Embracing Secularism

PDN

I don't think I've ever linked to anything from catholicireland.net before - but I thought this article on secularism by Sean O'Conaill was excellent: http://www.catholicireland.net/pages/index.php?nd=2&art=119

His basic position, and one I support wholeheartedly, is that a secular society provides an 'open space' for Christians to develop their faith in a more pure way without the trappings of power.

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

I don't think I've ever linked to anything from catholicireland.net before - but I thought this article on secularism by Sean O'Conaill was excellent: http://www.catholicireland.net/pages/index.php?nd=2&art=119

His basic position, and one I support wholeheartedly, is that a secular society provides an 'open space' for Christians to develop their faith in a more pure way without the trappings of power.

Where secularism = religious tolerance, that is certainly true. It is a deliverance from sacralism, with its persecution of dissenters.

The problem arises when the authorities decide secularism = suppression of religion. It then is only another version of sacralism, with atheism as the new religion.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

Where secularism = religious tolerance, that is certainly true. It is a deliverance from sacralism, with its persecution of dissenters.

The problem arises when the authorities decide secularism = suppression of religion. It then is only another version of sacralism, with atheism as the new religion.

On the button IMO. A perfect summation of the issue. I am very suspect of this rise in 'secularism', not because I am against secularism, but I'm against what I perceive to be on its coat tails.

strobe

wolfsbane wrote: »

Where secularism = religious tolerance, that is certainly true. It is a deliverance from sacralism, with its persecution of dissenters.

The problem arises when the authorities decide secularism = suppression of religion. It then is only another version of sacralism, with atheism as the new religion.

When the authorities decide secularism = suppression of religion it will be the people who are now the strongest proponents of secularism resisting such most vocally. Most of whom I'm sure you would mistakenly call sacralists now. The tide is turning and the greatest mistake the religious could ever make is to make enemies of the very people that will be the first to stand up for them when it has fully turned.

Jester Minute

I only want to comment on one bit of that article:

Period of transition

Does this mean the Catholic Church in Ireland must now throw in the towel? On the contrary, it marks merely a point of transition for the church - from clerical to lay leadership. Christianity and Catholicism are not radically threatened by secularism, only clericalism - the social control and political power of high clergy. Long before the millennium, the Catholic Church had given itself a secure foundation for a different church led by its laity, in the greatest documents of Vatican II.

Vatican II did not give the Church a secure foundation for a different church. The Church was founded by Jesus on the Apostles.

The Church is not run by its laity, but by its bishops in union with the successor of Peter. The laity have a valid and unique role to play in the life of the Church, but they do not govern and lead the Church.

This article appeared in the REALITY magazine which is sold in many Catholic churches across Ireland. Unfortunately. It is run by the dissenting Irish Redemptorists.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

When the authorities decide secularism = suppression of religion it will be the people who are now the strongest proponents of secularism resisting such most vocally. Most of whom I'm sure you would mistakenly call sacralists now. The tide is turning and the greatest mistake the religious could ever make is to make enemies of the very people that will be the first to stand up for them when it has fully turned.

I've heard people on the A&A forum go much further than mere religious tolerance in the past. Just to note. In some countries France being an example the laws surrounding it actually inhibit peoples religious freedom (banning the wearing of religious symbols for example).

Edit: Oh and PDN, you've linked to it once before :pac:

antiskeptic

Jester Minute wrote: »

I only want to comment on one bit of that article:

Vatican II did not give the Church a secure foundation for a different church. The Church was founded by Jesus on the Apostles.

It was founded by Christ on Christ. Christ the cornerstone.

The Church is not run by its laity, but by its bishops in union with the successor of Peter. The laity have a valid and unique role to play in the life of the Church, but they do not govern and lead the Church.

This article appeared in the REALITY magazine which is sold in many Catholic churches across Ireland. Unfortunately. It is run by the dissenting Irish Redemptorists.

Perhaps seeds being sown for another church split - with disaffected Catholics clergy and laity going their own way?

Jester Minute

antiskeptic wrote: »

It was founded by Christ on Christ. Christ the cornerstone.





Perhaps seeds being sown for another church split - with disaffected Catholics clergy and laity going their own way?

True, but in no way does this mean that Peter is also not a rock on which Christ built His Church. You may not agree, but that is what we believe.

Maybe - they probably will set up their own church and take some buildings and bishops with them. They could call it the 'Irish Catholic Church'. In years from now they will say, 'Yes, those were the Catholics who left the Church after the Second Vatican Council!''

Manach

The passage "Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's" sums up that religous and secular spheres have had in theory separate domains. That this has not worked out in perfectly in practice, as seen in European history, is an understatement.
It is not readily possible to keep private beliefs outside the broader mainstream tenant of society.

JimiTime

strobe wrote: »

When the authorities decide secularism = suppression of religion it will be the people who are now the strongest proponents of secularism resisting such most vocally.

