A secular State is best for religious and atheist citizens

Hotblack Desiato

silverharp wrote: »

There is an assumption here that the natural state of people or politics without religion would be permanently left leaning with big government values

An assumption by who?

Bristolscale7

smacl wrote: »

Again, though if I ask someone 'does God exist', it doesn't seem unreasonable that they might answer 'I don't really know, He might exist and He might not'. I take the position that there is no evidence to support the existence of God, but then again there is no evidence to categorically disprove the existence of God.

As long as god is conceived as some sort of generic higher-power or first cause that's fine. However, it is much more straightforward to disprove the existence of the Christian god--a being that they believe is benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent.

BlinkingLights

I think there's too much confusion both deliberate and accidental between secularism and atheism and it tends to immediately shut down debate..

Maybe we need an Secular Ireland, and include a broader section of Irish society, including religiou people who support secularism.

You can be a devout catholic and fully support a secular state for example. The two are fully compatible.

Bristolscale7

BlinkingLights wrote: »

I think there's too much confusion both deliberate and accidental between secularism and atheism and it tends to immediately shut down debate..

Maybe we need an Secular Ireland, and include a broader section of Irish society, including religiou people who support secularism.

You can be a devout catholic and fully support a secular state for example. The two are fully compatible.

Indeed, you can also be religious and anti-clerical.

smacl

BlinkingLights wrote: »

Maybe we need an Secular Ireland, and include a broader section of Irish society, including religiou people who support secularism.

`

Given that Atheist Ireland are collaborating with religious minorities to promote a secular agenda, this certainly would seem to make sense. Personally, I'd sign up as the secular agenda is something I'd be keen to promote. While I'm a second generation atheist, with an atheist wife and kids, I'd have no interest in joining an atheist organisation as I neither believe in nor have any particular desire to promote atheism, nor do I even share a notion of what atheism actually is or is not with atheist organisations.

silverharp

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

An assumption by who?

in this case by Michael , go secular and atheist and "we" can live like the Swedes.

smacl

silverharp wrote: »

in this case by Michael , go secular and atheist and "we" can live like the Swedes.

While I agree the moniker Atheist Ireland is confusing, the article is very clear in differentiating what Michael means by secular and atheist. I don't know about living like Swedes, but if we could maybe borrow their health care and housing systems for a bit....

BlinkingLights

silverharp wrote: »

in this case by Michael , go secular and atheist and "we" can live like the Swedes.

A country that until 1996 automatically made you a member of their established Church, the Church of Sweden....

smacl

BlinkingLights wrote: »

A country that until 1996 automatically made you a member of their established Church, the Church of Sweden....

Seems to be an edited version of the Wikipedia entry, until 1996 all newborn children with at least one parent being a member of the church were also made members. The rest of the article would suggest that Sweden is less religiously inclined than most of Europe, so being more like Sweden would actually make Ireland less religious. Just sayin'...

religion in Sweden plays a limited role compared to the European average, and even many church members participate in religious activities for only cultural reasons, and do not believe in Christianity. Atheism and agnosticism are widespread in Swedish society. In a Eurobarometer Poll in 2010, just 18% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god", although a further 45% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".[6] In a 2009 Gallup poll, 17% answered yes to the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?".[7] A survey found that only 15% of Church of Sweden members actually believe in Jesus, while another 15% identified as atheists, and a quarter as agnostic

BlinkingLights

Religiosity of the population and secularity of the state aren't the same thing.

Take the UK for example, it is one of the only countries other than perhaps Iran that has clerics as part of the legislature. The Lords Spiritual - all or the Bishops of the Church or England. It also has an established church and then head of state is also the head of the church.

However, its population is one of the least religious in the world. That's doesn't make it a great example or a secular state.

The United States on the other hand is very deliberately designed to he secular but has a far more religious population

It just proves that religiosity is not a good measure of structural secularism. All that's about is clear division between church and state.

Ireland falls down badly on secularism mostly in primary and secondary education. However also on things like Christian prayers in the Oireachtas, heavy religious language in the Constitution etc etc. We also still have a major issue wirh religious oaths of office .

To me being a properly secular state is very fundamentally intertwined with being a genuine republic. It ensures everyone, regardless of religon or lack of religion, is equal before the law and is treated the same by state services.


