN

I have recently been reading an article by Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and Public Life at Boston College. Wolfe deals with the relationship between secularism and religion.

Twenty years ago sociologists used to argue that increasing secularism would see a steady decline in religious belief and practice. However, religiosity has actually increased since then - causing many sociologists to ditch the secularisation thesis. However, Wolfe argues that increased secularisation goes hand in hand with increased religious belief and practice. In other words, a secular society and fervent religious belief are friends, not enemies.

Wolfe's point, one I agree with, is that religious monopolies (such as State-sponsored churches) actually throttle religious practice, especially as countries become wealthier. However, in a religious 'free market' there is more adaptation and diversification. Therefore smaller religious movements can, through the religious equivalent of 'niche marketing', grow more readily. Such varieties of religion actually allow for more fervent belief in society.

So, where does this leave us in Ireland, with Bertie's railing against aggresive secularism? For those who want a religious monopoly with everyone adhering to one form of religion, secularism is obviously bad news. However, for many of us who belong to religious minorities, secularism is good news. A Pentecostal Church, for example, has more freedom and opportunity in a secular society than in one dominated by Catholicism.

IRLConor

It's partially for the reasoning above that I typically argue that good* states must be secular.

Any endorsement or support, however oblique, of a religion by a state immediately disadvantages all other religions and those with no religion. It's important for governments to avoid playing favourites and it is very difficult for a state to plausibly guarantee religious freedom when it supports one religion above another. The best protector against religious persecution is a neutral, impartial, third party.

I believe that a fully secular Irish state would actually benefit the Catholic Church. If the RCC fully disentangled itself from the organs of the state** it would be in a better position to criticise the state when it saw fit. The state would be in a better position to interact with other religions without it affecting the Catholic Church. Other religions could both lobby the state for their interests and openly debate with the Catholic Church on matters of religion without fear of unfair treatment from the state.

Of course, secularism is a difficult thing to achieve. There are a few points at which it has trouble:

• Religious concepts which have become embedded in law. Marriage is the obvious one here. Its religious roots (certainly here in Ireland) are opposed to many things (homosexual marriage, divorce) which would arguably exist if the state was 100% secular from day 1.
• Strict secularism can be insulting to some. Headscarf bans in other countries and the Sikh man who wished to wear his turban in the Garda Reserve are well known examples of this friction.
• The definition of where the state boundaries are for the purposes of secularism can be tricky to define. For example: are pupils in state schools part of the state?
• Can the state pass laws which limit the freedom of one or more religions on the grounds of public safety and still be considered secular?

* my definition.
** let's assume for the moment that this wouldn't cause problems in the education system.

BrianCalgary

Unfortunately it is impossible to have a neutral state. The secular one you are describing is a state that believes in no god, it therefore is an atheist state. So the atheists would derive benefit.

How would you deal with that?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Unfortunately it is impossible to have a neutral state. The secular one you are describing is a state that believes in no god, it therefore is an atheist state. So the atheists would derive benefit.

How would you deal with that?

I'm not following your objection. What do you mean "a state that believes in no god" ... isn't that the very definition of a secular state, a state that does not accept any one religion over any other.

If the State picked a god to official support (believe in) then it wouldn't be secular, it would be a state of that religion.

I'm also not following how you say that atheists would derive benefit from a secular state that didn't endorse one religion over any other. What benefits do you mean? Surely an atheist in such a State would get exactly the same benefits as everyone else, where as if the State decided to officially support one religion, or one set of religions, then the members of that religion would get official support and others wouldn't.

PDN

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Unfortunately it is impossible to have a neutral state. The secular one you are describing is a state that believes in no god, it therefore is an atheist state. So the atheists would derive benefit.

How would you deal with that?

It is not the place of the State to believe in God. A modern cosmopolitan nation includes people who believe in a multitude of Gods and religions, and those who believe in none at all. A truly neutral state will give everyone freedom to practice his or her religion and will give the atheist the freedom to practice no religion. Then everyone derives benefit.

Pompey Magnus

May I hazard a guess that this is the article you read? If so might I just say bravo and ask if you're name is Alistair Campbell because how you managed to spin that article into a positive news story for religion was almost a work of art as to me it paints a pretty bleak picture for Christianity.

