Is Secularism the best path for Christianity?

Twin-go

antiskeptic wrote: »

Non-sequitur. You've supported an position that Religion shouldn't have "any influence" in society by quoting the situation where Religion "wholly influences" the society. This is mixing your units.

Perhaps you could point to a success story on the wholly secular (atheistic) front? The obvious examples don't inspire much..

I'm not really mixing my units. Up until very recently Ireland was wholly influenced by the Roman Catholic church. All our schools and hospitals been run by religous orders. Look at the problems that caused.

In the UK it is mostly influenced by the Church of England. Look at the problems that caused in Nothern Ireland.

Isreal majority influenced by Judasim look at the problems there.

As far as I can see Religion causes more problems than is solves and I'm not just atacking the RC church its all religions.

Denerick

A secularist education system, as witnessed in the USA, leaves zero room for God - this doesnt mean God-neutral, it means God-negative.

But Christianity is thriving in America! It is the most zealous Christian nation of the west. This kind of dis-proves your point somewhat. In America, religion is thankfully not taught in the education system, but this is only because they don't know 'what' they should teach; America is too diverse both from within its various Christian sects and other groups (Such as Jews) to teach only one faith at school. So what, you could have a Catholic education system in Massachussets and a Jewish one in New York? How would it possibly work? The secular system is simply the best compromise in that example. And it also has proven that Christianity is stronger than the average school wall.

Osgoodisgood

Jakkass wrote: »

However, in other countries the term secular has been used to restrict freedom of religion which is outwardly wrong.

Examples?

I also believe that Christians have a right to speak out on political issues, and let their views be known to the Government.
However, their views should be given no precedence over any other groups. Ideas should be assessed, and if they are reasonable they should be considered even if they come from Christians.

I concur with all of the above but I would add that Christians should have no greater or better access to the levers of government than any other group.

philologos

Twin-go: Presbyterianism is the biggest Protestant denomination in Northern Ireland. The Church of England are not involved in Ireland at all, rather the Church of Ireland is.

Twin-go

Jakkass wrote: »

I also believe that Christians have a right to speak out on political issues, and let their views be known to the Government. However, their views should be given no precedence over any other groups. Ideas should be assessed, and if they are reasonable they should be considered even if they come from Christians.

Jakkas, Everyone in the country has a right to air their political views. But, Religious Organisations should be no more than a lobby group. For too long in this country the Church has had too much say in how the country is run. This needs to be stopped and our government and general society should be nuteral. Religion should be something practiced in ones own time and not be so overt as it is in our society.

philologos

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Examples?

France - Forced removal of religious symbols in schools.
Britain - Restrictions against street-preaching.
Suspending a school secretary for asking her church community to pray for her after her child was disciplined by the school for telling her classmates about hell.
Suspending a school teacher for asking a child if she would like to be prayed for.
Suspending a nurse for asking a patient if they would like to be prayed for.
Turkey - Banning the wearing of headscarves at universities.

These are all unwelcome intrusions to freedom of religion, and have to do with personal religious belief rather than secularism.

Twin-go wrote: »

Jakkas, Everyone in the country has a right to air their political views. But, Religious Organisations should be no more than a lobby group. For too long in this country the Church has had too much say in how the country is run. This needs to be stopped and our government and general society should be nuteral. Religion should be something practiced in ones own time and not be so overt as it is in our society.

I disagree with this view to an extent. Faith should be as public as people want. It shouldn't interfere directly with politics, but this doesn't mean that individuals who are Christians don't have a right to share their views. Churches should have no direct interest in politics, especially not financially.

Religion isn't just to be "practiced in ones own time" it's something that defines people entirely.

Personally I think the US and Australia deal with faith in a far better way than we do currently.

Twin-go

Jakkass wrote: »

Twin-go: Presbyterianism is the biggest Protestant denomination in Northern Ireland. The Church of England are not involved in Ireland at all, rather the Church of Ireland is.

Both come under the umbrella of Protestism. My point on how Religion Divisions affect society is still valid.