If you don't have that you privilege one or serval religions or end up disadvantaging some citizens on religious grounds by eslusibsinh them from various services.

Ireland should have distinguished itself from the old British established church tradition and pursued something genuinely republican. Instead it just continued on with 19th century style British systems that were designed for a state with the notion that the church and the state were the same thing.

Forming a secular republic would have also left the door open to Ulster protestants to feel safe. Instead, we granted special status to the Catholic Church by basically involving it in delivery of state services and allowing it to medal in policy making.

Not embracing secularist principles here was a massive missed opportunity to create a truly fair society and to be something completely different to the old establishment controlled, imperial state we were trying to get away from!

I honestly think we should be looking towards maybe declaring a second republic and deciding what this state stands for today. We are being held hostage to a document that was framed in the 1930s and is reflective of an entirely unrecognisable society.

Things like putting in a more modern and socially inclusive preamble into the constitution that actually reflects contemporary values and what we as a nation are and hope to achieve might be better?

Also making it clear that power and sovereignty is from the people and not hanging onto old monarchist notions of sovereignty being granted to the people by God.

Hotblack Desiato

I've long been of the opinion that reforming the constitution is like putting lipstick on a pig.

Rip it up and start again.

J C

BlinkingLights wrote: »

The United States on the other hand is very deliberately designed to he secular but has a far more religious population

It just proves that religiosity is not a good measure of structural secularism. All that's about is clear division between church and state.

Ireland falls down badly on secularism mostly in primary and secondary education. However also on things like Christian prayers in the Oireachtas, heavy religious language in the Constitution etc etc. We also still have a major issue wirh religious oaths of office .

... and the USA that you say "is very deliberately designed to he secular" will allow Donald Trump take his oath of office ending " so help me God" ... and they have 'in God we trust' on their legal tender.

I guess that giving God His proper place in society doesn't conflict with America being a model secular state !!!:)

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I've long been of the opinion that reforming the constitution is like putting lipstick on a pig. Rip it up and start again.

Unless there's an enlightened constitutional human-rights lawyer driving the construction of a new constitution, it's almost certain that any new document would contain some good stuff and probably some awful stuff. The question being, how does one balance the two.

We're better off, I believe, making incremental changes and see how they pan out. One or two referendums per year would be nice and people might actually learn that the function of a referendum is to establish or deny rights for themselves, rather than, say, embarrass the sitting taoiseach whoever he/she might be.

BlinkingLights

J C wrote: »

... and the USA that you say "is very deliberately designed to he secular" will allow Donald Trump take his oath of office ending " so help me God" ... and they have 'in God we trust' on their legal tender.

I guess that giving God His proper place in society doesn't conflict with America being a model secular state !!!:)

Yeah. That's a hangover from religiosity and from the religious right trying to make the country look anti communist. The original US motto was E pluribus unum (out of many one) was changed to "In God We Trust" in 1956 by Eisenhower.

However, the US does have proper division between church and state and set out with that idea in mind as a republic. American has been going backwards on this and morphing into something Very different to its original ideology.

The right has been chipping away at the very foundations or the US for decades.

silverharp

BlinkingLights wrote: »

The right has been chipping away at the very foundations or the US for decades.

probably both sides have in fairness , I'd reckon the US if far more centralised than the constitution ever envisioned , call it a "living document" and you can twist it whatever way you want

Michael Nugent

J C wrote: »

... and the USA that you say "is very deliberately designed to he secular" will allow Donald Trump take his oath of office ending " so help me God" ... and they have 'in God we trust' on their legal tender?

BlinkingLights has addressed your point about the currency. The oath for President is more complicated and has the feel of an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

The oath is a secular oath, and it doesn't include the phrase 'so help me God.' That has been added in informally by tradition, even though it is not part of the official oath.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has supported several legal cases to challenge this practice, but the Courts have found that the incoming President is choosing to say something personally, after he has finished saying the official oath.

smacl

Michael Nugent wrote: »

BlinkingLights has addressed your point about the currency. The oath for President is more complicated and has the feel of an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Where most Irish solutions to Irish problems seem to relate to the state being undermined by the clergy.

The oath is a secular oath, and it doesn't include the phrase 'so help me God.' That has been added in informally by tradition, even though it is not part of the official oath.