In it Alan Wolfe correlates states with low religiousity as having higher GDP and claims that in the battle between secularism and religion, secularism is winning and religion is being forced to adapt itself to a new world, it is not a case of secularism and religion progressing hand in hand, secularism is by far the dominant force and religion either has to keep up with it or else get left behind. He says that thanks to secularism religion has been weakened in its role of a disruptive elements in society. He says secularism's "most basic tenet—that material progress will slowly erode religious fervor—appears unassailable." He claims that in the most prosperous nations on Earth, God is either dead or has a very faint pulse. He predicts that increasing prosperity in Eastern Europe will see a similar decline in religion, as is already being seen in Poland. In South America religiousity is declining as secularism is progressing, Chile is one of the regions most properous nations and has an openly agnostic single mother as President, Mexico City, the worlds 2nd largest Catholic city, has legalised early term abortions.

"Fifty years ago, Spain and Ireland were two of the most religious countries in Europe; now they are among the least. Not long ago, Spain was governed by a fascist dictator in close collaboration with the Catholic Church; now it allows both gay marriage and adoption by gay couples, making it as liberal as Massachusetts. Ireland once gave us, in the form of James Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, one of the most chilling depictions of damnation in world literature; these days, Dublin’s churches are emptying out, and the few parishioners are apt to be Polish immigrants, most of whom presumably came to Ireland to nourish their bank accounts, not their souls."

Wolfe points out that the one major blip in the trend in the USA which is both religious and wealthy, however even at this Wolfe does not give religion an easy ride, he describes American faith as shallow with little knowledge of the history of their religion or even their Bibles, he explains that even the religious right in America is being forced to adapt to a more secular frame of mind, he says also that non belief in beginning to take off even in America, with the atheist/agnostic population doubling in just 11 years to 15% in 2001.

Yes Wolfe does show that religious minorities such as the Evangelical movement will do well in the coming future but I feel that it is a massive leap to eqaute this article as being in any way a good sign for Christianity as a whole.

IRLConor

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Unfortunately it is impossible to have a neutral state. The secular one you are describing is a state that believes in no god, it therefore is an atheist state.

I don't see it that way. Theists, atheists and agnostics all have a position on the existence of god(s). A secular state has no position on the existence of god(s) so hence it doesn't quite fit into the boxes above.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So the atheists would derive benefit.

How would you deal with that?

I don't think someone saying "There is no god" would derive much benefit from a state that says "Well, that's nice but I don't care".

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

May I hazard a guess that this is the article you read? If so might I just say bravo and ask if you're name is Alistair Campbell because how you managed to spin that article into a positive news story for religion was almost a work of art as to me it paints a pretty bleak picture for Christianity.

In it Alan Wolfe correlates states with low religiousity as having higher GDP and claims that in the battle between secularism and religion, secularism is winning and religion is being forced to adapt itself to a new world, it is not a case of secularism and religion progressing hand in hand, secularism is by far the dominant force and religion either has to keep up with it or else get left behind. He says that thanks to secularism religion has been weakened in its role of a disruptive elements in society. He says secularism's "most basic tenet—that material progress will slowly erode religious fervor—appears unassailable." He claims that in the most prosperous nations on Earth, God is either dead or has a very faint pulse. He predicts that increasing prosperity in Eastern Europe will see a similar decline in religion, as is already being seen in Poland. In South America religiousity is declining as secularism is progressing, Chile is one of the regions most properous nations and has an openly agnostic single mother as President, Mexico City, the worlds 2nd largest Catholic city, has legalised early term abortions.

"Fifty years ago, Spain and Ireland were two of the most religious countries in Europe; now they are among the least. Not long ago, Spain was governed by a fascist dictator in close collaboration with the Catholic Church; now it allows both gay marriage and adoption by gay couples, making it as liberal as Massachusetts. Ireland once gave us, in the form of James Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, one of the most chilling depictions of damnation in world literature; these days, Dublin’s churches are emptying out, and the few parishioners are apt to be Polish immigrants, most of whom presumably came to Ireland to nourish their bank accounts, not their souls."

Wolfe points out that the one major blip in the trend in the USA which is both religious and wealthy, however even at this Wolfe does not give religion an easy ride, he describes American faith as shallow with little knowledge of the history of their religion or even their Bibles, he explains that even the religious right in America is being forced to adapt to a more secular frame of mind, he says also that non belief in beginning to take off even in America, with the atheist/agnostic population doubling in just 11 years to 15% in 2001.

