World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Secular state
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Mehreen
(last edited Feb 27, 2017 06:57AM)
(new)
Feb 27, 2017 04:13AM
How are secular states any different from Islamic or the Jewish State? I see religion mingled with politics and mangled by it everywhere. What do you see?
reply
|
flag
Uh, how about for starters the fact that they avoid the poisonous mixing of politics with religion? Such a mix has brought nothing but intolerance, hatred and wars to these theocraties and their neighbors.
Government action isn't based on religious mandates.
Tara Woods Turner wrote: "Government action isn't based on religious mandates."Tara is back, welcome! Long time no see -:)
Mehreen wrote: "How are secular states any different from Islamic of the Jewish State?"Looks like you put everything together: theocracies (like: Iran or Vatican), secular countries with state religion (a religion endorsed by the State, like some European, Asian and other countries) and others. Islamic state is connected to religion, while Jewish - more to nationality than religion, while it endorses 5 religions and many sects of each...
People are allowed freedom of thought and expression?
I see religious intolerance mingled with politics and mangled by it everywhere. What do you see?
Where religion plays dominant role and there is a heterogeneous society - often happens indeed
Nik wrote: "Where religion plays dominant role and there is a heterogeneous society - often happens indeed"Then is secularism not farcical?
Mehreen wrote: "Then is secularism not farcical?"It's undermined by religious tensions and intolerance sometimes, but an atheist I'm a fan of a secular state and society -:)
As it often happens - non-religious people are indifferent/neutral to religious beliefs of the others, but religious dudes - don't reciprocate with the same
Nik wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Then is secularism not farcical?"It's undermined by religious tensions and intolerance sometimes, but an atheist I'm a fan of a secular state and society -:)
As it often happens -..."
Yeah but the West is divided today, all those secular states, for religion. I thought it was seperate from politics.
Mehreen wrote: "Yeah but the West is divided today, all those secular states, for religion. I thought it was seperate from politics...."Not sure whether religious undertone characterizes best the division. It seems to be more about 'outsiders'
Nik wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Yeah but the West is divided today, all those secular states, for religion. I thought it was seperate from politics...."Not sure whether religious undertone characterizes best the..."
"Outsiders" are not just people but Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists (China's appalling treatment of the Buddhists) (The Buddhists' treatment of the Muslim Rohingyans). All based on religion.
Tara Woods Turner wrote: "Government action isn't based on religious mandates."It may not be a "religious mandate" as such but "secular states" such as Britain, USA have always acted on religious sentiment. The state of Israel was created by the West for the Jewish people. The cause of Hitler's persecution of the Jewish people was based on religion. The West, have always played politics on the basis of religious faith rather than nationality. "Secularism" is just an eyewash.
It's all based on hate, secular, religious, it doesn't matter. It's so they can call to arms and glue their interests to defend their interests.
GR wrote: "It's all based on hate, secular, religious, it doesn't matter. It's so they can call to arms and glue their interests to defend their interests."Yeah. I think so too. Just using fancy words. Same old, same old.
Mehreen wrote: "Tara Woods Turner wrote: "Government action isn't based on religious mandates."It may not be a "religious mandate" as such but "secular states" such as Britain, USA have always acted on religiou..."
Britain isn't technically secular. It's borderline unlike, allegedly, the USA which acts like a Christian theocracy. France is a better example of a western secular state.
Roughseasinthemed wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Tara Woods Turner wrote: "Government action isn't based on religious mandates."It may not be a "religious mandate" as such but "secular states" such as Britain, USA have always a..."
None of them are. But they pretend to be so. That's the hypocrisy.
Disagree. The British monarch is the Defender of the Faith. That is not pretending to be secular. Check up secular states on wiki.But Britain is far more tolerant and multi religious (if that's a description) than so-called secular America.
What about Canada? Secular, in theory, like Australia.
Mehreen wrote: "All based on religion...."I think it's a generalization. Of course, it's often based on religion and Slovakian prime-minister pointedly mentioned that there are no mosques in Slovakia and thus Muslims won't feel comfortable there.
But if Buddhists were coming in scores instead of Syrian refugees, it might be equally controversial.
Before that, there were concerns in Europe and UK about Polish (Christian) workers, Ukrainian immigrants and so on..
Mexicans are also not exactly Muslims...
Sometimes it's also secular vs any religion..
Sure, Islamophobia, antisemitism, racial prejudice, anti- and pro-religious sentiments exist and prolific, but I wouldn't necessarily interpret each instance of division from the religious angle...
To base acceptance of any philosophy solely upon faith requires the willful suspension of the analytical thought process. It was this willingness to substitute faith in place of logic, debate, and research that inspired people to accept and support the horrendous activities directly associated with the Spanish Inquisition, the infamous witch hunts in Salem, Massachusetts, Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Italy, and Communism in Russia, China, and North Korea, and sporadic radical terror attacks around the world.
Jim wrote: "To base acceptance of any philosophy solely upon faith requires the willful suspension of the analytical thought process. It was this willingness to substitute faith in place of logic, debate, and ..."
Hear! Hear!
Hear! Hear!
It's no secret that religious thought has often stifled analytical thought, but is it because of the religion or the people who held power over others and were afraid of losing that power?If you look at a religion (at least, most religions), the problem is not what religion teaches. It is with the self-proclaimed followers that want power in the name of that religion. Exercising power over others is actually anti-religious. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the US that are addicted to power and use their version of Christianity as a means to an end.
People tend to cherry-pick the parts of the Bible (or Torah, or Koran, or your religious text of choice) that they like and ignore the meaning contained within the full text. Americans tend to do the same with the Constitution also, especially the part pertaining to freedom of religion and maintaining a separation of Church and State.
You can add to these the Second Amendment, about 'The right to bear arms', which the NRA and various gun nuts in the U.S.A. quote to justify arming themselves to the teeth.
Major religions and the numerous sects and denominations within those religions do all share one common belief. Each believes that it knows for certain, through devout prayer and divine revelation, that the other religions, sects, and denominatons got it wrong.
Jim wrote: "Major religions and the numerous sects and denominations within those religions do all share one common belief. Each believes that it knows for certain, through devout prayer and divine revelation,..."Religion has always prevailed in the back of secularism. Secularism was only a front. Modern governments might not have had anything as blatant as the "Sharia Law" but religion has always been implicit.
