The concept (and unfortunately, the reality of) Christian hypocrisy has been discussed here a good deal lately. In their continuing “debate,” Douglas Wilson responds to Christopher Hitchens on the issue of morality by asking a simple question: “Is there such a thing as atheist hypocrisy?”
Among many other reasons, Christianity is good for the world because it makes hypocrisy a coherent concept. The Christian faith certainly condemns hypocrisy as such, but because there is a fixed standard, this makes it possible for sinners to fail to meet it or for flaming hypocrites to pretend that they are meeting it when they have no intention of doing so. Now my question for you is this: Is there such a thing as atheist hypocrisy? When another atheist makes different ethical choices than you do (as Stalin and Mao certainly did), is there an overarching common standard for all atheists that you are obeying and which they are not obeying? If so, what is that standard and what book did it come from? Why is it binding on them if they differ with you? And if there is not a common objective standard which binds all atheists, then would it not appear that the supernatural is necessary in order to have a standard of morality that can be reasonably articulated and defended?
So I am not saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to live as a responsible citizen. I am saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to be able to give a rational and coherent account of why you believe yourself obligated to live this way. … Given atheism, objective morality follows … how?
I guess a definition of hypocrisy is in order.
If we put it as simply "saying one thing and doing another" then atheists are as likely to do that as any other human.
If we mean not living up to their ideals, that too could be called hypocrisy, but I don't think that's really correct.
If, however, we mean claiming allegiance to certain principles and then contradicting them in the next breath and in practice, I'd say that such atheist illogic could be considered hypocrisy. It would at least be inconsistent.
I don't know if the idea of "atheist hypocrisy" is any more useful than the idea of "christian hypocrisy" – it's a bit of an ad hominem approach.
I prefer attacking atheism on other fronts, namely logic, primary assumptions, logical consequences of their ideas, the impractical nature of atheism, the history of atheism, esp. as it has played out in totalitarian governmental systems, its epistemological narrowness, and it's intolerance for logical and meaningful discrimination between faith systems (they see all faith systems as equally dangerous and unreasonable).
Atheist hypocrisy? I'm sure it exists. But I don't find this phrase or approach particularly useful for dialog or useful dismantling of atheism's more bogus positions.
Wilson was using the term to raise the point of morality to Hitchens. He wasn't applying the term to anyone or about anyone. He was asking if it can possible exist.
OK. But why is that question important? The answer seems an obvious "YES"
Seeker, because of Stewart's answer. He and Cineaste disagree on this issue. I think Stewart has the more logical conclusion of his atheism – that there can be no objective morality. That was Wilson's point. Hitchens wants to hold on to the morality while dismissing the God, Wilson (and Stewart) don't see that as possible.
Stewart, I don't think of atheism as "some big, cultural movement." I think Christians get in trouble when we start doing that – (ie gay rights movement). There are so many difference between atheists that as you say the only thing that unites them is their disbelief in God. But I also think that many on the opposite side do the same to Christianity, as if we are some cohesive, all-agreeing movement. We have more that ties us together than atheists, but there are self-professing Christians that hold to basically every possible political persuasion and position.
But back to the question of the post, I think that is partly Wilson's point. That atheist don't have much holding them together besides a disbelief, which is hardly a strong tie. Part of what they do not possess is an over-riding sense of morality. It seems Wilson is attempting to illustrate to Hitchens that the lack of an atheistic hypocrisy indicates the lack of objective morality apart from religion. Because atheists can't be hypocritical that shows they cannot believe in some type of objective morality – a case that you also make.
Okay, let's define our terms. What do you mean by "morality"? And how do you distinguish it from "moralism"?
I also think it's important to emphasize that atheism has many strands and thus many outcomes. As for me, I don't see myself as an "atheist" but as a "non-theist," in that I don't view the Ultimate Mystery or Divine or "Force" (or whatever one would call it) in theistic terms. I also don't subscribe to any theistic religions, be they mono- or poly-. I think this particular belief-system has unleashed untold evils upon the world (I include the natural world here).
That was Wilson's point. Hitchens wants to hold on to the morality while dismissing the God, Wilson (and Stewart) don't see that as possible.
but that has more to do with illogic than hypocrisy. I guess unless you expose the illogic and they still hold their position ;)
I don't think of atheism as "some big, cultural movement." I think Christians get in trouble when we start doing that – (ie gay rights movement).
I do, they are a virulent subset of the anti-religionists secular movement, closely tied with the evolutionary believers. While they may not have churches, they have other means of "gathering", talking, and organizing, including web sites, media outlets, thought leaders like Sam Harris, and legislative organizations like the ACLU and other anti-Christian liberal organizations.
I would venture that most members of the ACLU are probably Christians. Not your type of Christians, certainly, but self-professed ones nonetheless. By your special logic, churches like the United Church of Christ would probably be considered "anti-Christian, liberal organizations". Suit yourself, I guess.
Atheism just means not believing in God. Whatever you're talking about is something else entirely. The fact that it doesn't have a name says a lot, I think, about whether it coherently exists anywhere outside of your mind.
I would venture that most members of the ACLU are probably Christians.
Yes, just like Hitler was one too. CHINOs.
By your special logic, churches like the United Church of Christ would probably be considered "anti-Christian, liberal organizations".
I'll put it to you this way. Paul the Apostle said if they deny the gospel (which includes the righteous condemnation of the law), they are ANTI-CHRIST, be they Catholic, ACLU, protestant, or UCC.
If they deny the moral teachings against sexual sin, they are most certainly condemned by Paul, scripture, and by their own heretical anti-truth teachings.