Yes Wolfe does show that religious minorities such as the Evangelical movement will do well in the coming future but I feel that it is a massive leap to eqaute this article as being in any way a good sign for Christianity as a whole.

That is indeed the article I was reading. Thank you for the link to it.

You appear to be assuming that what is 'good for Christianity' amounts to having the largest number of professed adherents. That is most certainly not my view.

I believe it is tremendously healthy for Christianity to have a lower number of adherents, but for them to be those who have thought through what they believe and are practising it out of personal conviction rather than by unthinking adherence to tradition or, much worse, by State coercion.

I certainly do not see the decline of Franco's or De Valera's versions of Catholic culture as painting a bleak picture for Christianity. Also, I would view the erosion of other religious monopolies in the Southern USA Bible Belt or in the Middle East as positive developments for Christianity and for religion in general.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

You appear to be assuming that what is 'good for Christianity' amounts to having the largest number of professed adherents. That is most certainly not my view.

That is fair enough but this is not what your original post implied. As I read it you seem to be saying that as a society becomes more secular its population in turn becomes more religious. I could not understand how this could be possible so I was intrigued to read the article where I found that this is the exact opposite of the argument Wolfe was making.

Similarly you said "In other words, a secular society and fervent religious belief are friends, not enemies" which again is exactly not what the article states. Wolfe showed that "fervent" belief actually fares very badly in secular societies and instead wishy-washy beliefs prosper (I assume this fits in with the dreadful rise of the "healing crytal" culture and its ilk over here).

Also I would be interested if you could expand on your claim that it would be better for Christianity if it had less people but that those who remained be more devout. From an atheist perspective I would have a similar opinion as yourself for "our side" and I would not suggest for people to become atheists unthinkingly or just because it is easy, but at least the atheist side has the luxury of believing that no eternal harm will come to people if they don't become atheist. The Christian side does not have this luxury and to suggest that Christianity as a whole would be better with a small, devout flock seems to me to imply either that you are worried that people who are unthinkingly Christian may be wasting their time as it will not be enough to save them or else that you would be willing to drop some dead weight to improve the chances of the few.

Do you believe that people who are Christian because of "unthinking adherence to tradition" might be at risk of damnation because they do not know their faith better? If not then how do you justify your belief that a smaller elite Christian flock is any way preferable than what you have today? Surely if you believed that the unthinking believer still goes to Heaven then you should far prefer an absolutely massive church full of people like this instead of a small church full of experts.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Wolfe showed that "fervent" belief actually fares very badly in secular societies and instead wishy-washy beliefs prosper (I assume this fits in with the dreadful rise of the "healing crytal" culture and its ilk over here).

No, I don't think that is what Wolfe is saying. He is arguing that fanatical or intolerant forms of religion fare badly in secular culture. That is something that should encourage us all to embrace secularism in society. Also, he argues that secularisation decreases religiosity where a monopoly or State religion exists, but that where a free market situation pertains then religiosity actually increases.

The most important religious phenomenon in the United States, however, has nothing to do with the number of atheists. It concerns another trend that, like modernization, is changing the trajectories of religion worldwide: the creation and spread of a free religious marketplace, which partly (though by no means completely) revives religious devotion wherever it reaches, but also tends to moderate the religions offered within it.

Religious monopolies or near-monopolies, such as state-sponsored churches, generally throttle religious practice over time, especially as a country becomes wealthier; the European experience amply demonstrates this. Lacking any incentive to innovate, churches atrophy, and their congregations dwindle. But places with a free religious marketplace witness something very different: entrepreneurs of the spirit compete to save souls, honing their messages and modulating many of their beliefs so as to appeal to the consumer. With more options to choose from, more consumers find something they like, and the ranks of the religious grow.

Depeche Mode wrote:

Do you believe that people who are Christian because of "unthinking adherence to tradition" might be at risk of damnation because they do not know their faith better? If not then how do you justify your belief that a smaller elite Christian flock is any way preferable than what you have today? Surely if you believed that the unthinking believer still goes to Heaven then you should far prefer an absolutely massive church full of people like this instead of a small church full of experts.

I believe there is more to religion than salvation and damnation.