A tradition that clearly illustrates that while the country is nominally secular it is largely run by the Christians for the Christians (and maybe a few Jews). While they might have had a black president, and briefly entertained the notion of a female one, how long do you think it will be before we see an atheist POTUS?

While I take the point that the American constitution is secular as are its laws, as a country it can be extremely religiously oppressive. The constitution is to be applauded, for example it seems to be all that stands in the way of Trump setting up a Muslim registry. The constitution alone however does not make America a religiously tolerant country.

BlinkingLights

Can you imagine where the US would be though if it didn't have those constitutional protections and notions of republicanism.
Ireland in the 1950s would be mild in comparison.

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

how long do you think it will be before we see an atheist POTUS?

Possibly, in about a week 😄

silverharp

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Possibly, in about a week ��

they probably had one the last 8 years (assuming he wasn't a secret Muslim )

smacl

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Possibly, in about a week 😄

So by that definition someone who makes loose claims to be a Christian, attends church as rarely as possible purely to please the folks back home, knows sweet eff all about the Christian bible, and is blatantly immoral by Christian standards, is in fact an atheist? By that logic Christendom just shrunk drastically right there and the term Atheist Ireland has all of a sudden become a very reasonable term to describe this country.

Are you still an atheist if rather than believing in a God or gods you harbour delusions that you are one?

J C

Michael Nugent wrote: »

BlinkingLights has addressed your point about the currency. The oath for President is more complicated and has the feel of an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

The oath is a secular oath, and it doesn't include the phrase 'so help me God.' That has been added in informally by tradition, even though it is not part of the official oath.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has supported several legal cases to challenge this practice, but the Courts have found that the incoming President is choosing to say something personally, after he has finished saying the official oath.

Hi Michael, I was aware that 'so help me God' is a voluntary addition that a president may or may not use and that was why I said that the secular USA "will allow Donald Trump take his oath of office ending " so help me God".
i.e. althought the USA is a secular state ... it allows the public expression of religion ... even by the highest office holder in the land.

That is what a liberal secular democracy looks like ... Communist Russia was an example of an illiberal secular dictatorship.

Of all the presidents, The Donald is probably most in need of God's help ... so it is very appropriate that he is allowed to publicly ask for God's assistance.:)

J C

smacl wrote: »

Are you still an atheist if rather than believing in a God or gods you harbour delusions that you are one?

Behaving like he was a god, didn't stop Stalin claiming to be an Atheist !!!:)

C'est la vie.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by smacl
how long do you think it will be before we see an atheist POTUS?

Michael Nugent
Possibly, in about a week ��

Not so quick, Michael ... Trump is a professed Presbyterian ... and a bit of a sinner, by all accounts ... but Jesus Christ came to Save sinners ... including The Donald ... if he asks.:)

Trump is the kind of guy that recognises a great deal when he sees one ... and Salvation is the best deal possible and it lasts for eternity.

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

Of all the presidents, The Donald is probably most in need of God's help ... so it is very appropriate that he is allowed to publicly ask for God's assistance.:)

:rolleyes: Of course you're taken in by his cult of personality.

Go ahead, tell us why you think he's most in need of God's help. Would it have something to do with that most un-"Family Values" activity of committing adultery twice or bragging about sexual assault?

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

:rolleyes: Of course you're taken in by his cult of personality.

Go ahead, tell us why you think he's most in need of God's help. Would it have something to do with that most un-"Family Values" activity of committing adultery twice or bragging about sexual assault?

... 'committing adultery twice' eh ... sounds like an old fashioned Roman Catholic confession that you are making for him.:)

You're very judgemental ... but then again, your username suggest that you think of yourself as a kind of Pope ... and it shortens neatly to PP ... so I guess judgementalism is an occupational hazard.

I was actually thinking that he needed God's help ... to help him to 'drain the swamp' !!!:P

... or possibly a bit of Divine intervention to help 'build the wall' ... if the Mexicans don't 'play ball' ... and don't build it for him!! :eek:
(tongue firmly in cheek ... for those who find difficulty reading my emotional state) !!!

Henry94

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I've long been of the opinion that reforming the constitution is like putting lipstick on a pig.

Rip it up and start again.

