Should we encourage secularity? (1 Viewer)

[ihavenothing]

In recent years I have been majorly pissed off by the number of people in this country and around the world who are turning back to more conservative forms of religion and in doing so, their practice are justifying their behavior to be more antisocial, homophobic, misogynistic and in my view, attempting to brand criticism of religion as racism. Not just with the Muslims (which I believe many need to stop complaining about racism and not being able to integrate when their beliefs and practices are incompatible with a Western society), but even in the Jewish community, more people are adopting an Orthodox lifestyle and popping out the young ones and the attitudes toward non-Jewish people are becoming more and more racist and exclusionary. We have Hillsong supporting Liberal and Family First candidates at a dangerous pace and the separation of church and state is at stake. The Catholic Church, always trying to pose as the underdog (but which is still the no. 1 religion in the country) is still controlling the dominant right-wing of the Labor party and I'm not looking forward to the attitudes towards the gay community and abortion clinics during the World Youth Day.

The definition of a family, in nearly all traditional religious discriminates against same sex couples, marriage and relationships, which discriminates against in a range from shunning to executions.

Modern religions are promoted everywhere as being as godly whilst they smear antitheist and agnostic ideologies such as atheism and Humanism, which have never been promoted by the government nearly as much as the major religions. Why do we have hardly any non-religious public schools? Why do they still teach religion in public schools in NSW? Why are religious festivals used as a sermon for intolerance towards people who do not choose to believe in a concept that has no proof (God)? Why does a politician have to have a religion in order to get into one of the major parties in parliament (Beazley, Howard, Abbott, Costello, Downer, Rudd, Danby, Andrews, Bishop, Roxon, Burke, Cadman, Coonan, Baird, Gash, just to name a few)?

If secular humanism is taught in schools, it may help to remove the prejudices and bigotry against such social groups and weaken religious practices (not necessarily beliefs) that endanger the way we treat people, animals and our environment.

 

[volition]

I support the separation of church and state, we don't need religion interfering with the process of making laws.

 

[davin]

i would say yes.... i think that as far as gov't is concerned, it should be secular. If people use religion to guide their own lives in ways that don't effect others, thats up to them

 

[*Minka*]

Church and State do not mix.

 

[yy]

i would encourage secularity. however, i think MPs are elected by the electorate, and if the electorate want the member to promote religious values, he/she should?

 

[davin]

personally, i'd differentiate between promoting a value that is associated with being religious and promoting religion itself

 

[HotShot]

no, one mp cannot do much, especially when other mps are against those values.

yes need to encourage secularity.

 

[banco55]

You are assuming that secularity is a win/win proposition. I don't want to get overly philsophical but if you create a values vacuum by removing religion you don't necessarily end up with a secular humanist society. You know dostoyevsky's dictum that "if god is dead everything is allowed". Arguably communism and facism were both attempts to fill the vacuum with new gods. Also secular humanism in practice tends to erode the family, community and standards of behaivour. There's been a large rise in crime in western countries since the early 60's for example (despite rising prosperity) and a massive rise in illegitimacy/divorce etc. Meanwhile Western Europeans aren't even producing enough babies to replace current population levels. If that's not a sign of decadence/decline than I don't know what is.

 

[ihavenothing]

How is it? This earth is overpopulating too much as it is.

 

[ur_inner_child]

You are assuming that secularity is a win/win proposition. I don't want to get overly philsophical but if you create a values vacuum by removing religion you don't necessarily end up with a secular humanist society. You know dostoyevsky's dictum that "if god is dead everything is allowed". Arguably communism and facism were both attempts to fill the vacuum with new gods.

I agree with that to an extent, ie removing religion, but in regards to seperating the church from the state, I think that would be fine. Religion's still around. I don't personally feel that anyone who is generally against organised religion but understands social dynamics would disagree with you at all.

Also secular humanism in practice tends to erode the family, community and standards of behaivour. There's been a large rise in crime in western countries since the early 60's for example (despite rising prosperity) and a massive rise in illegitimacy/divorce etc

Most Western countries like to display that they're quite a religious country. But that aside, I don't feel that marriage in a religious country is anymore secure than in a secular country. I think the fact that that there are such increasing numbers are due to far more complex influences than just religion/secularism.