Excelsior

Twin-go wrote: »

Isreal majority influenced by Judasim look at the problems there.

Just so you know, Israel is a secular society who didn't even have a jewish values party until 1970... any attempt to pit the israeli/palestine or norn irish troubles at the door of religion is bound to fail for being retardedly simplistic.

Osgoodisgood

homer911 wrote: »

A secularist education system, as witnessed in the USA, leaves zero room for God - this doesnt mean God-neutral, it means God-negative.

I don't know what you mean. Can you give an example? Are you referring to situations like the Kitzmiller-Dover trial?

Would there be room for non-secular education in a secular society? and even if there was, would anyone be able to afford it? (dont get me started on the cutting of funding to protestant schools!)

Nobody is talking about compulsory closure of fee-paying religious schools such as the one you send your children to. Why would they want to do that?

Twin-go

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with this view to an extent. Faith should be as public as people want. It shouldn't interfere directly with politics, but this doesn't mean that individuals who are Christians don't have a right to share their views. Churches should have no direct interest in politics, especially not financially.

Religion isn't just to be "practiced in ones own time" it's something that defines people entirely.

And herein lies the problem. As an Athiest I am not particulary offended by any religious symbolism or practices but, I am offended by the reactions of many followers of a relgion to others of different religions. Each claim to be the one true religion and as nothing can be substanciated. There is no proof for eithers stance, just faith. It is a vicious circle that can oly be stopped if religion is removed from society.

philologos

If you are offended, that's tough luck surely? People get offended every day of the week, it does not mean that peoples beliefs should be restricted. Numerous things could offend a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew, yet the law doesn't forbid people in expressing what could offend. It expects the people to be mature enough to deal with them for themselves.

Twin-go

Excelsior wrote: »

Just so you know, Israel is a secular society who didn't even have a jewish values party until 1970... any attempt to pit the israeli/palestine or norn irish troubles at the door of religion is bound to fail for being retardedly simplistic.

Do you think suicide bombers would do what the do if they where not promised 72 virgins in paridise? Yes their would be still conflict in these areas but by taking religion out of the equasion a least one less reson for the conflict. Israel in not secular as Jewish Law is reconised by the state.

Twin-go

Jakkass wrote: »

If you are offended, that's tough luck surely? People get offended every day of the week, it does not mean that peoples beliefs should be restricted. Numerous things could offend a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew, yet the law doesn't forbid people in expressing what could offend. It expects the people to be mature enough to deal with them for themselves.

So are you not offended by what happened on September 11th 2001 in New York and Washington? Are you not offened by the Bali bombings? Are you not offended by Muslim Women been stoned to death for having an affair? Really?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

Israel in not secular as Jewish Law is reconised by the state.

I've often been struck at how the situation in the Middle East seems to create an ideological problem for atheists.

You have one nation that is, by a long way, the most secular State in the entire region. It also has a much higher percentage of atheists and agnostics in its population compared to any of the surrounding nations.

This secular nation is under constant threat from religious fundamentalists who attack citizens of the secular State and have vowed to wipe it off the map.

You would expect that atheists' sympathies would lie with the Secular state. But, and this is the rub, the secular state has a soft spot in the hearts of religious fundamentalists in another secular State (on the other side of the Atlantic). So, on the principle of "my enemy's enemy is my friend", most atheists I talk to are more inclined to root for the religious fundamentalists who are trying to wipe out the secular State.

Funny old world we live in.

philologos

Twin-go wrote: »

So are you not offended by what happened on September 11th 2001 in New York and Washington? Are you not offened by the Bali bombings? Are you not offended by Muslim Women been stoned to death for having an affair? Really?

You're making a jump here.

I think all of these acts are awful, but I don't think that Islam should be illegal because we have human rights, and freedoms of religion. This is a secular value.

If you want to get rid of religion, you aren't arguing for secularism but for state atheism.

Denerick

Twin-go wrote: »

So are you not offended by what happened on September 11th 2001 in New York and Washington? Are you not offened by the Bali bombings? Are you not offended by Muslim Women been stoned to death for having an affair? Really?