Atheism just means not believing in God. Whatever you're talking about is something else entirely.
Unfortunately, ideas do not hang in isolation. Atheism is in bed with secularism, anti-religionism, and evolution, by logical coherence alone. As such, it is part of a larger social movement against Christ, against religion, and against biblical morality, which it rejects. Atheism doesn't need a separate formal structure in order to have social organs like the ACLU to do it's bidding in an organized and focused manner.
Whoever you are, thanks for keeping Seeker honest!
Oops! That was me.
Have no idea why my ID didn't appear.
Sorry. :)
Plenty of Christians are ‘in bed’ with secularism. Don’t want your President to take his marching orders from the Pope? Welcome to secularism.
I’ve got news for you. Biblically speaking, there is a proper separation of church and secular powers, and the example you give is biblical, not secular. Evangelicals have not forgotten the lesson of the corrupt pre-reformation Catholic church, and what happens when you don’t have a separation of ecclesiastic and civil powers.
Modern secularism, however, goes beyond this to the scrubbing of faith and biblical moral values from public life. I have explained as much in many articles, which I recommend you read before making such uninformed claims about the Christian views of church/state power:
– Legislating in the Moral Gray Zone
– What is “Separation of Church and State”?
– Is applying a biblical worldview to public policy theocratic?
– The Five Spheres of Government
And while you’re growing in your understanding of the biblical separation of church and state, you may also enjoy this post
– Separation of Science and State
If Muslims became the voting majority in America, American Fundamentalist Christians would be the first to carefully stress the importance of separation between Church and State.
If you read those links above, you will come to understand that Christians who think biblically should primarily, if not only argue for legislation based on common ethic, not on claims of religious authority. Even if you are motivated by the Bible or the Humanist manifesto or atheism, your religious beliefs do not carry weight of their own.
This does not mean that we can’t make appeals to religion, or God’s righteousness and standards in public discourse – see the speeches of Lincoln and MLK Jr – and see the Declaration and Constitution for such appeals to higher law, sovereign intervention, and God-given rights.
How about “anti-other religion”? Let’s face it. Those ‘other religions’ might have some beautiful buildings and some cute rituals and singing, but at the end of the day, if they ain’t been saved then they’re going to Hell and be tortured for all eternity.
Yes, you see, the difference between a person who uses reason and logic to discern the relative value of differing faith systems and the modern atheist is that modern anti-religionists are unwilling and often unable to differentiate between or evaluate the relative value or voracity of various faith systems – the fact that you must present the tired FSM canard shows that you have forsaken the ability to discern between supernatural and authoritative moral and historical claims.
Am I right to condemn a religion like Islam that violates human rights? Is that the same as the yoga instructor who believes in chi or the buddhist who claims that we are reincarnated? Only to those who have left logic for weak polemical posturing.
Also, just because I claim that other faiths make erroneous claims does not mean I want to make them illegal. As I have argued previously, modern anti-religionist atheists stand in the stream of their autocratic forefathers, Stalin, Lenin and Marx. When you give them power, they persecute and try to stamp out religion. They just can’t help themselves. Christians have not done such a thing when in power in the US, nor do they persecute other religions in the US.
Rating the value and claims of various religions is what the thinking person does. Rejecting them all is what the anti-religionists do. See the difference?
As Dawkins said “Why don’t you believe in Thor?”
Again, this tired atheist canard has been answered. Because THOR, or the FSM can be evaluated against various standards. How do their claims stand up to history? Archaeology? How refined and helpful are their ethical and moral constructs? How well do their claims line up with other sciences? Dawkins is not an intellect, but a polemicist. Christians listen to him less and less because he is an arrogant man and a superficial philosopher at best. Sam Harris, I have a little more respect for, even though I disagree with him. Quoting Dawkins here is like me quoting Jerry Falwell to you, got it?
Biblical morality? (Oh please, that one’s too easy.)
Not as easy as putting up an irrelevant URL and pretending to have made any kind of answer. What’s your problem with biblical morality?
If the ACLU picks on religious people, then wouldn’t you expect them never to support a case involving religious freedom? Yet, they have. Or don’t those cases somehow count?
Just because they have taken some outlier cases in support of religious people doesn’t mean one can’t identity a clear anti-Christian and anti-religious trend and bias in their work. So no, a few cases do not really count when the bulk of their work is spent supporting the anti-religionists.
Ok, you’ve got me on that one. Anybody who’s into science is surely an Atheist.
Actually, you’ve mistakenly inverted the logic. Almost anyone who is an atheist is also an evolutionist. As for the many scientists who are evolutionists, I have explained why this delusion persists in Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution
So, um thanks for “keeping me honest,” but you got any other questions?
"So, um thanks for "keeping me honest," but you got any other questions?"
I'm still waiting for you to actually answer Cedric's first set of questions. You dodged them all with ad hominem attacks on Richard Dawkins, religious appeals, and right wing rhetoric. They guy raises relevant points to your rhetoric Seeker, and how do you respond? With more mindless rhetoric.
"Not as easy as putting up an irrelevant URL and pretending to have made any kind of answer."
While saying this you hypocritically post 5 links to your own your nonsensical scribblings instead of something people will find worthwhile. What I mean is, all your stuff sounds the same. Your responses are so predictable that the only task left to your readers is correcting your misconceptions, bigotry, lies and revisionism. Yes, we are keeping you honest and sometimes when you get really abusive with rhetoric, we rub your face in it.
