What's a secular law?

[Wootah]

Separation of religion and state is good right?

If so then what is a secular law and what is the general principle we can use to determine which laws remain?

[KenRU]

Championing our bill of rights, using war as a last resort, and using rationalism to make decisions are bad things?

It is when 'championing our bill of rights" is translated as "making certain that we are all free to believe the 'proper' thing as defined by the folks currently in fashion," and "using war as a last resort" is translated as "waiting to use war until we are so weak that when we are attacked, we could very well lose...and arguing about it even then" and "using rationalism to make decisions" is translated as "those in power are rational and anybody who disagrees with them are not."

When I first started paying attention the the 'root' of the secular worldview versus that of a theistic worldview, I noticed much of that difference could be shown to be in the degree of cynicism.

What you just wrote above is deeply cynical. If Q, then crappy X. If R, then crappy X. If Z, then crappy X. Crappy X pretty much no matter how ya slice it, no matter the intent, crappy X is inevitable.

You say 'cynical,' I say 'realistic and historically proven."

Dear Hamsaka, there has NEVER been a government that is officially atheistic (officially forbidding religion) that was not deeply, deeply homicidal.

How do you go from loss of religiosity to an atheistic government that forbids religion? The only way to get from A to B here is by being cynical.

Seems you kinda proved Hamsaka's point to me.

Why not see a youth that values freedom and reasoned thought? I do. But then again, I'm an optimist. Funny. Why is it that (with respect to the future and the potential of man) the atheists (at least in this forum) seem to be more happy or optimistic than the theists? Food for thought.

All the best,

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 30 by dianaiad]

Banning religion does not equal all atheists. It is specific to anti-theism. A government that lacks a positive affirmation of a god is an atheistic government, in other more pc words secular. You dont need to ban religions to have an atheist government. More specifically your claim that no atheist goverments have not been homicidal is completely bogus. Communist countries killed people yes and it was to create a communistic ideal.

Distortion of history by conveniently leaving out context to make a misleadingly point seems par for the course when discussing secular vs theistic governments.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 30 by dianaiad]

Banning religion does not equal all atheists. It is specific to anti-theism. A government that lacks a positive affirmation of a god is an atheistic government, in other more pc words secular. You dont need to ban religions to have an atheist government. More specifically your claim that no atheist goverments have not been homicidal is completely bogus. Communist countries killed people yes and it was to create a communistic ideal.

Not all officially atheistic nations were 'communist,' m'friend, at least, not the Marxist idea of "communist." However, here you are going back to the argument that if an officially atheistic government (OK, make that 'anti-theist'...but in order to be anti-theist one must BE atheist, just as in order to be Mormon one must be a theist) does any murdering for any reason other than to get rid of religion, then none of its murdering is done to get rid of religion. If, in order to achieve a communist ideal, theists need to be eliminated/murdered, then they were murdering theists.

The point I make when I bring this up is that their atheism/atheistic ideas didn't STOP them from murdering for any reason they used to justify it: there is nothing intrinsically superior about atheistic morals and ethical systems that would justify the elimination of religion.

However, this is wandering a bit off the point, I think, especially since I agree that the only hope we have for the future, really, is a purely secular government; not atheistic (which implies an interest in religion, if only to disapprove of it), but apart from religion and protective of the rights of citizens to their own opinions about religion, whether pro, con, or indifferent.

this means that there should be NO law that forces people to participate in events to which they have religious objections. "It's against my religion" should be an absolute defense for anything that does not physically endanger someone who does not, or cannot legally, object.

....or in the case of atheists; "I don't believe in that stuff" should be an equally valid defense.

The government should treat religions, for the purposes of the use of public property, exactly the same way it treats non-religious clubs and events. Subject to the same rules; if a church wants to put up a religious display, fine; it abides by the same rules the Boy Scouts or local Rotary Club does: first come, first served, space and time limits, no advertising for hitmen...you know, common sense stuff.

Common sense. Yeah, that might work. Too bad there's such a shortage of that around.

Distortion of history by conveniently leaving out context to make a misleadingly point seems par for the course when discussing secular vs theistic governments.