What a load of hyperbole. I agree with you on a lot of issues in this thread, but do get a grip. Those actions are hardly the fault of the abstract idea of religion. It is the fault of mortal man, doomed to be duped by whatever idle ideas of hatred grip his fancy. I could come back with the equally flawed argument like 'Are you not offended by Stalins Gulags? Mao's massacres!? Murderer!!!!'. Both arguments are equally retarded and have no place in a serious discussion in threads like this.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

I've often been struck at how the situation in the Middle East seems to create an ideological problem for atheists.

You have one nation that is, by a long way, the most secular State in the entire region. It also has a much higher percentage of atheists and agnostics in its population compared to any of the surrounding nations.

This secular nation is under constant threat from religious fundamentalists who attack citizens of the secular State and have vowed to wipe it off the map.

You would expect that atheists' sympathies would lie with the Secular state. But, and this is the rub, the secular state has a soft spot in the hearts of religious fundamentalists in another secular State (on the other side of the Atlantic). So, on the principle of "my enemy's enemy is my friend", most atheists I talk to are more inclined to root for the religious fundamentalists who are trying to wipe out the secular State.

Funny old world we live in.

A very interesting perspective. I might have to knick it and pass it off as my own.

Twin-go

Denerick wrote: »

What a load of hyperbole. I agree with you on a lot of issues in this thread, but do get a grip. Those actions are hardly the fault of the abstract idea of religion. It is the fault of mortal man, doomed to be duped by whatever idle ideas of hatred grip his fancy. I could come back with the equally flawed argument like 'Are you not offended by Stalins Gulags? Mao's massacres!? Murderer!!!!'. Both arguments are equally retarded and have no place in a serious discussion in threads like this.

I don't feel that it is an exaggeration. Acts on 9/11 were done in the name of Allah. The Gulags where not in the name of athieism nor Mao's massacres. And I am shocked and offened by what has happened.

It's never religions fault, is it?
Good thing happens = God is great.
Bad things happen = It's the fault of mortal man.

Denerick

Twin-go wrote: »

I don't feel that it is an exaggeration. Acts on 9/11 were done in the name of Allah. The Gulags where not in the name of athieism nor Mao's massacres. And I am shocked and offened by what has happened.

It's never religions fault, is it?
Good thing happens = God is great.
Bad things happen = It's the fault of mortal man.

What is this 'religion' that you're talking about? Men and women have been moved to both good and evil deeds in the name of Christianity. They freed the slaves, helped the poor, worked on behalf of the downtrodden etc. etc. They have also been moved to great evil on its behalf. So what? Is that Christianities fault? If Christians misunderstand what it is they are supposed to do on this world, the problem lies in the misunderstanding. If they are moved to do good, even if it is as a result of misunderstanding, then more power to it. Do you see what I'm saying? You can't really attribute either good or evil to Christianity. Every action a good or bad person takes in the name of Christianity is the action of that person, not Christianity. Actions defy abstract ideas, ideas are incapable of action, only inspiration.

Twin-go

Jakkass wrote: »

You're making a jump here.

I think all of these acts are awful, but I don't think that Islam should be illegal because we have human rights, and freedoms of religion. This is a secular value.

If you want to get rid of religion, you aren't arguing for secularism but for state atheism.

Maybe you are right Jakkas I would be happy with a Athiest state. But, I am but one person. I have my believes but they maybe extrem, too extrem and I'm not going to force them on anybody. Seculer society, at least for me is a step in the right direction.

philologos

Twin-go wrote: »

Maybe you are right Jakkas I would be happy with a Athiest state. But, I am but one person. I have my believes but they maybe extreme, too extreme and I'm not going to force them on anybody. Secular society, at least for me is a step in the right direction.

If your aim is to deny people the right to freely express their religion, it's clear you have no interest in a secular society at all.

antiskeptic

Twin-go wrote: »

I'm not really mixing my units. Up until very recently Ireland was wholly influenced by the Roman Catholic church. All our schools and hospitals been run by religous orders. Look at the problems that caused.