I'd like to see that but I think it would be impossible to find agreement on a new constitution. Everyone would find some article unacceptable and we would vote it down. For secularists it might not go far enough but for many religious it would go too far. Property rights would be controversial. Reform of political structures, the courts and the role of the family would all be minefields. Then there's the north.

I think active reform of the existing document where possible may be the only way forward at least in the short term.

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

... 'committing adultery twice' eh ... sounds like an old fashioned Roman Catholic confession that you are making for him.

Nope, just pointing out the hypocrisy of a party picking him as their candidate when they pride themselves on "family values".

I was actually thinking he needed God's help ... to 'drain the swamp' !!!

If you think he's going to "drain the swamp", you haven't been paying attention.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Nope, just pointing out the hypocrisy of a party picking him as their candidate when they pride themselves on "family values".

... blended family values !!!:)

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If you think he's going to "drain the swamp", you haven't been paying attention.

... that is why he needs God's help so badly !!!:)

... and I guess if you are going to drain a swamp, it might be useful to have a few 'swamp experts' on your team.

KingBrian2

People having the right to worship is of course why secularism is good for a country. It does not matter which religion is the dominant one. All groups need to be allowed to freely and safely practice their religious beliefs. A secular state is the best way for religions. No one community taking over the other.

J C

KingBrian2 wrote: »

People having the right to worship is of course why secularism is good for a country. It does not matter which religion is the dominant one. All groups need to be allowed to freely and safely practice their religious beliefs. A secular state is the best way for religions. No one community taking over the other.

I fully agree ... but without mixing my metaphors ... 'the devil is in the detail' ... of how these accommodations are reached !!!;)

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

Not so quick, Michael ... Trump is a professed Presbyterian ... and a bit of a sinner, by all accounts ... but Jesus Christ came to Save sinners ... including The Donald ... if he asks.:)

Trump is the kind of guy that recognises a great deal when he sees one ... and Salvation is the best deal possible and it lasts for eternity.

This post deserves only one word in response:


Bullshit.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This post deserves only one word in response:


Bullshit.

Ah, in fairness it deserves more than that.

... I'd suggest that your 'Bullshit' comment needs to be expanded somewhat.:)

... liberal atheism used be capable of so much better debating points, than your verbally challenged comment would indicate.

J C

Has anybody yet met a Trump supporter in Ireland ... I have met hundreds of Americans over the past year ... and not a single one of them admitted to a being a supporter of The Donald.

I guess it's a love that dare not speak it's name??:)

Hotblack Desiato

What's wrong with my response? Your assertions of Christ and "salvation" are bulls**t.

I would ask you to prove me wrong but that's impossible

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What's wrong with my response? Your assertions of Christ and "salvation" are bulls**t.

I would ask you to prove me wrong but that's impossible

It could derail this thread ... so we'll agree to differ on this.

... while pointing out that using one word expletives adds nothing to any point you might wish to make.:)

Hotblack Desiato

It's an entirely valid and succinct response. Why waste keystrokes. If you want to make assertions of faith there's a forum for that. It's not this one.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's an entirely valid and succinct response. Why waste keystrokes. If you want to make assertions of faith there's a forum for that. It's not this one.

That's a fair point ... but the focus on matters religious on this forum shows somewhat of a double-think ...
On the one hand, you guys claim to not want to hear (positive) assertions of faith on your forum ... while, on the other hand, ye routinely make (negative) assertions of faith all over your forum.:)

J C

Anyway ... is love of The Donald ... a love that dare not speak its name?

... and would increased secularism help supporters of The Donald to 'come out'?

... and would that be a good thing?

PopePalpatine

Oh please. Trump's cultists are all too eager to "come out", especially now that he's won so that they can gloat euphorically.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh please. Trump's cultists are all too eager to "come out", especially now that he's won so that they can gloat euphorically.

... but do you think that more secularism would help (or hinder) the really shy ones from publicly acknowledging that they like The Donald?

... I'm thinking, in particular about 'women for Trump' ... an apparent force to be reckoned with in America ... but again, I haven't met a single woman in Ireland who admitted that she 'was for Trump'.

Secularism is supposed to empower people to express their political views in an inclusive environent ... so what is holding back people from expressing their admiration for The Donald in Ireland.

PopePalpatine

Ugh, it's just non-sequitur after non-sequitur with you, isn't it?

KingBrian2

J C wrote: »

... but do you think that more secularism would help (or hinder) the really shy ones from publicly acknowledging that they like The Donald?