It is impossible to keep stinker "honest." He is an agent of the Lie.
I'm still waiting for you to actually answer Cedric's first set of questions.
In which post? He only commented once here, and I answered all of his questions.
You dodged them all with ad hominem attacks on Richard Dawkins, religious appeals, and right wing rhetoric.
In this post, I answered his Dawkins claim, and THEN attacked Dawkins as a jerk with an axe to grind. What specifically did you not like about my answer to Dawkins claim that all religions are equally incredible? His claim that Thor and Christ are equally unbelievable is illogical nonsense, and I explained why I thought that. History, ethical and moral claims, reasonable and complete world views that make sense, etc.
While saying this you hypocritically post 5 links to your own your nonsensical scribblings instead of something people will find worthwhile.
Um first of all, his link WAS largely irrelevant – a site that illustrates bible stories with legos?
I'm sorry you find my well-organized and coherent posts on the very subject that Cedric was ignorantly spouting about "nonsensical scribblings" – however, since I know them to be fairly well thought out and written, and directly applicable to the subject at hand, I'll take your criticism for what it is – a knee-jerk ad hominem attack rather than a reasoned response.
What I mean is, all your stuff sounds the same.
There's a word for that: consistency – consistency within a systematic framework. So what if you've already heard it? I propose it again to answer the same canards – you see, in my mind, I've already provided answers to these common atheist complaints, and repeating those complaints doesn't call for any more explanation than I've already provided, unless you want to counter-argue the things I've answered with.
Your responses are so predictable that the only task left to your readers is correcting your misconceptions, bigotry, lies and revisionism.
Would you like to be specific within the context of my reply to Cedric, or are you spouting more ad-hominems in lieu of reasoned argument?
Yes, we are keeping you honest and sometimes when you get really abusive with rhetoric, we rub your face in it.
I'm glad you somehow feel vindicated, but my face feels fine, and as far as I can tell, I answered all of Cedric's superficial responses easily.
(For the sake of ease of reply, some of Seeker’s responses are in a different order from the original. No distortion of meaning or context is intended.)
Cedric said:
Plenty of Christians are ‘in bed’ with secularism. Don’t want your President to take his marching orders from the Pope? Welcome to secularism.
Seeker said:
I’ve got news for you. Biblically speaking, there is a proper separation of church and secular powers, and the example you give is biblical, not secular.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular
adjective
1. of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations
Secularism “doctrine that morality should be based on the well-being of man in the present life, without regard to religious belief or a hereafter” first recorded 1846.
Seeker, not having your political leaders kow-towing to the Pope sounds very secular to me.
Seeker said:
“I have explained as much in many articles, which I recommend you read before making such uninformed claims about the Christian views of church/state power.”
Read ‘em. Found this.
(From Legislating in the Moral Gray Zone)
“
But to grant them legal status is to legitimize their sin.”
“It’s offensive that they are foisting THEIR morality (or lack of it) on society.”
Romans 1:32
Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”
Sin, morality and God righteous decree. Deserving death and all that.
Consider me informed. I’m sure a Theocrat would never use such language.
Seeker said:
”Evangelicals have not forgotten the lesson of the corrupt pre-reformation Catholic church, and what happens when you don’t have a separation of ecclesiastic and civil powers.
Modern secularism, however, goes beyond this to the scrubbing of faith and biblical moral values from public life.”
So let me get this straight….
Evangelicals/Creationists/Real Christians are actually in favour of separation of Church and State?
No civil branch of government playing footsie with the priests?
No blurring around the edges?
Strict, separate, Bible-approved secularism?
Well, I’d love to take your word for this but I’m just not sure.
You see, the ‘other side’ says that THEY are the ones promoting separation of Church and State and that your lot fight them at every turn.
Who to believe?
The Evangelicals/Creationists/Real Christians with their ‘lessons of the Reformation’ or the ACLU and the American Constitution?
…Decisions, decisions…
Well, I’m not a theologian nor a lawyer so how can I make an informed judgement?
If only I could get some kind of major league debate happening between the two parties. Experts on both sides arguing about where to draw the line between Church and State. Perhaps some real smart people who know an amazing amount about the American Constitution could make a call on which side had a better argument?
Hmmm…..
Well, I guess I’m in luck.
Turns out that kind of debate has happened many times before.
In the law courts.
As regular as clockwork, the Evangelicals/Creationists/Real Christians get their butts whupped by the ACLU over who has the correct version of Church and State separation according to the Constitution.
‘Reformation lessons’ vs the Supreme Court? No contest.
Seeker said:
“Just because they [the ACLU] have taken some outlier cases in support of religious people doesn’t mean one can’t identity a clear anti-Christian and anti-religious trend and bias in their work. So no, a few cases do not really count when the bulk of their work is spent supporting the anti-religionists.”
Tell it to a judge. Cry me a river. The phrase is “The Lord loveth a cheerful giver” not “The Lord Loveth a sore loser”
Seeker said:
“Christians who think biblically should primarily, if not only argue for legislation based on common ethic, not on claims of religious authority. Even if you are motivated by the Bible or the Humanist manifesto or atheism, your religious beliefs do not carry weight of their own.
This does not mean that we can’t make appeals to religion, or God’s righteousness and standards in public discourse – see the speeches of Lincoln and MLK Jr – and see the Declaration and Constitution for such appeals to higher law, sovereign intervention, and God-given rights.”
So you call on “Bismillah” in the classroom would be..?
Or “In Krishna we trust”…?
Or a tasteful statuette of Kali next to a judge’s gavel?