M'friend, there have been Communist nations that were not democidal. Miserable, but not democidal. The kicker seems to have been 'get rid of religion.' Once a government is willing to do that, then it seems to have been willing to kill for pretty much any reason it wanted to.

but feel free to show me, if you will, a single government that outlawed religion that was NOT homicidal. I've never managed it; perhaps you can. You can begin with the French Revolution if you like. You know...the folks who coined the word 'terrorism?'

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 33 by dianaiad]

(OK, make that 'anti-theist'...but in order to be anti-theist one must BE atheist, just as in order to be Mormon one must be a theist)

This is like me associating Islam and Mormonism and claiming mromon philosophy leads to jihad and terrorism. You can see why one would be miffed at such a comparison.

t: there is nothing intrinsically superior about atheistic morals and ethical systems that would justify the elimination of religion.

Atheism is not a moral system. There are lots of moral systems that different atheists can ascribe to. Many of which don't call fo the eimination religion. why are you going on this diatribe? I hardly see how it pertains to the topic other than to slam atheists.

"It's against my religion" should be an absolute defense for anything that does not physically endanger someone who does not, or cannot legally, object.

Absolutes are often problematic. If having sex with animals while bleeding them to death was some wakos idea of a religious rite, absolute defense seems credulous. Indeed anyone could claim anything is against their religion, which is why that subjectivity should not be left to absolutes. Which is why the founding fathers had it right in saying the government is staying out of religion. If and when conflict should inevitably arise, that is the purpose for civil courts.

this means that there should be NO law that forces people to participate in events to which they have religious objections

Your right and there is no law.

, if you will, a single government that outlawed religion that was NOT homicidal. I've never managed it; perhaps you can

That is sort of the problem with outlawing beiiefs you know like how Theistic governments have
been murdering atheists for centuries and even today.There is just less of us so its not as noticeable.Any government that outlaws any belief often becomes murderous.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 33 by dianaiad]

(OK, make that 'anti-theist'...but in order to be anti-theist one must BE atheist, just as in order to be Mormon one must be a theist)

This is like me associating Islam and Mormonism and claiming mromon philosophy leads to jihad and terrorism. You can see why one would be miffed at such a comparison.

Oh, good grief. are you pulling the 'no true atheist' bit on me? "Atheism" is a sea that floats a great many philosophical ships. Just because one of 'em holds pirates doesn't mean it's not a ship. Board one of the others, with folks you like and with whom you agree.

I have this same conversation with Christians who get...'miffed' because Mormons claim to be Christian...or that the Westboro Baptists do. We don't want to be associated with the Westboro group (though I do find them entertaining), but we're stuck with 'em.

And you are stuck with the anti-theists. Sorry about that.

t: there is nothing intrinsically superior about atheistic morals and ethical systems that would justify the elimination of religion.

Atheism is not a moral system. There are lots of moral systems that different atheists can ascribe to. Many of which don't call fo the eimination religion. why are you going on this diatribe? I hardly see how it pertains to the topic other than to slam atheists.

What diatribe? Perhaps you should join the 'reads the whole post' group.

"It's against my religion" should be an absolute defense for anything that does not physically endanger someone who does not, or cannot legally, object.

Absolutes are often problematic. If having sex with animals while bleeding them to death was some wakos idea of a religious rite, absolute defense seems credulous. Indeed anyone could claim anything is against their religion, which is why that subjectivity should not be left to absolutes. Which is why the founding fathers had it right in saying the government is staying out of religion. If and when conflict should inevitably arise, that is the purpose for civil courts.

this means that there should be NO law that forces people to participate in events to which they have religious objections

Your right and there is no law.

Yes there is. Or rather, there's legal precedent to consider that there 'is a law.' Photographers who refuse to 'shoot' gay weddings because they are religiously opposed get sued, and the photographers lose.

, if you will, a single government that outlawed religion that was NOT homicidal. I've never managed it; perhaps you can

That is sort of the problem with outlawing beliefs you know like how Theistic governments have
been murdering atheists for centuries and even today.There is just less of us so its not as noticeable.Any government that outlaws any belief often becomes murderous.

Half a point to you, Daniel...half a point because you are correct, but only half because I've already mentioned that, and pointed out that on the hierarchy of murderous governments, (in terms of body count and attention to religion), at the top of the list are the anti-theist governments, none of which have been anything BUT murderous, in the millions. Next on the list are the 'anti-every other theism" governments: theocracies. While they can be murderous and intolerant, they don't come close to the body count, in general. Some can, of course; the Mayans and their wholesale attempt to 'feed the sun,' pops to mind. However, there have been quite a few theocracies that were not killing off their own citizens by the job lots. The best for everybody, of course, are the purely secular governments.