... I'm thinking, in particular about 'women for Trump' ... an apparent force to be reckoned with in America ... but again, I haven't met a single woman in Ireland who admitted that she 'was for Trump'.

Secularism is supposed to empower people to express their political views in an inclusive environent ... so what is holding back people from expressing their admiration for The Donald in Ireland.

Irish people should care about Irish issues and politicians if they care about who governs them and not who is in charge in the White House. Too many people were kissing up to Pres Obama for all the good that did. I like Obama and Trump as both are not afraid to speak for citizens as opposed to the everyday politician and media heads who couch libelous statements in convenient terms.

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

You don't seem to be a 'woman for Trump' yourself ... or is just that you feel socially constrained in admitting it?

Nope, because of two things:
1. I'm a man.
2. I opposed Trump in the election. I'm 22, I don't want to die in a war caused by global warming being accelerated by Trump and his swamp-dwellers.

J C

Anyway, I think that we can safely conclude that a liberal democratic secular state is best for religious and personal liberty.
Secularism per se doesn't guarantee anything ... its how its implemented that is critical.

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

That's a fair point ... but the focus on matters religious on this forum shows somewhat of a double-think ...

I'd be happy for this forum to not exist at all, and I'm quite sure all atheists would join me in that. After all, a-theism is defined in opposition to theism. If theism didn't exist, atheism wouldn't either.
If theists would keep their nonsense to themselves, then the idea of a-theism as an opposition to them probably wouldn't exist either.

On the one hand, you guys claim to not want to hear (positive) assertions of faith on your forum ... while, on the other hand, ye routinely make (negative) assertions of faith all over your forum.:)

I don't think there's a large enough 'roll eyes' icon on the internet for this one!
On the one hand, you guys in the christianity forum claim to not want to hear negative assertions of faith on your forum ... while, on the other hand, ye routinely make positive assertions of faith all over your forum.

I don't need evidence to not believe. You need evidence for your assertions of belief, otherwise you will be roundly and justly ridiculed. If I keep ramming this point home, you might eventually get it.

looksee

This 'tag team' discussion would not be too bad if there were any evidence that the runners were making any effort to actually discuss, rather than just throwing out non-sequiturs and illogical thinking. There is no attempt to understand or engage in the discussion, just repeated throwing out of irrational and irrelevant points. A small bit of effort would at least show sincerity rather than a tendency towards the aforementioned Scandinavian underpass dweller.

smacl

looksee wrote: »

A small bit of effort would at least show sincerity rather than a tendency towards the aforementioned Scandinavian underpass dweller.

Ah here, leave the poor Scandinavians out of it....



...in truth you'd be more likely to find a homeless Irish person living in an underpass these days.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'd be happy for this forum to not exist at all, and I'm quite sure all atheists would join me in that. After all, a-theism is defined in opposition to theism. If theism didn't exist, atheism wouldn't either.

Is Atheism really just opposition to Theism?
That would be Anti-theism (opposition to Theism) ... and not Atheism (the belief that god(s) don't exist)?
Either way, Christians would be well advised to note that many self-styled 'Atheists' are, in fact, Anti-Theists ... and are therefore out to actively destroy and suppress religious Faith, rather than merely holding to a personal belief that god(s) don't exist - and not particulary minding what anybody else believes.
Your statement that this forum primarily exists to oppose theism as distinct from promoting Atheism is very telling indeed.

So glad that you cleared that up and confirmed that many 'Atheists', like yourself aren't just non-believers in god(s) ... but are in serious opposition to people of Faith ... and their God.
... typified by your following dismissal of all Theists and their Faiths.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If theists would keep their nonsense to themselves, then the idea of a-theism as an opposition to them probably wouldn't exist either.

All Christians need to ask themselves if they would like their children taught in a school with an ethos like yours and by somebody with such a negative opinion of Christian people and their faith.

BlinkingLights

See. this is why it would be a secular country where we've all got equality opportunity to be as religious or non religious as we want.

It's about not having someone else's religious beliefs or beliefs about religion (anti theism etc) being rammed down your throats by the state, or your beliefs or lack there of being a hindrance to participating fully in civic life.

There's nothing anti religious or anti atheist about secular systems. It's out equal status in civil society and before the law