Seeker said:
“As I have argued previously, modern anti-religionist atheists stand in the stream of their autocratic forefathers, Stalin, Lenin and Marx. When you give them power, they persecute and try to stamp out religion. They just can’t help themselves. Christians have not done such a thing when in power in the US, nor do they persecute other religions in the US.”
Translation: Atheists are all godless un-American Commies.
Seeker, the Cold War is over. The Good Guys won. Please come up with new material.
Seeker said:
“…modern anti-religionists are unwilling and often unable to differentiate between or evaluate the relative value or voracity of various faith systems – the fact that you must present the tired FSM canard shows that you have forsaken the ability to discern between supernatural and authoritative moral and historical claims.”
Seeker, let’s face it. You don’t believe in Thor.
Further, it’s got nothing to do with historical claims, relative values, archeological evidence and all the rest of that nonsense.
Your faith is well…Faith based.
Your God demands that you shall have no other god before Him and that’s that!
You know right from the get-go that whatever those poor fools wearing the saffron robes say or do, that they are in a dead-end fake religion that offers a one-way ticket to Hell.
The niceties of Chi versus Islamic rights violations is just the rearrangement of deck chairs of the Titanic.
You KNOW that the other guy’s religion is a waste of space because your religion tells you so.
Now an Atheist also doesn’t believe in Thor.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Got proof that Thor exists? Terrific.
Haven’t got it? Then get lost.
What could be more logical?
Let’s look at the religions/cults/sects that you reject…
(The ones that are ANTI-CHRIST, right?)
Just grab a random handful of god/gods worshippers from various eras, civilizations and ethnic groups.
Do you get to see their God/Gods? Or record their voices on a tape player? Nope.
Do they claim divine powers and historical miracles? Sure.
Yet when you invite them to demonstrate these powers under controlled scientific conditions, they make up some lame excuse why it’s not convenient, yeah?
Have they got a special class of people that don’t do any real work except ‘interpret the word of the God/Gods’? And these same people get to pass around a collection plate?
Of course, all their wealth, prestige, numberless worshippers and sheer earnestness of faith don’t impress you.
You can smell the proverbial rat a mile off.
Well, an Atheist smells the same rat for the pretty much the same reasons.
Where you and he part company is when your OWN religion is brought under the microscope. Suddenly, you want to pull out a “Get out of Jail Free” card.
You are an Atheist with a blind spot.
Seeker said:
“Also, just because I claim that other faiths make erroneous claims does not mean I want to make them illegal.”
Who wants to make faiths illegal? Never suggested it.
Seeker said:
“What’s your problem with biblical morality?”
and later…
“Quoting Dawkins here is like me quoting Jerry Falwell to you, got it?”
Jerry Falwell it is…
“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.”
https://home.comcast.net/~joe.grabko/falwell.mp3
If that’s biblical morality, you can keep it.
Seeker said”
“Almost anyone who is an atheist is also an evolutionist. As for the many scientists who are evolutionists, I have explained why this delusion persists in Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution”
In the above article Seeker said: “I suspect it is not a conspiracy, but a DELUSION.”
Seeker, I don’t care what you ‘suspect’.
Only what you can PROVE!
Evidence.
The bottom line is you don’t understand science or the scientific method.
Oh maybe, a long time ago in a galaxy far away, you were a scientist. But whatever qualifications or scientific background you once had, you flushed it all down the toilet when you joined up with AIG and started to support hoary old chestnuts like the SLoT Argument and the ‘tornado in a junkyard’ Argument.
That’s not science, that’s anti-science.
You can’t create a valid scientific theory from spurious logic.
You can’t march into a lab with that kind of mentality and get any useful results at all.
You scientific position is a vacant lot with a “This space for rent” sign on it.
Get in your car. Take your camera with you. Drive to a major university near you.
Find the Physics faculty on campus. Walk into the faculty staff room and explain to the senior professor there about how the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution.
When you have finished delivering this scientific gem, quickly take a photo of the professor’s face.
The expression on his face will be a look of pity, with a possible undercurrent of contempt.
It is the look of pity that an educated man gives the ignorant or the delusional.
Take that photo, Seeker. Mount it next to your computer monitor.
It will help you visualize me every time I read one of your re-heated ‘arguments’ of how scientists are biased, delusional, in a conspiracy, or whatever…
Seeker said:
“So, um thanks for “keeping me honest,” but you got any other questions?”
Um, no.
Seeker said:
“You see, while secularists would not want to give the Pope civil powers, neither would biblical Christians. This does not make the latter secular.”
No, I am not saying that biblical Christians are secular. I not even sure how you would define “biblical Christian”. I’m saying that secularism does not allow for the civil leader of a nation to be a glove-puppet for a religious leader.
Later Seeker said:
“‘I gave many non-religious reasons why homosexuality is and will always be considered immoral”
I don’t get it. What non-religious reasons?
In “legislating in the moral grey zone” you said…
“But to grant them legal status is to legitimize their sin.”
“…be grateful that their sin is NOT punishable by state law.”
“What do you find “vicious”? Calling it a sin and perversion? Speak to the bible about that.”
What is so non-religious about that? Every second word is either ‘sin’ or something about the bible. What do you mean by “non-religious reasons”?
Cedric said:
“Tell it to a judge. Cry me a river.’
Seeker replied:
“Um, so, are you agreeing with my reasoning about the ACLU having and anti-Christian trend and bias, or are you still holding to your demand that if they take one pro-religion case, then they are somehow NOT a tool of the left?”