I feel you're quite right about the absolute removal of religion, but marriage is an iffy argument, considering non-religious people still attend a church and all the hullabaloo of a ceremony. The idea of family, marriage and union in relation to religion is all mixed up in the subject of removing religion.

Meanwhile Western Europeans aren't even producing enough babies to replace current population levels. If that's not a sign of decadence/decline than I don't know what is.

It's a sign, but I don't know if you could blame secularism. As a very light handed comment, I would blame the problems of career vs family in both sexes, rather than secularism.

 

[banco55]

How is it? This earth is overpopulating too much as it is.

Because you end up with totally screwed up demographics. IE heaps of over 60's and relatively few in the 18-30 range. Western Europe isn't over populated. In any case I'd prefer over population to living in a moribund society whose best days are long since behind it. Australia for example will have serious trouble in ten to fifteen years with maintaining our armed forces at their current level with voluntary recruitment unless the economy tanks.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Because you end up with totally screwed up demographics. IE heaps of over 60's and relatively few in the 18-30 range. Western Europe isn't over populated. In any case I'd prefer over population to living in a moribund society whose best days are long since behind it.

I was actually hoping you were going to reply to my post when I saw you had replied.

Oh well.

 

[banco55]

I agree with that to an extent, ie removing religion, but in regards to seperating the church from the state, I think that would be fine. Religion's still around. I don't personally feel that anyone who is generally against organised religion but understands social dynamics would disagree with you at all.

Most Western countries like to display that they're quite a religious country. But that aside, I don't feel that marriage in a religious country is anymore secure than in a secular country. I think the fact that that there are such increasing numbers are due to far more complex influences than just religion/secularism.

I feel you're quite right about the absolute removal of religion, but marriage is an iffy argument, considering non-religious people still attend a church and all the hullabaloo of a ceremony. The idea of family, marriage and union in relation to religion is all mixed up in the subject of removing religion.

It's a sign, but I don't know if you could blame secularism. As a very light handed comment, I would blame the problems of career vs family in both sexes, rather than secularism.

Sorry only had a few min before tea so replied to the shorter message first. I'm in two minds about the religion/state question. On the one hand you have the US which has very strict separation of church and state yet is the most religious western country. On the other hand you have some of the scandinavian countries that had official state churches (that were taxpayer funded) yet the scandinavians are some of the most irreligious people on earth. But to complicate the picture further I dont' think there's much doubt that the fact that Islam permeates all areas of society has made it much more resilient than modern christianity.

The decline of marriage, rise of anti-social behaivour etc. in the last 30 years are obviously very complex phenomenon but I think the decline of religion is a major factor. Take the example of illegitimacy. Yes society up until the early '60's were often quite cruel to young women who got "knocked up" and children who were born to unmarried mothers suffered from the stigma. But society's attitudes that pregnancy before marriage was immoral did have the effect of keeping the illegitimacy rates down by discouraging women from having pre-marital sex and encouraging men to "do the right thing" if they got a girl pregnant. Similarly my Mum went to a catholic school and said there was a lot of stigma associated with being a divorcee up until the early '70's to the point where priests would refuse divorcees communion etc.

As for career/family pressures lowering the birth rate even that has a strong religious aspect I tend to think. Would the feminist revolution even have been possible if religion was still as strong as it had been 50 years ago? Note I'm not saying the feminist movement was a bad thing only that it had some regrettable side effects.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Sorry only had a few min before tea so replied to the shorter message first. I'm in two minds about the religion/state question. On the one hand you have the US which has very strict separation of church and state yet is the most religious western country. On the other hand you have some of the scandinavian countries that had official state churches (that were taxpayer funded) yet the scandinavians are some of the most irreligious people on earth. But to complicate the picture further I dont' think there's much doubt that the fact that Islam permeates all areas of society has made it much more resilient than modern christianity.