However, I do believe that a cultural Christendom increases the risk of people being damned. You get murderers, Crusaders, bigots, those who oppress the poor etc who believe that they are OK spiritually because they were born in a Christian country and were subjected to a meaningless ritual when they were babies.

It is not a case of wanting a small church full of 'experts'. I would prefer a smaller church full of people who genuinely love Jesus Christ and have made an uncoerced choice to follow Him, who care for the poor and fight against injustice, who turn the other cheek when assaulted etc.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not following your objection. What do you mean "a state that believes in no god" ... isn't that the very definition of a secular state, a state that does not accept any one religion over any other.

If the State picked a god to official support (believe in) then it wouldn't be secular, it would be a state of that religion.

I'm also not following how you say that atheists would derive benefit from a secular state that didn't endorse one religion over any other. What benefits do you mean? Surely an atheist in such a State would get exactly the same benefits as everyone else, where as if the State decided to officially support one religion, or one set of religions, then the members of that religion would get official support and others wouldn't.

A secular atate believs in no God. It is therefore an Atheist state. The Atheist would therefore gain advantages as much as you claim that the Protestant would gain advantages in a protestant state.

Whereas Canada would have been defined as a protestant Christian state yet we allow all faiths here to worship as they please. Yet sinse the Canadian state became more secular we see laws that remove refernce to God and practices that outlaw reference to God, by the state, thereby making teh Atheist the benefactor and feeling quite comfortable at the expense of Christians in particular.

So a neutral secular state becomes impossible as its stande is no longer neutral but atheist as it declares there is no god.

IRLConor

BrianCalgary wrote: »

A secular atate believs in no God. It is therefore an Atheist state. The Atheist would therefore gain advantages as much as you claim that the Protestant would gain advantages in a protestant state.

I believe there's a subtle (yet important) difference between an atheist state and a secular state.

Atheist state: A state that believes that there is no god.
Secular state: A state that has no position on religion and treats all religions (and lack thereof) equally.

An atheist could in theory gain advantage in an atheist state (if the state deliberately favoured atheists over theists) but an atheist could not gain favour in a secular state on grounds of religion (or lack of) because it wouldn't be a recognised reason for doing so.

I would not be in favour of an atheist state as it has all the same problems as a religious one.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Whereas Canada would have been defined as a protestant Christian state yet we allow all faiths here to worship as they please. Yet sinse the Canadian state became more secular we see laws that remove refernce to God and practices that outlaw reference to God, by the state, thereby making teh Atheist the benefactor and feeling quite comfortable at the expense of Christians in particular.

How does the removal of references to god by the state materially affect Christians? They are still welcome to worship as they please, so it cannot be argued that it infringes on their religious rights. If they feel that the state is no longer "on their side" well then frankly that's a good thing because the state shouldn't be on anyones "side".

The removal of religion from the state is less of a benefit to atheists (and those who do not believe in the state religion) and more of a removal of an unfair prejudice against them.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

A secular atate believs in no God. It is therefore an Atheist state.

Well no, if you want to call it anything it is an agnostic state.

The State isn't saying that there is no god or gods (or in a more general sense, supernatural belief), the State is saying that it isn't going to official support any of them, or proclaim that any of them are more valid than any other.

But I fail to see how agnostics benefit from this more than theists or atheists.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Whereas Canada would have been defined as a protestant Christian state yet we allow all faiths here to worship as they please.

How would it be defined as a protestant Christian state?

Can you give me an example of how the State officially supports Christianity?

And can you appreciate how others would feel about their State officially supporting a religion they do not believe in?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Yet sinse the Canadian state became more secular we see laws that remove refernce to God and practices that outlaw reference to God, by the state, thereby making teh Atheist the benefactor

Again how is the atheist the benefactor?

Do any of these laws state that there is no such thing as God or gods?

Or do they merely remove any official endorsement of any one particular God in favour of leaving the decision up to people at a personal level?

and feeling quite comfortable at the expense of Christians in particular.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So a neutral secular state becomes impossible as its stande is no longer neutral but atheist as it declares there is no god.

I would be very interested to see any official document from any secular state that has ever declared there is no such things as God or gods

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Yet sinse the Canadian state became more secular we see laws that remove refernce to God and practices that outlaw reference to God, by the state, thereby making teh Atheist the benefactor and feeling quite comfortable at the expense of Christians in particular.