No, the evangelicals/fundamentalists/real christians of the world would not be paying any attention to the ACLU if they did not have successes in court. We all know that the U.S.A. (a secular state) has had (and has!) an overwhelmingly Christian population.
It is inevitable that IF the line between Church and State had been blurred by an inappropriate law or religious symbol of endorsement, then that law or symbol would most likely have a Christian bias. It would be highly unlikely, indeed almost unimaginable, that a law or symbol could creep into the civil arena that promoted ,say, Zoroastrianism or Shintoism. So, when American secularists in the modern era notice a blurred edge that they feel must be corrected, then it’s usually a Christian vs Secularism thing. No bias/conspiracy needed.
To show the supposed bias of the ACLU, you must provide EVIDENCE.
Has the ACLU repeatedly refused to represent legitimate complaints against the State brought by Christian groups regarding religious freedoms?
Has the ACLU repeatedly refused to represent legitimate complaints against the State brought by Christian groups who claim that the civil arena is somehow showing favoritism or bias to some other religion?
For example: A statuette of Kali adorning a state building or a Muslim teacher promoting Sharia law in a public school?
Provide such cases and I’d be prepared to admit that the ACLU simply has it in for the Christian community in America. Even a handful of cases would be enough to make me suspicious. Yet without such examples, your allegations of ACLU bias/conspiracy just sounds like a smear tactic brought about by frustration.
Provide proof!
Next.
From “Why Atheists are theocrats.”
“Atheism (>100 MILLION) – at the hands of the militant anti-religious atheists Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong.”
Adolf Hitler?
Adolf Bloody Hitler??
(…slowly pounds head against a brick wall…)
Seeker, we’ve been there!
I thought you revised your opinion on the subject?
Seeker said:
“[Atheist belief that] religion is bad will lead them to first restrict faith (as secularists are trying to do now in their misguided total prohibition of faith in the public sphere), and then persecute it when it fails to bow down to their utopian dreams of a world without religion.”
I don’t see how you can justify this kind of argument.
Nazi Germany was not a nation of Atheists. Germans back in the 40’s did not see themselves as Atheists. Nobody was ever denied membership in the SS or Nazi Party because they were a Catholic or a Protestant. Jews however….(well, you get the picture.)
Perhaps I’m wrong but you seem to think that Secularism is the slipperly slope of doom leading to some hideous version of Atheism/Communism/Totalitarianism/etc.
Communism is dead and vast majority of secular nations around the world are happy to see it go.
Secular nations don’t support religious oppression. Really!
Separation? Yes.
No playing footsie with religion and keeping civil government neutral? Sure!
Boiling nuns in burning oil? (Jeez Louise! Give me a break!!!)
Look, I’ll try and prove it to you.
First, what do I mean by secularism or a secular state/nation?
These are the definitions I would use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
1. Secularism, in one sense, asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.)
2. Secularism, in another sense, refers to a belief that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on what it considers to be evidence and fact rather than religious influence. Where religious based doctrines directly refer to absolute truth or divine law, secular law is based upon reasonableness which was developed during the age of enlightenment. Secularists believe that all activities falling outside of the private sphere should be secular, i.e. not religious (See also public reason).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state
“A secular state is a state or country that is officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices, and has no state religion or equivalent. A secular state also treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and does not give preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over other religions.
Theoretically, a secular state is defined as protecting freedom of religion as pursued in state secularism. It is also described to be a state that prevents religion from interfering with state affairs, and prevents religion from controlling government or exercising political power. Laws protect each individual including religious minorities from discrimination on the basis of religion.”
(as an interesting aside, further down the page we have…)
“It should be noted that there are many states often considered secular where the term is not, in fact, applicable. In the UK, the head of state is required to take the Coronation Oath [1] swearing to uphold the Protestant faith. The UK also maintains positions in its upper house for 26 senior clergymen of the established Church of England known as the Spiritual Peers. [2] It can therefore not be considered a secular state.”
Key phrases:
“Freedom of Religion”
“Freedom from government imposition of religion”
(or to put it another way, the government doesn’t get to preach)
“Officially neutral on matters of religion”
“Laws protect [the] individual and minorities (from religious discrimination).”
For my money, that’s the best and fairest way to organize your society.
Secular nations and the secularists did not aid and abet Stalin and Mao.
They were Stalin and Mao’s worst nightmare.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Exhibit A.
The Korean War.
In the Red Corner, Stalin and Mao.
(the original Commies, not some Brezhnev or Deng Xiaoping substitute).
In the Blue Corner, a host of SECULAR STATES.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
“U.S. forces were joined by troops from 15 other U.N. members: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France, South Africa, Turkey, Thailand, Greece, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Colombia, the Philippines, Belgium, and Luxembourg.”
Let’s be clear about this. ALL the nations that went to war with the bad guys were Secular States.
They weren’t Utopias. They had problems. They had issues like all other countries.
Yet, as countries go, they weren’t all that bad.
Most of them had Christian majorities, both Protestant and Catholic.
But others has Muslim majorities or Buddhist majorities.
And get this, they went to save another Secular State that had a mish-mash of Buddhism and Confucian beliefs. (The Christianity boom was in later decades)
The secular states put their UN votes, blood and money on the table and went to war against the poster boys of Communism.
Yes, the war was a bloody stalemate.
Lots of people died.
The voting public became disillusioned with the war. (Funny how that happens)
After the war, South Korea endured authoritarianism for several decades before finally becoming a liberal democracy.
I’m not claiming that the Korean War was somehow a wonderful time and than everything went our way.