Quite apart from the fact that without those hospitals and schools being established, Ireland would still be in the dark ages in those areas you mean? Do a little reading up on the history of education - as it pertains to this neck of the woods especially - and you might find you'd have thrown the baby out with the bathwater had you gotten your way all those years ago..

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education#Europe

wikipedia wrote:

During the Early Middle Ages, the monasteries of the Catholic Church were the centres of education and literacy, preserving the Church's selection from Latin learning and maintaining the art of writing.


Ireland became known as the island of saints and scholars. Monasteries were built all over Ireland and these became centres of great learning (see Celtic Church).

In the UK it is mostly influenced by the Church of England. Look at the problems that caused in Nothern Ireland.

Isreal majority influenced by Judasim look at the problems there.

As far as I can see Religion causes more problems than is solves and I'm not just atacking the RC church its all religions.

And the example of a wholly secular society proving successful was..?

antiskeptic

Twin-go wrote: »

It's never religions fault, is it?
Good thing happens = God is great.
Bad things happen = It's the fault of mortal man.

I wouldn't say that, God as described in the Bible seems to have been directly responsible for much of what you might describe as 'bad'. Whilst considering it justified I'd be inclined to agree with you that it was indeed 'bad' for those at the receiving end.

Denerick

And the example of a wholly secular society proving successful was..?

Has there ever been a wholly successful society full stop? We are mammals after all, with limitied capacities of mind, and prone to incompetance. Doesn't matter really if we have a crucifix over our desk or not, we're equally as likely to **** up!

lmaopml

Denerick wrote: »

Do you think that Christianity is better off in a secular society? It may sound like a paradox, but I honestly believe its the most rational path for the religion in the years ahead.

1) An established church rarely has, and rarely will be looked favourably upon by history, due to the very obvious human tendency to get corrupted by political power.

2) An eccleiastical hierarchy holding a dominant position within society only helps to make that hierarchy more aloof from the population at large - ie, the average Catholic Bishop.

3) It allows Christian churches the freedom of their own conscience, loosening restrictions from the top.

4) Most importantly it allows ordinary individuals the choice to make their mind up on whether they accept Christianity or not, and escapes the somewhat distatesful indoctrination of children in the past. I think a more thoughtful (Yet smaller) version of Christianity, based on personal spiritual exploration is infinitely more valuable than a herd of drones buying into dogma, loathe to think for themselves. This is probably where the problems of the modern Roman Catholic church stem; they have always been determined to 'rule' in a top down fashion, whereas it is clearly far better for a church to be grass roots, encouraging theological debate from laymen and curiosity in the general population. This will tend to leave Christianity in a more honourable position in the 'marketplace of ideas' than the present one where thousands come out of school with confirmations and communions but little understanding of what Christianity actually means and little inclination to actually follow through on their faith as they grow older.

Hi Denerick,

I guess it depends on the whole idea of what one thinks of as a secular society. Is it to have a secular education system and to have God removed completely from the constitution?? ....Should Catholics in Ireland 'pay' for the priviledge of sending their children to a school with a religious ethos from tomorrow? All these things will change inline with demand and no less...

Anyways, I guess that will be up to the people, and I think a turning point has been reached in many regards. The problem is that doing a massive big U turn at any stage will cause friction and trouble....Water must find it's own level and Irish people will eventually define themselves, it may take a little more time - but it's inevitable.

Tbh, I have no 'fear' of a secular society, ( although some of em I wouldn't particularly like to see my grandchildren grow up in..and I'm not talking the states either lol..) I don't see people from various different religions or none for that matter as a massive threat....so long as they don't become one..lol...People who are moderate, peaceful and don't have an agenda the length of the Nile are never a problem...( I reckon most people fall into this category )

I think, and in fairness to the RC Church, anybody who knows their history of this island should know the reason why the Church was involved in educating the Irish....or do we forget so easily. Also, they provided a damn good education to very many....It's not very fashionable to say this and say it loud because of the current crisis, however it's a truth that cannot be denied....and there are very very many people who quite obviously believe this to be the case too...