The decline of marriage, rise of anti-social behaivour etc. in the last 30 years are obviously very complex phenomenon but I think the decline of religion is a major factor. Take the example of illegitimacy. Yes society up until the early '60's were often quite cruel to young women who got "knocked up" and children who were born to unmarried mothers suffered from the stigma. But society's attitudes that pregnancy before marriage was immoral did have the effect of keeping the illegitimacy rates down by discouraging women from having pre-marital sex and encouraging men to "do the right thing" if they got a girl pregnant. Similarly my Mum went to a catholic school and said there was a lot of stigma associated with being a divorcee up until the early '70's to the point where priests would refuse divorcees communion etc.

As for career/family pressures lowering the birth rate even that has a strong religious aspect I tend to think. Would the feminist revolution even have been possible if religion was still as strong as it had been 50 years ago? Note I'm not saying the feminist movement was a bad thing only that it had some regrettable side effects.

So it's not religion you feel is the good thing, but moreso the values in which they contain, as in, you feel that by preventing the choice to divorce, or to have pre-marital sex, it would therefore increase the number of babies being born and decrease illegitamacy and somehow this will be good?

Dare I say that in my point of view, I would take a step back and focus on people's happiness and wellbeing? I could not imagine to HAVE to stay with a man that changed from the guy I fell in love with for the sake of legitamacy and the possibility of me bearing more children for the population, nor could I imagine vice versa (so that there is no "gender" argument).

It is also somewhat rushed to notice a trend (such as a decline of babies) and link it with another trend (decline of religion) and automatically assume that the two affect each other.

I keep bringing this up by it brings a valid point - my boyfriend's parents are not married, yet have been together for decades and have had three children. The absence of marriage has not affected the baby concern, as well as "illegitamacy" (assuming that you condemn illegitamacy for reasons that the particpants are often hurt, not together, but in this case they are together).

Marriage, I still feel, is an iffy topic to justify your argument.

It is still possible to 'do the right thing' without religious intervention, where a man would 'do the right thing' if a woman was "knocked up. I do, however, feel that religion would make it 'easier' to follow such a code.

It is just that the concept of implying what is "immoral" and not, to simply contain potential problems that may or may not happen is problematic itself. It is like saying "not going to university is immoral" so that more people would feel the need to go to university. A very awkward example I know, but it has the same effect.

Those who do not choose to marry but choose to stay together etc will always be labelled immoral and wrong, no matter how much the couple loved each other and for how long they stayed with each other.

Marriage does not always equate to babies and a true sense of togetherness, and also does not always involve religion, and hence why I feel it is almost irrelevant to the argument of yours: the removal of religious is unwise etc.

That being said, I did enjoy reading your post. A few bits here and there I do agree with, others I'm not so sure. Again, I still feel that justifying the problems with the total removal of religion with use of marriage does not seem to give me the sense of a strong argument to which you obviously deserve, considering both non-religious and religious people head toward "marriage", where morality is not the same for both parties.

 

[banco55]

So it's not religion you feel is the good thing, but moreso the values in which they contain, as in, you feel that by preventing the choice to divorce, or to have pre-marital sex, it would therefore increase the number of babies being born and decrease illegitamacy and somehow this will be good?

Dare I say that in my point of view, I would take a step back and focus on people's happiness and wellbeing? I could not imagine to HAVE to stay with a man that changed from the guy I fell in love with for the sake of legitamacy and the possibility of me bearing more children for the population, nor could I imagine vice versa (so that there is no "gender" argument).

It is also somewhat rushed to notice a trend (such as a decline of babies) and link it with another trend (decline of religion) and automatically assume that the two affect each other.

I keep bringing this up by it brings a valid point - my boyfriend's parents are not married, yet have been together for decades and have had three children. The absence of marriage has not affected the baby concern, as well as "illegitamacy" (assuming that you condemn illegitamacy for reasons that the particpants are often hurt, not together, but in this case they are together).

Marriage, I still feel, is an iffy topic to justify your argument.

It is still possible to 'do the right thing' without religious intervention, where a man would 'do the right thing' if a woman was "knocked up. I do, however, feel that religion would make it 'easier' to follow such a code.

It is just that the concept of implying what is "immoral" and not, to simply contain potential problems that may or may not happen is problematic itself. It is like saying "not going to university is immoral" so that more people would feel the need to go to university. A very awkward example I know, but it has the same effect.