As Jesus Himself said, when given a coin: render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

That bit of advice should be followed by both the government and religions.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 35 by dianaiad]

Oh, good grief. are you pulling the 'no true atheist' bit on me? "Atheism" is a sea that floats a great many philosophical ships. Just because one of 'em holds pirates doesn't mean it's not a ship. Board one of the others, with folks you like and with whom you agree.

Your still not getting the words I am typing. You are hung up on the idea that the only atheistic governments are ones that ban religion. This is not true. If a government specifically makes no affirmation of a diety of any kind it is secular/atheistic in nature. I did not say atheists can't be bad. Atheism is not a philosophy it is simply a state of being just like theism is not a philosophy. Anti-theism is a specific philosophical idea to getting rid of religion. Anti-theists are atheists generally speaking, this doesn't mean atheism is antitheism.

Your argument is simply all terrorists are theistic, ergo theism is bad. You could do this with any group. Only governments start wars ergo anarchy is better. Only theistic governments allowed slaves ergo theistic governments are bad. Democrats were pro slavery ergo all democrats want slaves. Only republicans currently pass laws designed to ban same sex marriage ergo republicans are bad. The point you are trying to make has nothing to do with th OP really and I have seen you toss this tripe up many times before. It only serves to cast a group in the light you wish them to be seen. It is just rhetoric not a civil discussion about the necessity of secular or religious laws. Its completely unrelated. It is basically walking into a conversation telling someone they are an *explitive*, and walking away.

What diatribe? Perhaps you should join the 'reads the whole post' group.

I read your whole post. I found it to be a thinly veiled diatribe, behind a brief comment about the topic of discussion. No need to get condescending, with the "i'll give you half a point, good greifs, and the join the reads the whole post group" type comments.

Yes there is. Or rather, there's legal precedent to consider that there 'is a law.' Photographers who refuse to 'shoot' gay weddings because they are religiously opposed get sued, and the photographers lose.

This is only in some states and risking a discrimination suit is not equal to forced participation. More specifically no one is forcing a photography company to offer its services to the public at large. You don't have to offer your goods and services to the public. Simply form a private photography association and only offer services privately. YOU DON'T HAVE TO OFFER YOUR SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 35 by dianaiad]

Oh, good grief. are you pulling the 'no true atheist' bit on me? "Atheism" is a sea that floats a great many philosophical ships. Just because one of 'em holds pirates doesn't mean it's not a ship. Board one of the others, with folks you like and with whom you agree.

Your still not getting the words I am typing. You are hung up on the idea that the only atheistic governments are ones that ban religion.

they are the only ones that ban all religion. Theistic governments (theocracies) only ban every OTHER religion.

This is not true. If a government specifically makes no affirmation of a diety of any kind it is secular/atheistic in nature.

Secular, yes. "Atheistic?" No. A Secular government that has no problem with its citizens having religious beliefs is not 'atheist.' It's...secular. To call it 'atheist' is to have a position ON deity, and secular governments should have no position regarding deity one way or the other.

I did not say atheists can't be bad. Atheism is not a philosophy it is simply a state of being just like theism is not a philosophy. Anti-theism is a specific philosophical idea to getting rid of religion. Anti-theists are atheists generally speaking, this doesn't mean atheism is antitheism.

Daniel, why are you agreeing me with such frustration?

Your argument is simply all terrorists are theistic, ergo theism is bad.

No it isn't. You really need to read my position again, if you honestly think that. I didn't think my 'ocean' metaphor was all that obscure, frankly.

You could do this with any group. Only governments start wars ergo anarchy is better. Only theistic governments allowed slaves ergo theistic governments are bad. Democrats were pro slavery ergo all democrats want slaves. Only republicans currently pass laws designed to ban same sex marriage ergo republicans are bad. The point you are trying to make has nothing to do with th OP really and I have seen you toss this tripe up many times before. It only serves to cast a group in the light you wish them to be seen. It is just rhetoric not a civil discussion about the necessity of secular or religious laws. Its completely unrelated. It is basically walking into a conversation telling someone they are an *explitive*, and walking away.