To be perfectly frank, I would love to see our state get up off it's ass and represent minorities in a fair and reasonable way, our state is young to say the least....The current attitude is certainly not helping matters, people must be free to choose to send their children to a 'secular' school...or a school with a different religious ethos..I wholly support this freedom of choice - and if the time may come where I may have to pay to have mine educated with God included in their day to day studies - even if it's only the prayer before class...Then so be it, and I have no fear of that day..and will, like so many others rise to the occasion...

Tbh, I think Catholics get a raw deal off their countrymen sometimes on this island...It would be one thing if they were out protesting against the tide of change - the fact of the matter is that they have no such ill will...and I believe most would wholly support a more inclusive Ireland inline with a more diverse Ireland so long as it is slow and steady and is the will of the people...

Anyway, I guess ( after that big ramble ) that in some ways I think Christianity may be more 'real' to the individual believer in a more secular society - However, I think this island is a gem in many ways because it protects and represents it's past influences in a unique way....particularly in the sense that we don't want to see our grandchildren grow up in a society with abortion freely available or made 'ok', or another form of contraception....I'm glad I live in a country that still holds some things very very dear....although granted, that may sound archaic to some..

..It may change...and if so, well we'll see if it's much better.

I think some things could defo be for the better...

..and some perhaps not...

but as the song says, 'Times are a'changin..' So long as we can face them together as opposed to seeming divides that perhaps are more smoke and mirrors than anything else, then I'm a happy girl...

Denerick

I kind of agree with you about abortion. Though I've never seen that as a religious issue whatsoever, more of a human rights one. One of my life pet peeves is the dichotomy of religion/anti abortion V secular/pro abortion. The right to life, as opposed to the erroneous belief that unborn children are 'a collection of cells' in sacrosant to me, Christian or nay. But thats another matter I really don't want introduced to this thread!

lmaopml

Denerick wrote: »

I kind of agree with you about abortion. Though I've never seen that as a religious issue whatsoever, more of a human rights one. One of my life pet peeves is the dichotomy of religion/anti abortion V secular/pro abortion. The right to life, as opposed to the erroneous belief that unborn children are 'a collection of cells' in sacrosant to me, Christian or nay. But thats another matter I really don't want introduced to this thread!

I agree that was a low blow on my behalf, in some ways...I'll freely admit it... *smiles* and I think the thread would be best kept on topic too...it's been very interesting so far.

...still though, it's perhaps adds an element to the op question..that is a genuine undercurrent of Irish influence...

and I don't mean in an insane 'Choir' way...I just mean an 'influence'...

Cheers, I'll follow this thread with great interest...

Antbert

If you wanted it kept on topic you shouldn't have said this:

lmaopml wrote: »

However, I think this island is a gem in many ways because it protects and represents it's past influences in a unique way....particularly in the sense that we don't want to see our grandchildren grow up in a society with abortion freely available or made 'ok', or another form of contraception....I'm glad I live in a country that still holds some things very very dear....although granted, that may sound archaic to some.

Were abortion made legal (absolutely unbelievable that it isn't so far) no one would be forcing you to have one.

Anyway, 3 people have mentioned it now so far and no one has said anything from the pro-choice side, so I felt it was only fair.

Back to topic.

Twin-go

antiskeptic wrote: »

Quite apart from the fact that without those hospitals and schools being established, Ireland would still be in the dark ages in those areas you mean? Do a little reading up on the history of education - as it pertains to this neck of the woods especially - and you might find you'd have thrown the baby out with the bathwater had you gotten your way all those years ago.

Do you think nothing would happened at all re educational and medical institutions were it not for the RC church? You could also say that without Hitlier Germany would have bad roads and the trains wouldn't run on time:(.








And the example of a wholly secular society proving successful was..?[/quote]

I think Sweden is a good example but NO society has ever been 100% successful. Can you name a successful society influenced by religion?