Do the French authorities, or indeed the proponents of banning religious symbols in public etc, promote it as 'suppression of religion'? No. It wont be this blatant. They may not even believe that what they are doing is suppressing religion.

The tide is turning and the greatest mistake the religious could ever make is to make enemies of the very people that will be the first to stand up for them when it has fully turned.

I certainly don't intend on making enemies of anyone, but my concern would be others making enemies of me.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Do the French authorities, or indeed the proponents of banning religious symbols in public etc, promote it as 'suppression of religion'? No. It wont be this blatant. They may not even believe that what they are doing is suppressing religion.

To be fair, there is a difference between banning church symbols 'in public' and banning them from State-run institutions.

I can understand the principle that non-religious tax payers do not expect their taxes to fund the propagating of religion. But, as I understand it, in France Christians are free to parade as many symbols as they want in public areas.

I do have an issue with the French banning the burka, as that seems to be an intolerable infringement of human liberty.

strobe

PDN wrote: »

I do have an issue with the French banning the burka, as that seems to be an intolerable infringement of human liberty.

The burka or the banning of it?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

To be fair, there is a difference between banning church symbols 'in public' and banning them from State-run institutions.

I understand that, but I hate this idea of banning anyway.

I can understand the principle that non-religious tax payers do not expect their taxes to fund the propagating of religion.

Depends again. the most insignificant of details can be interpreted as 'propagating of religion'. IMO, they never reach reasonable middle grounds, and the sensibilities of idiots are pandered to. Whereas, in some occasions, like whinging about a carol being played at a rugby match;), a swift smack in the head and being told to cop on is the order of the day.

But, as I understand it, in France Christians are free to parade as many symbols as they want in public areas.

I do have an issue with the French banning the burka, as that seems to be an intolerable infringement of human liberty.

My issue, is what follows on secularisms coat tails. I've read enough opinion just over in A&A to be very wary of 'the fair minded secular humanist'. Do I think they will be foaming at the mouth to persecute Christians and other religious groups? No. Do I think Atheism will enjoy the heady highs of being given the neutral position, and religion being gradually marginalised? I suspect so.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Do the French authorities, or indeed the proponents of banning religious symbols in public etc, promote it as 'suppression of religion'? No. It wont be this blatant. They may not even believe that what they are doing is suppressing religion.

I imagine they do. The burqa ban is far more about the what the French view as the threat of multiculturalism than trying to up hold secularism. Secularist, humanist and atheists groups have, by and large, come down strongly against the burqa ban and even groups like Atheist Ireland who seem to never miss a chance to bash religion have said they have "mixed feelings" about it and are "concerned"

I think it would be misguided to view the burka ban as stemming from secularist principles, even misguided secularist principles.

It is a reflection I feel of the inherent xenophobia in France (and other countries) at the moment. France has spend a long while marginalizing Muslim immigrants, pushing them to gettos, keeping them out of the way and out of sight. This is another move in this direction.

prinz

I don't mind secularism so much, until as has been said it veers into become more than secular.

As for the French, I don't mind what they do whatsoever and I respect what they do. As for the burka I don't particularly feel it relevant to this discussion for a couple of reasons, 1) it's a cultural item as opposed to a relgious symbol 2) the French have long protected the notion of a French culture and citizen that immigrants from all over the world have immersed themselves in. I respect that course of action, and see the burka ban as an extension of that.

georgieporgy

There are notices on the doors of many business in Ireland asking couriers to remove their helmets prior to entry (presumably for the camera/security).
As far as I know, The Blessed Virgin Mary herself was a modest dresser but had no difficulty showing her face in public.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine they do. The burqa ban is far more about the what the French view as the threat of multiculturalism than trying to up hold secularism. Secularist, humanist and atheists groups have, by and large, come down strongly against the burqa ban and even groups like Atheist Ireland who seem to never miss a chance to bash religion have said they have "mixed feelings" about it and are "concerned"

I think it would be misguided to view the burka ban as stemming from secularist principles, even misguided secularist principles.

It is a reflection I feel of the inherent xenophobia in France (and other countries) at the moment. France has spend a long while marginalizing Muslim immigrants, pushing them to gettos, keeping them out of the way and out of sight. This is another move in this direction.

I suppose I'm quite ignorant to that whole French scenario, so probably should not have used it. Apologies if I have used it cack handedly.

The point I was trying to make though, is that it wont be 'sold' as marginalisation or oppression. It may not even be intended to marginalise, but ultimately, I think it will swing that way.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I suppose I'm quite ignorant to that whole French scenario, so probably should not have used it. Apologies if I have used it cack handedly.

The point I was trying to make though, is that it wont be 'sold' as marginalisation or oppression. It may not even be intended to marginalise, but ultimately, I think it will swing that way.

Yeah I know what you mean, no group or organisation is blantant enough to say "Yeah we just hate black people" or "Yeah religious people need to be thrown in jail"

It will come in the guise of protecting some group who feel marginalized, such as the "native" French feeling their cultural identify is being effected by Muslims. It will be sold as a good thing.