Yet, what is significant is that a large organization of secular states got together an actively resisted the bad guys to protect the Free world.
The secularists did not see the USSR and China as being their natural allies.
Despite there being active Communist parties in most (if not all) UN participant countries, those Communists MISERABLY FAILED to muster support for Stalin or Mao or that little fat guy. The general populations, despite being citizens of long established secular states, failed to see how it was in their best interests to open their hearts and minds to an Atheist/Communist/Totalitarian/whatever system.
They did not slide down the slippery slope.
They did not let the Commies come in through the back window.
There was no slippery slope. It didn’t happen.
Here endeth the history lesson.
(Sorry about the length)
So, what about state atheism?
Well, first the definition…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
State atheism is the official rejection of religion in all forms by a government in favor of atheism. The only country to officially ban religion was Albania under Enver Hoxha; however, numerous governments throughout history have actively (and, sometimes, violently) opposed religion, persecuting religious institutions, leaders and believers, to the same extent with Hoxha’s Albania.”
So, it’s plain see that State Atheism IS NOT Secularism AND Secularism is NOT State Atheism.
Deliberately conflating the two is just dishonest.
Citizenry living in a modern, secular, liberal democracy would have to be TOTAL NUT-JOBS to want to live in the above version of an Atheist State. It’s just pure paranoid fantasy to suggest otherwise.
It’s not even that secular states don’t have quirky exceptions:
“Not all legally secular states are completely secular in practice. In France for example, state institutions close for Christmas, and teachers in Catholic schools are salaried by the state.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state
In the interests of fairness, I tried to find out alternative definitions.
So I consulted Conservapedia, but they had really crappy entries.
All I got that was of interest was that Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase
“Separation of Church and State” back in 1801.
Looked up the definition of secularism but I was redirected to “Christian Humanism”
Neither “State Atheism” nor “Atheist State” had any articles.
Seeker said:
”That’s very insightful of you to think you know WHY I believe”
You’re right. I have no idea why you believe the things you do. I stand corrected.
Cedric said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Got proof that Thor exists? Terrific. Haven’t got it? Then get lost. What could be more logical?”
Seeker replied: “I agree. Attempts at such proofs do exist, that’s what the field of apologetics is all about. I suggest that if you are really looking to examine the “proofs” offered by Christians, start with Lee Strobels’ excellent books.
Apologetics? (…Sigh…)
I’m more of an empirical evidence sort of person.
Has there ever been a religion in the whole of human history that did not use apologetics as ‘proof’ that theirs is the one true faith?
Seeker, even a believer like you has the decency to put the word “proof” in quotation marks.
Come on, it’s just so…empty.
If your interested in how apologetics sound to me then check out this guy called Zakir Naik.
He’s a REAL piece of work.
His video (one of many) is called ‘How to prove the presence of God to an Atheist.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpcnoCy6wS8&mode=related&search=
Cedric said: “Who wants to make faiths illegal? Never suggested it”.
Seeker: “So you are ok with the 10 Commandments in the Supreme Court?”
Seeker, even if I had the power to push a magic button and wipe Christianity from the face of the Earth I would not do so. It would prove nothing.
Making any faith/religion illegal is just plain wrong for any number of common sense reasons.
That’s why I’m a big supporter of secularism.
The 10 commandments?
Place them in your Church with pride. Advertise them daily in newspapers across the land.
Tattoo them across your chest.
Recite them into an MP3 file, set it to music and then use the file as a substitute horn signal for your car. Go ahead. Knock yourself out!
I’m not going to stop you.
If anybody TRIES to stop you, then I’ll protest them. Or sue them, or fight them, or declare war on them or even sic the ACLU on them on your behalf.
Whatever it takes to protect your religious freedom. Because secularism is the fairest way to go.
Yet that law court, or school or public building?
No. Really bad idea.
If I let you put those 10 commandments in there, then I’m caught between a rock and a hard place. For if I let you put your favorite religious symbol in a civic building, I am OBLIGED to the SAME FOR ANYBODY ELSE’S favorite religious symbol.
No favoritism allowed!
I can’t make an exception for you, just because you really, really, really think it’s a good idea. Secularism doesn’t work that way.
Yes, I know you are a tax-payer. But so is the Ralean down the street and the Moonie down the hall. One religious symbol, two religious symbols, four religious symbols, more religious symbols…
Don’t even get me started on the issue of sectarianism.
Seeker said:”If you read more than just the title of the post, you might be able to engage my specific claims. Saying “I suspect” is fine…”
No, you don’t get to hide behind a weasel phrase like “I suspect”.
That doesn’t give you a moral licence to just make stuff up.
That’s not civil discourse or debate.
It’s called malicious rumour and innuendo. An attack on reputation.
People do it all the time.
“I suspect the government engineered 9/11. They wanted to justify the war.”
“I suspect doctors are all in the pay of Big Pharma, they sell us stuff just to keep profits high.”
“I suspect my local priest is a pedophile. After all, he is a Catholic.”
Such words are in and of themselves damaging. They are corrosive.
Easy to say, almost impossible to stop.
For them to erode confidence in people or institutions, no evidence is required.
All you need to do is plant the idea.
No matter how much some people might hate George Bush, they have no right to foster conspiracy theories and dishonour the dead. It’s just sick.
There are quack doctors but to smear the whole profession with some brain-dead comment just breeds cynicism and distrust. That’s why some people hesitate to go to the hospital or listen carefully to their doctor’s advice or take some useless home remedy. The result is that precious time is lost and people’s health suffers.