Do I understand you right that you think that christians are more offended than islamics, hindus and jews?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no, if you want to call it anything it is an agnostic state.

Not if it states that there is no god, that makes it atheist.

Wicknight wrote: »

The State isn't saying that there is no god or gods (or in a more general sense, supernatural belief), the State is saying that it isn't going to official support any of them, or proclaim that any of them are more valid than any other.

Noone asked for official support of any faith. I'm just saying that a state can not be neutral on religion nor can any person.

Wicknight wrote: »

But I fail to see how agnostics benefit from this more than theists or atheists.

As I fail to see how a Christian benefits from living in a Christian state that allows freedom of worship of any religion. Canada was nicely set up in that manner.

Wicknight wrote: »

How would it be defined as a protestant Christian state?

As thegovernment and teh country itself was set up along the ideals and viepoint of white anglo saxon protestants.

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you give me an example of how the State officially supports Christianity?

Whihch state, because I never said that teh Canadian government officially supported Christianity. Canada operated on the WASP view and ideals, which openly allowed other peoples and religions to enter Canada and to worship in their own way and to maintain their cultures.

Wicknight wrote: »

And can you appreciate how others would feel about their State officially supporting a religion they do not believe in??

Not as long as they have the freedom to worship in their own way or to not worship as they see fit, but to respect the historical and cultural atitudes of teh majority. So if a country is majority Christian then it would be a Christian country living under the ideals and view of Christianity. If that is the case of the majority then an atheist would just have to accept it , wouldn't they?

Wicknight wrote: »

Again how is the atheist the benefactor? ?

I have no idea, you guys are so against a Christian state because you are saying that Christians benefit to the harm of non-Christians. I fail tosee how that happens?

Wicknight wrote: »

Do any of these laws state that there is no such thing as God or gods? ?

In which country? Lets get on the same page here, because I dont think we are.

Wicknight wrote: »

Or do they merely remove any official endorsement of any one particular God in favour of leaving the decision up to people at a personal level?

and feeling quite comfortable at the expense of Christians in particular.??

And again which country are you speaking of?

Wicknight wrote: »

I would be very interested to see any official document from any secular state that has ever declared there is no such things as God or gods

I believe it happend in China and the Soviet Union.

BrianCalgary

IRLConor wrote: »

I believe there's a subtle (yet important) difference between an atheist state and a secular state.

Atheist state: A state that believes that there is no god.
Secular state: A state that has no position on religion and treats all religions (and lack thereof) equally.

An atheist could in theory gain advantage in an atheist state (if the state deliberately favoured atheists over theists) but an atheist could not gain favour in a secular state on grounds of religion (or lack of) because it wouldn't be a recognised reason for doing so.

I would not be in favour of an atheist state as it has all the same problems as a religious one.



How does the removal of references to god by the state materially affect Christians? They are still welcome to worship as they please, so it cannot be argued that it infringes on their religious rights. If they feel that the state is no longer "on their side" well then frankly that's a good thing because the state shouldn't be on anyones "side".

The removal of religion from the state is less of a benefit to atheists (and those who do not believe in the state religion) and more of a removal of an unfair prejudice against them.

Thanks for the good response.

However in a Christian state such as Canada where is the prejudice against Atheists ever occured?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Do I understand you right that you think that christians are more offended than islamics, hindus and jews?

Canada was built on WASP principles and views, which includes the God of Christianity. So Him being removed woouldnt affect muslims, hindus and Jews.

The underlying theme I see here is that atheists and agnostices have been somewhat hard dome by in teh Western world and states that recognise tha Christian God as supreme.

How has that happened?

Popinjay

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Canada was built on WASP principles and views, which includes the God of Christianity. So Him being removed woouldnt affect muslims, hindus and Jews.

Bit him being included could well affect them. So the removal would effect them, only in a good way by removing any state position that somehow the Christian god is superior to the hindu, muslim or otherwise God. You clearly believe he is but your state and the way it is governed should not have any position on the matter whatsoever. Obviously the politicians can have their own beliefs but individual belief is not the issue in this.

BrianCalgary

Popinjay wrote: »

Bit him being included could well affect them. So the removal would effect them, only in a good way by removing any state position that somehow the Christian god is superior to the hindu, muslim or otherwise God. You clearly believe he is but your state and the way it is governed should not have any position on the matter whatsoever. Obviously the politicians can have their own beliefs but individual belief is not the issue in this.