Those who do not choose to marry but choose to stay together etc will always be labelled immoral and wrong, no matter how much the couple loved each other and for how long they stayed with each other.

Marriage does not always equate to babies and a true sense of togetherness, and also does not always involve religion, and hence why I feel it is almost irrelevant to the argument of yours: the removal of religious is unwise etc.

That being said, I did enjoy reading your post. A few bits here and there I do agree with, others I'm not so sure. Again, I still feel that justifying the problems with the total removal of religion with use of marriage does not seem to give me the sense of a strong argument to which you obviously deserve, considering both non-religious and religious people head toward "marriage", where morality is not the same for both parties.

I don't disagree at all that in many cases people will be quite happy in defacto relationships and many times people would be happier if they walked out of a marriage. But I think the way you make the point reflects a way of thinking that is quite divorced from how a religious person might approach the issue. Religion tends to be much more utilitarian than more secular viewpoints. Religions in practice tend to emphasise what's good for the community over what's good for the individual in comparision with more secular viewpoints. In other words staunch Christians might be willing to accept that a certain percentage of marriages will be unhappy yet still be very reluctant to make divorce anything but difficult and rare. If 5 % of marriages are unhappy but more children have 2 fulltime parents and God's law isn't compromised they might find that an acceptable situation. Anyway marriage might not be the perfect example of what the decline of religion can help bring about. The holocaust is the scariest example of what the decline of religion can help bring about.

 

[SashatheMan]

We are slowly getting there. The battle WILL be won. Religion will be forgotten, and sanity restored in the heads of many.

 

[davin]

That's sort of what I was talking about. Though, if you think about it, you get a lot of strictly religious people who'll vote for someone of the same religion if they're open about it, because the assumption is that they share similar values eg. I would argue (proportionally) many American evangelicals are Republican voters, and Hillsong types are often Liberal or Family First voters.

Also, I enjoyed reading banco55's posts. Just thought that banco55 might like to know.

yes, but, the point is, society is ALWAYS inforcing the morals of the majority. Its very difficult, and I'd think almost unfair, to try differentiate between whose values count and whose don't.

 

[Casmira]

How is it? This earth is overpopulating too much as it is.

actually 'western nations' population is decreasing and developing countries population is increasing, we could be wiped out eventually but it always happends. the developed countries vs developing countries struggle over the centuries always has ended that way, look at the roman, greek empires they had the same problem.

either your nation shrinks to a constant size or is forever wiped out (which i doubt on the latter)

they're developing and they breed; australia did the same thing 50-100 years ago, america did 50-100 years ago. now its china/india's turn

 

[banco55]

actually 'western nations' population is decreasing and developing countries population is increasing, we could be wiped out eventually but it always happends. the developed countries vs developing countries struggle over the centuries always has ended that way, look at the roman, greek empires they had the same problem.

either your nation shrinks to a constant size or is forever wiped out (which i doubt on the latter)

they're developing and they breed; australia did the same thing 50-100 years ago, america did 50-100 years ago. now its china/india's turn

The pheonomenon of low birthrate levels in the Western world coupled with an aging population is totally unprecedented. I think our generation (assuming you're 16-25) will find the future quite bleak because of it.

 

[banco55]

You're telling me - there are certain things, I'd argue, that I'd be looked down upon by society for. That doesn't mean there's no place for taking religious values into consideration when governing a country, particularly if you have a large proportion of religious people of a particular faith/s.

The problem I see is that if you're a religious person, the Left doesn't want to know about you and/or ridicules you (well, the more extreme groups - I'm still annoyed about the posters I saw floating around advertising, 'Christianity is hostile to sex: A Marxist perspective' because I think that's pretty disrespectful, If you replaced Christianity with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. there'd be a lot more fuss) whereas if you're a member of a minority group you tend to get listened to a lot more, hence why we've got this culture of political correctness but Christian- and Jewish-bashing seems almost OK. And the Right, at least the conservatives, tend to listen to one extreme side of the spectrum (*cough* Family First) so all those people in the middle are seemingly excluded.

And I'm not getting into the population argument... suffice to say I don't want kids as a personal choice.

Lie back and think of Australia