Mention the word pedophile and it never, ever goes away.
Never. Ever.
When you ‘suspect’ that scientists are delusional/biased/ in a conspiracy etc. then congratulations, your work is done.
Credulous religious people will be able to connect the dots just fine and happily ignore the ‘I suspect’ because it reinforces their own instinctive distrust of those ‘ivory tower types’.
You take a big fat brush and you smear millions of dedicated professionals across the world because “you suspect”.
Classy. Nice one.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
To put the words ‘delusional’ and ‘scientists’ on the same blog page, anybody with self-respect should provide several tons of evidence.
Mountains of it, in fact.
Otherwise, you’re no better than the rejects who explain away the tragedy of 9/11 with a damned conspiracy theory.
Seeker said:” I think the bottom line is that you resort to ad hominems and sarcastic non-sequiturs in lieu of reasoned responses.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ad hominem as formal fallacy
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false.
Examples:
• “You can’t believe Jack when he says there isn’t any God because he doesn’t even have a job.”
• “Charles Manson wrote this song, so it must be unlistenable”.
• “Candidate Jane Jones’ proposal X is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003.”
I did not resort to an ad hominem.
This is an ad hominem.
Seeker espouses the StoT argument.
Cedric says Seeker is ugly and fat.
Therefore Seeker is wrong about the SToT argument.
I did not say this.
I said that any Physics professor at a university would treat you with pity and contempt for using the SloT argument.
Go to a mathematics teacher and say that Pi=3 and you’ll get the same dirty look.
That’s not an ad hominem, that’s a safe bet.
A sure thing.
If you say something wrong, then perhaps it’s because you don’t know any better.
If you repeat the same wrong thing again and again, then maybe the person trying to correct you just isn’t a good teacher.
However, when you say something wrong that’s easily checkable AND you’re an adult AND that something wrong is actually world-famous for being a spurious argument AND you have access to the Internet, then don’t expect any pats on the back.
Wow cedric, that’s a LOT of writing!
I don’t get it. What non-religious reasons?
In legislating in the moral grey zone you said
But to grant them legal status is to legitimize their sin…be grateful that their sin is NOT punishable by state law…What do you find “vicious”? Calling it a sin and perversion? Speak to the bible about that.
What is so non-religious about that? Every second word is either ‘sin’ or something about the bible. What do you mean by non-religious reasons?
1. I made both religious and naturalistic arguments. The reason for the former is that many people doubt that the scriptures are clear about condeming homosexuality.
2. Can you ever say something is immoral without a religious reason? If not, call things “unethical” or “bad for our health.”
3. In my arguments above, perhaps I should have said “immoral” or “bad for society” instead of sin so that it was clear what were were talking about – to paraphrase it, things that are morally questionable, not clearly moral or immoral/dangerous, should be handled with neutrality by the govt. That’s the idea.
4. The non-religious arguments about the danger and unnaturalness of hx include:
– it goes against the design of the body – for procreation, as well as sex in general – the anus, for instance, is not designed for stuff going in, just out ;)
– the basic buildling block of society is the family (man, woman, children). Other family structures are not to be encouraged (though we should, for instance, help single parents, but that is far from the ideal situation for parent OR child), and to do so would be to encourage chaos in society. In fact, single parent homes cause all kind of monetary and social problem
– pscyhological research shows that children with loving, hetero parents do better emotionally than any others – in fact, research is showing that for healthy development, children need both genders present in the home
– homosexuality has been strongly correlated with higher incidents of death, disease, and mental illnesses like depression and suicide. Even when you control for societal “rejection,” gays have higher incidents of mental illness. This correlation indicates that the hx identity is probably not healthy
No, the evangelicals/fundamentalists/real christians of the world would not be paying any attention to the ACLU if they did not have successes in court.
You are changing the subject. I originally said that the ACLU is a tool or organ of the atheist/secularist left. You said that they were not because they have taken on some pro-religion cases. I said that a few outlier cases does not mean that they are somehow objective or not anti-religious, since they have a strong pattern of being so. You said cry me a river. I said that your answer was meaningless, and that you must be ungraciously acceding to my statement. Do you still hold to the statement that the few pro-religion cases taken by the ACLU proves that they are not anti-religious or tools of the atheist/secularist left?
To show the supposed bias of the ACLU, you must provide EVIDENCE.
So if I provide evidence of their anti-christian bias, you will agree with me? Because your statement above about taking a few pro-religion cases did NOT make your point, and you have not answered my counterpoint. You can start by reading The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values [Agape Press Review].
Interestingly, Christianity had an interesting article on the ACLU’s work FOR christians entitled The ACLU is not Evil. You might also read Trial and Error: The ACLU and Religious Expression.
Provide such cases and I’d be prepared to admit that the ACLU simply has it in for the Christian community in America.
I didn’t say that they had it in for Christians, but that they are a tool of leftists, including the anti-religionists. And maybe they are not totally leftist. But I was arguing that organizations like them (or People for the American Way, for example) are certainly doing organized work that anti-religionists would want done, even if there is not official organization of atheist politicians and lawyers.
Adolf Hitler?
Yeah, that claim I don’t buy into. If you’ll notice, that article is a summary of somone else’s work, not my own writing. Hitler was not an atheist, he was a social Darwinist – but not a Christian, though he called himself one – he just pandered to the church to get them to stop resisisting him. We’ve had that discussion previously. However, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, these men were all atheistic in their world view and politics.
Nazi Germany was not a nation of Atheists.