So show me how God being included negatively affected non-Christians?

Popinjay

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So show me how God being included negatively affected non-Christians?

Did I make a definitive statement. The words 'could well' were used. I'm not very well up on the Canadian constitution but I'll give it a read when I'm over in July if I remember (feel free to PM a reminder - it'll save me having to pack reading material) and maybe I'll be back either with an example or an apology.

However, the granting of special position to any one religion provides the scope for a whole range of relgious discrimination to occur. If the state has no position then we're ok. Ref: The special place of the Catholic Church in the role of education provider in Ireland. Anyone wishing to enroll their child in a secular schools needs firstly a fair wad of cash and also to put the babies name down almost at conception if not sooner. If that's not negative consequences for a lot of people based on relgious beliefs then I'll be a monkeys third-cousin once removed on my mother's side.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Canada was built on WASP principles and views,

'WAS' - yes, 'P' - no, but that's another discussion.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

which includes the God of Christianity. So Him being removed woouldnt affect muslims, hindus and Jews.

The jewish deity is the same as the christian one, while the muslims regularly refer to Allah as 'god', it being the arabic word for 'god', so it seems reasonable that they'd should feel the same irritation that you do. Hindus possibly more irritation still, since an absence of reference to any deity would deny the existence of the hindu pantheon, rather than the single deity of the other religions.

And even if all that's wrong and the gods being referred to are different ones, shouldn't the other religions rightly feel oppressed, since the christian deity is preferred over their deities?

You can't have it both ways -- you're either offending one group or all the other ones by either including or excluding specific deities.

The fairest solution is to simply say nothing about any gods, and guarantee religious freedom, isn't it?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Not if it states that there is no god, that makes it atheist.

A government that states there is no God is not secularist.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Noone asked for official support of any faith.

That is what a non-secular state is.

For example, the Constitution of Canada appears to officially support the Abrahmic religions through its preamble

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law"

This has lead to some Muslims in Canada proclaiming that various Islamic systems of law should be included in the Canadian legal system (for Muslims) as this would fit within the purpose of the Constitution, to provide a legal system based on the supremacy of God (to Muslims all rule of law comes from God)

http://muslim-canada.org/aposno9.htm

You then of course have the issue of why the Abrahamic religions?

The phrase "Can open, worms everywhere", springs to mind.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

As I fail to see how a Christian benefits from living in a Christian state that allows freedom of worship of any religion. Canada was nicely set up in that manner.

Well it depends on how secular a country is. Canada is very secular, but the inclusion of "God" in the constitution still causes issues in how to interpret the constitution.

See that is the problem. These things aren't just pieces of paper. They trickle down to effect law and how people are supposed to interpret the constitution.

You also have the issue that for many Canadians the system of law they live under is officially derived from a religion they don't believe in, which may not bother you because you are Christian, but it does bother others who take things like the constitution seriously.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Not as long as they have the freedom to worship in their own way or to not worship as they see fit, but to respect the historical and cultural atitudes of teh majority.

Well that is nonsense Brian because we aren't talking about "cultural attitudes" we are talking about law.

The constitution of a country is a legal document, some would argue the most important legal document, to which all other laws are derived.

For example many Christian groups in Canada pushed for "God" to be included in the 1982 Constitution in an effort to strengthen the case for a constitutional outlawing of abortion (which didn't work in the end).

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So if a country is majority Christian then it would be a Christian country living under the ideals and view of Christianity.

Well that is the point, the Constitution effects everyone, not just the majority.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I believe it happend in China and the Soviet Union.

Which is a very very good reason why countries should be secular.

If an atheist State declares, say in their Constitution, that there is no god, then forming a legal basis for say funding a religious hospital as part of the national health service becomes rather difficult.

Such hospitals could be declared unconstitutional and therefore illegal to be funded.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

The fairest solution is to simply say nothing about any gods, and guarantee religious freedom, isn't it?

1) In an ideal situation but that doesnt reflect reality. So as someone who does not believe in a god of any type we get to teh question who decides what is good and evil?

2) I have difficulty in understanding how a muslim or Hindu on leaving their messy countires built on a worldview and legal system derived from their culture and religious belief system, would come to Canada which is based on teh WASP system and be offended that our legal system would recognize the Christian God?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

A government that states there is no God is not secularist.