What diatribe? Perhaps you should join the 'reads the whole post' group.

I read your whole post. I found it to be a thinly veiled diatribe, behind a brief comment about the topic of discussion. No need to get condescending, with the "i'll give you half a point, good greifs, and the join the reads the whole post group" type comments.

My apologies, but I honestly don't think you can have read the whole post before you began commenting. I have seldom had this much trouble agreeing with someone.

the POINT is, Daniel, that secular governments keep their hands off of religion. Secular governments do not interfere with religion. Secular governments do not allow religions to make laws that coerce people who don't agree with their points of view.

Secular governments are the only real hope we have.

Atheistic governments are governments which, BY DEFINITION, have a position on deity; that is, religion is against the law. Such governments are anti-theist.

Atheistic governments are NOT secular governments. Indeed, Governments which outlaw religion are different from outright theocracies, in results, in only one thing: they are more murderous than any theocracy I know about (other than the Mayans, perhaps), and at least to date, no government that outlawed theism has NOT been murderous. I also said that next to those folks, theocracies were bad. The only government that is safe for both theist and atheist is a secular one.

It's important that we KEEP our government secular. So...we fight the mandatory school prayer, no matter how silly we think it is for an atheist to object to being quiet for a minute while someone else prays to a God he doesn't think exists, and we fight the idea that someone can force a business owner to participate in an event that he objects to, religiously. no matter how silly, racist or discriminatory we think his objection is.

this is encoded in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in the Canadian "Fundamental Freedoms" section of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," in Germany's Basic Law, article 4, --shoot, in Europe generally in article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I think you fit in there somewhere, right?

Yes there is. Or rather, there's legal precedent to consider that there 'is a law.' Photographers who refuse to 'shoot' gay weddings because they are religiously opposed get sued, and the photographers lose.

This is only in some states and risking a discrimination suit is not equal to forced participation.

It most certainly is. "Do this or I'll sue and the courts will either make you do it or punish you if you don't' is forced participation no matter how you look at it.

More specifically no one is forcing a photography company to offer its services to the public at large. You don't have to offer your goods and services to the public. Simply form a private photography association and only offer services privately. YOU DON'T HAVE TO OFFER YOUR SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.

You mean that I won't get sued if I open a shop and put a big sign in it that states "I will only bake wedding cakes for heterosexual couples" isn't going to get me sued?

Dream on, Daniel.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 37 by dianaiad]

Atheistic governments are governments which, BY DEFINITION, have a position on deity; that is, religion is against the law. Such governments are anti-theist.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. Atheism by definition is not a positive position. It simply makes no claims of theism. You are trying to push a guilt by association fallacy. There is no reason to bring up the specific communist countries that murdered it's citizens. Other than to smear a particular group. I am not bringing up Hitler as an example to stay away from socialism.


what is the point in bringing it in to the discussion? What point were you specifically trying to make about atheism? how is that point related to the OP?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 37 by dianaiad]

It most certainly is. "Do this or I'll sue and the courts will either make you do it or punish you if you don't' is forced participation no matter how you look at it.

DanieltheDragon wrote:
More specifically no one is forcing a photography company to offer its services to the public at large. You don't have to offer your goods and services to the public. Simply form a private photography association and only offer services privately. YOU DON'T HAVE TO OFFER YOUR SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.


You mean that I won't get sued if I open a shop and put a big sign in it that states "I will only bake wedding cakes for heterosexual couples" isn't going to get me sued?

Dream on, Daniel.

I don't need to dream on my parents sent me to a school that banned blacks in the 90s , They belonged to a country club that banned blacks. Because they were a private association you have to apply to to get in. Their services were not available to the general public. What I am telling you is that you can form a private photography association that only photographs christian weddings. It's not that difficult.[/quote]

[KenRU]

I don't need to dream on my parents sent me to a school that banned blacks in the 90s , They belonged to a country club that banned blacks. Because they were a private association you have to apply to to get in. Their services were not available to the general public. What I am telling you is that you can form a private photography association that only photographs christian weddings. It's not that difficult.

Just for clarification, they didn't outright ban blacks, I imagine, correct? They circumvented the law, I imagine. Right?

-all the best