You are using a logical fallacy here. Just because Hitler persecuted Christians doesn’t make him an atheist. But ATHEIST governments have ALWAYS persecuted religion. Just look at Russia, China, etc. QED.
Perhaps I’m wrong but you seem to think that Secularism is the slipperly slope of doom leading to some hideous version of Atheism/Communism/Totalitarianism/etc.
I do not. In fact, there is some value to secularism, as long as it is not the virulent anti-religious and extreme church/state separationist kind. My slippery slope argument really only applies to anti-religionists, whom in general are just the atheists. If you give them power, I absolutely believe, from a logical (absolute power currupts ultimately, and their hatred for religion coupled with moral relativism and often collectivism will give them opportunity to justify it “for the good of all.”) and historic perspective, that persecution of religion will result.
Communism is dead and vast majority of secular nations around the world are happy to see it go.
Well, thankfully, western liberals have mostly stopped supporting it. But Putin’s Russia is still alive an kicking. And China, despite it’s economic reforms, is still communistic, and oppressive.
A secular state is a state or country that is officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices, and has no state religion or equivalent.
I agree with most of the definitions you give of secularism, but the problem comes when you try to interpret such things as what you mean by “religious beliefs.” You see, “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator” is a religious belief.
Let me be clear. I am not against secularism, per se. What I am against is the extreme anti-religionist atheist secularism that, for example, won’t let me preach that homosexuality is a sin without wanting to charge me with hate speech. The type that won’t allow a student to bring their bible to class or do a book report on the Bible, etc. The type that religious freedom organizations like the ACLJ have to fight against constantly because they are infringing upon religious rights in their zeal to keep the public arena religion-free.
Again, my beef is not so much with secularism, but with the virulent anti-religious, atheistic Dawkins types who would sooner see us not say “God” in the pledge, nor allow public officials like Abraham Lincoln to refer to our Christian heritage of the judgemnet of Providence.
Secular nations and the secularists did not aid and abet Stalin and Mao. They were Stalin and Mao’s worst nightmare.
Um, perhaps, but again, my beef is with the antireligionists. Call them ‘atheists and fundamentalist secularists.’ So all of your lengthy arguments about the wonders of the secularists are besides the point – I am not arguing that point at all.
So, it’s plain see that State Atheism IS NOT Secularism AND Secularism is NOT State Atheism. Deliberately conflating the two is just dishonest.
I agree. I’ve never said that, and didn’t mean to conflate the two. But to me, fundamentalist secularists = anti-religionists = atheists (for all practical purposes, although not all atheists are anti-religionists – only the new crop of Sam Harris wannabees).
he only country to officially ban religion was Albania under Enver Hoxha
Um, maybe by some extremely narrow definition. Are you saying that the other communists were not atheistic and anti-religion?
Apologetics? (…Sigh…) I’m more of an empirical evidence sort of person.
What makes you think that apologetics does not include empirical evidence? It encompasses history, archaeology, philosophy, science, logic, sociology, and many more disciplines. It is not theology.
even if I had the power to push a magic button and wipe Christianity from the face of the Earth I would not do so. It would prove nothing.
Good to hear. D. James Kennedy wrote a book and preached on “What if Jesus had never been born?” The answer? Many significant impacts on society, including the areas of the value of human life, slavery, education, government, science, free enterpriese, art and literature, etc.
If I let you put those 10 commandments in there, then I’m caught between a rock and a hard place. For if I let you put your favorite religious symbol in a civic building, I am OBLIGED to the SAME FOR ANYBODY ELSE’S favorite religious symbol.
True. I guess, like the founders, while I agree that in the idea of separation, I also believe that the Christain Bible is true, and the god of the bible, and the principles held therein, are objectively true and should be honored. I get your point, but I guess I allow for some fuzzy edges because I honestly see these things as both historically relevant and objectively true.
So let me ask you. What do you do with all of the Christian stuff in our nation’s history, including in all of our buildings and monuments in Washington DC? These include such things as the paintings in the rotunda, plus all of the things listed at the link above.
No, you don’t get to hide behind a weasel phrase like I suspect. That doesn’t give you a moral licence to just make stuff up.
That’s not civil discourse or debate.
I put those out for debate and discussion. No, I haven’t proved them, but believe them to be true, and there’s no reason for me to not make those assertions for the sake of debate. So mellow out. As you may see in my latest global warming article, one of my postulates is supported by those who were “duped” by the global warming panic. So the first bit of evidence for my assertions has come in.
It’s called malicious rumour and innuendo.
It could be, but in this case, I don’t think that’s what I am doing – I am not trying to damage anyone’s reputation, only explain why I think a certain condition exists. Not every unproved assertion is slander.
Yes, ideas have consequences. But the recent politication of science, and the grand assertions made on little real data need to be countered. People ought to lose a little confidence in modern science – we treat it like it is infallible, and it is far from it – in fact, it has been significantly been corrupted by politics, money, and ideologies like Darwinism.
When you ‘suspect’ that scientists are delusional/biased/ in a conspiracy etc. then congratulations, your work is done.
I understand your point, but disagree. I think that’s a scare tactic to keep me from suggesting my doubts. If people’s faith in science is so superficial that I can’t express doubt, then it is a weak faith indeed.
I did not resort to an ad hominem.
I condsider your patronizing sarcasm ad hominem – rather than address arguments, you make snide comments like “cry me a river” or “Please come up with new material” or “you don’t understand science or the scientific method”, and make snide comments about what I believe, basically calling me a fanatic and a dolt.
You do better than some here, and your approach has improved since i reproved your first post ;)