That is what a non-secular state is.

For example, the Constitution of Canada appears to officially support the Abrahmic religions through its preamble

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law"

This has lead to some Muslims in Canada proclaiming that various Islamic systems of law should be included in the Canadian legal system (for Muslims) as this would fit within the purpose of the Constitution, to provide a legal system based on the supremacy of God (to Muslims all rule of law comes from God)

http://muslim-canada.org/aposno9.htm

You then of course have the issue of why the Abrahamic religions? .

Hence the necessity to look at the meaning of teh word God at the time of writing and its cultural basis. Initially in 1867 the term God referred to teh Christian God. WHen the constitution was repatriated the meaning shoul dhave remained the same based on historical and common meaning of teh word.

With regard to the muslims who wish to operate under Shari'a law in Ontario, how can a country run under two legal systems?

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it depends on how secular a country is. Canada is very secular, but the inclusion of "God" in the constitution still causes issues in how to interpret the constitution.

See that is the problem. These things aren't just pieces of paper. They trickle down to effect law and how people are supposed to interpret the constitution.

You also have the issue that for many Canadians the system of law they live under is officially derived from a religion they don't believe in, which may not bother you because you are Christian, but it does bother others who take things like the constitution seriously.



Well that is nonsense Brian because we aren't talking about "cultural attitudes" we are talking about law. .

And that is pure nonsense because law and culture go hand in hand and are entwined.

Wicknight wrote: »

The constitution of a country is a legal document, some would argue the most important legal document, to which all other laws are derived.

For example many Christian groups in Canada pushed for "God" to be included in the 1982 Constitution in an effort to strengthen the case for a constitutional outlawing of abortion (which didn't work in the end).



Well that is the point, the Constitution effects everyone, not just the majority. .

Which is a very very good reason why countries should be secular.
The majority of Canadians believe in a God, with the majority the Christian God. So do we toss out the will of the majority to make the minority feel comfortable?

Wicknight wrote: »

If an atheist State declares, say in their Constitution, that there is no god, then forming a legal basis for say funding a religious hospital as part of the national health service becomes rather difficult.

Such hospitals could be declared unconstitutional and therefore illegal to be funded.

Under the current Canadian system, which you say is secular, the interpretation of the law found it to be unconstitutional for a Christian school to be funded because thesstate cant be found to be favouring one, yet the muslim school was funded?

Secularism, works?

So getting back to a question that you have all missed, show me where the atheist or secularist gets hurt under the laws of a Christian country?

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

2) I have difficulty in understanding how a muslim or Hindu on leaving their messy countires built on a worldview and legal system derived from their culture and religious belief system, would come to Canada which is based on teh WASP system and be offended that our legal system would recognize the Christian God?

Have you considered that there are muslims, jews and hindus who were born in Canada? How do you think they feel about it?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

1) In an ideal situation but that doesnt reflect reality.

What secular countries do mention god, and fail to guarantee individual religious freedom?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So as someone who does not believe in a god of any type we get to teh question who decides what is good and evil?

We decide that as a society -- the same way that you learned it as a child -- and implement laws based which (ideally) will bring society to where we would like it to be.

I can't speak for you, but I'd certainly run screaming from any society that had biblically-inspired rules. There are so many, but for pure evil, it's hard to beat that one from Deuteronomy 21, where parents are told to have their kids stoned to death if they are disobedient.

Do you ever stone your children? Or have you discarded that particular law?

More practically, what's a reasonable approach to, say, enacting laws which regulate the financial industry, where charging interest is not allowed, as Exodus, Leviticus and many other bits of the bible prohibit?

IRLConor

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Thanks for the good response.

You're welcome.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

However in a Christian state such as Canada where is the prejudice against Atheists ever occured?

I don't know about Canada in particular, so I can't discuss specific prejudices (or lack thereof) against atheists there.

How about an example: In a Christian state, open homosexuals might be prohibited from public office on the grounds that they are morally compromised. Depending on the flavour of Christianity this might be a perfectly "reasonable" attitude to take. An atheist homosexual with political ambitions would be rightly aggrieved at this as they would be suffering a disadvantage motivated by a religious belief that they themselves do not hold.

If a state merely makes superficial reference to god in a few places but otherwise acts exactly as a secular state then there is precisely no disadvantage to the Christian if those references are removed. If the state both refers to god and makes its laws according to the relevant Christian doctrine then making the state secular would certainly disadvantage Christians, but only by removing an unfair advantage they had over all the others.

IRLConor

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So as someone who does not believe in a god of any type we get to teh question who decides what is good and evil?

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.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Hence the necessity to look at the meaning of teh word God at the time of writing and its cultural basis.

Well it could also be argued that it is necessity to not include concepts like "God" in a legal constitution in the first place.

You get into a very slippery slope when you start trying to second guess what a constitution actually means. For you to say it is your god it is referring to, rather than anyone else's is a little short sighted. A Christian sees his god in the constitution, a Muslim sees his god. It gets more complicated when you get into splits in religion itself, a Catholic may thing his interpretation of God is more correct to a Protestant.

Given that the State isn't suppose to recognise any concept of god over any other it shouldn't be mentioned in the first place. Problem solved.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

With regard to the muslims who wish to operate under Shari'a law in Ontario, how can a country run under two legal systems?

That is a very good question, and a very good example of the issues that having religious sentiment for one religious group as a basis for law can cause.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And that is pure nonsense because law and culture go hand in hand and are entwined.

Countries can have different cultures and beliefs through out the population.

But as yourself seem to recognise, having different legal systems for everyone gets rather messy. The legal system should be uniform, and should treat everyone equally.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The majority of Canadians believe in a God, with the majority the Christian God. So do we toss out the will of the majority to make the minority feel comfortable?

When it comes to religion yes, because most modern states believe in personal freedom of belief and respect for an individuals religion.

You can't have that if you start basing things like the law on one specific religious group.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Under the current Canadian system, which you say is secular, the interpretation of the law found it to be unconstitutional for a Christian school to be funded because thesstate cant be found to be favouring one, yet the muslim school was funded?

Well, firstly I didn't say the Canadian system is secular, I said it is nearly secular, but your example clearly demonstrates that it isn't secular enough.

I must say though you seem quite good at coming up with your own examples of why secularism is necessary. Unless you are actually in favour of examples like the above?

Why should a Muslim school get more funding than any other school?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Secularism, works?

That example clearly isn't secularism, though it is a good example of why secularism is needed. If you start allowing the odd exception here, the odd exception there, you end up with situations like that. A situation like that wouldn't arise in a purely secular country like America, because it would be unconstitutional for the Muslim school to receive more funding than funding for any other religious group (you probably wouldn't be able to have public religious schools to begin with)

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So getting back to a question that you have all missed, show me where the atheist or secularist gets hurt under the laws of a Christian country?

Well you just provided a rather good example. Why is that Muslim school getting extra funding (in a Christian country)?

If I was an atheist parent sending my children to a different school that wasn't getting the funding this religious school is getting I would be pretty pissed off by that fact.

IRLConor

Wicknight wrote: »

a purely secular country like America

Surely you jest?

Zombrex

IRLConor wrote: »

Surely you jest?

Not at all.

I think people are getting a little confused between a religious country and a religious state.

The US of A, thanks to the enlightened views of its founding fathers, is a constitutionally protected secular state.

It is unconstitutional for the government of the country (or individual state) to enact any law or legislation that promotes one religious position over another, and the constitution grants every citizen the right to hold and practice any religious belief they wish and (some would say more importantly) to be free of any religious practice they don't wish.

This is commonly known as freedom of religion and freedom from religion

This of course clearly doesn't stop the USA from being a very religious country, so the argument that a secular state leads to an atheist country clearly doesn't stand up to well.

IRLConor

Wicknight wrote: »

Not at all.

I think people are getting a little confused between a religious country and a religious state.

The US of A, thanks to the enlightened views of its founding fathers, is a constitutionally protected secular state.

It is unconstitutional for the government of the country (or individual state) to enact any law or legislation that promotes one religious position over another, and the constitution grants every citizen the right to hold and practice any religious belief they wish and (some would say more importantly) to be free of any religious practice they don't wish.

This is commonly known as freedom of religion and freedom from religion

This of course clearly doesn't stop the USA from being a very religious country, so the argument that a secular state leads to an atheist country clearly doesn't stand up to well.

"One Nation Under God"?

"In God We Trust"?

Both of those statements are promulgated by the state.

The country is secular by law but not by practice.

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.

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

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.

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.