The Dangers of Secularism

But you have shown no direct cause and effect between secularism and evil. The of the list: Only Communism could be said to have any connection to secularism, and as others have said before, the lack of God in Communist societies is just a replacement of a "spiritual god" with a dictator acting and being worshiped as god. Just like the emperor of Japan during WWII or Kim Jong Il in North Korea.This message has been edited by Rand Al'Thor, 05-15-2005 05:08 PMThis message has been edited by Rand Al'Thor, 05-15-2005 05:10 PM

---

If ten thousand persons with Ph.D.'s say porn does not harm kids this means they are secret pedophiles and brazen liars.
-Willowtree

Don't you think it rather significant that a man should replace God?After all, we have no direct instructions from God, but we have some very definite instructions if we have a man substituting for a God.

If you look back in history you will find that there were many human cruelties prior to the invention of the modern secular human.You might want to look at the crusades, for example. They killed a few hundred thousand people. The inquisition were also fairly inhumane. Ignore the mortality count and you get another whole list of non-fatal misery caused by religion - female circumcision, hatred of homosexuals, prohibition of interfaith marriages, etc. These all predated the widespread secularisation of the 20th century (although I think you're exaggerating the extent of that secularisation).Now it is clear that a few hundred thousand people (Crusades death count) is small talk compared to the achievements of war in the 20th century. But this is mainly due to the fact thats thata) pre-modern religious conflict occurred in a very different demographic framework to 20th century war. In the middle ages, it would be impossible to kill millions of people for example. A few hundred thousand is actually a remarkable effort in a land occupied mainly by rural people.b) the superior death count of 20th century war is clearly due to technological advances. In the crusades they had battering rams, swords, bows and arrows, etc. The 20th century was inventive enough to come up with industrialised slaughter houses and nuclear bombs.given these differences, comparison of "body counts" becomes a bit silly.mick

Well, men and gods and animals have been very mixed up together for millenniums. God doesn't speak for himself, it's always someone speaking for him. Men have been elevated to gods, and God has incarnated as men, women, and other things.I'm wondering if you are also dealing with some form of existentialism and rationality versus a older sense of an authoritative order that can be appealed to as an objective standards. Certainly some fundamentalist on this site have suggested that the problem with naturalism and rationality is that it allows a subject sense of morality whereas their religion whether Islam, Judaism, or Christianity claims an objective morality that is a standard outside of human judgement. Though the only way they arrive at this is by their human judgement so I don't see they have eliminated that factor anyway.lfen

I love your comments, Ifen, and I think you understand that I'm not on this side or that side. But no, I don't believe that religious morality is more objective than secular morality. Neither is it less objective.My point is that a non-religious system doesn't solve any problems, as we saw in the first half of the 20th century.

quote:

---

Therefore, I conclude that secularism has its own special dangers, perhaps even worse than problems caused by religious cultures.

---

Any system that attempts to stifle freethought will cause problems, whether it is a religious system or a non-religious system.I found this quote from Susan Jacoby, the author of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism interesting. I'll have to see if my library has the book. So it stands that freethinkers would also want protection from religious interference with freethought should the religious or any religion become the majority.In the book A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson, it states: Theocracy may have worked well in a tribal situation but didn't seem to work for large nations.

quote:

---

What happened to fill the vacuum of this lack of religious belief?
Communism
Fascism.

---

From what I can tell true communism isn't for or against religion. It is supposedly a system of equality. Religion can exist within a truly communist society. Some of the NT teachings lean in this direction.IMO what we call communist societies are more socialist in application.Oddly enough religion existed within fascism also (a system of government characterized by dictatorship, belligerent nationalism, racism, militarism, etc.)None of these governmental systems are against religion. It is the human element that ultimately shapes the system. A theocracy could use any of these systems to form their government.The religious are no less corruptible than the nonreligious. From the looks of history, each has had its day.These types of "isms" are not my strong suit, so pardon me if my views are overly simplistic.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Robin,Yeah, I don't think either of is going to be accused of being overly optimistic.I do understand that this pessimism about the phenomenal world does lead some of us to look for philosophical or religious consolation.I have always been impressed with the clarity of the story of the Buddha and the contrasts of the life of wealth and power failing to provide consolation in the face of disease, old age, and death leading to his transformation as he awakens to Nirvana and discovers an existence beyond samsara.lfen

I'm all for the freethinkers, and I really do not understand how the USA went from Deism to the stuff we see today. But it seems to me that Jefferson (and others) were far more educated than W. Bush.But here's the point: it does not matter if a regime is religious or not as regards the evil that they do.So let's stop saying that religion is the most prevelant cause of evil.

---

The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.---Milton

Theoretically, so they say, but in actual fact, actual practice, religion is persecuted in Communist societies. Belief in God tends to set a person's allegiance above the State and leads to independence of mind -- at least Christian belief does -- which is not tolerable in Communist regimes as they have to micromanage everybody and can't tolerate personal freedom. This was true of the USSR and it's true of Communist China and of North Korea. Socialism can be somewhat domesticated but even then it leads to more control over the individual than is consistent with the concepts freedom and equality that were hammered out in the history of the West.

Religion,like so many other things, is a handy tool for doing good or evil. But it's just that, a tool. It can be and often has been misused.Unfortunately though, looking at history, religion has all too often been used destructively. One good example is the vast bodies of knowledge that have been destroyed over time, particularly by Christianity.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

"Unfortunately though, looking at history, religion has all too often been used destructively."Yes, and recently so has secularism.

Would you say that personal arrogance would be a factor?Someone convinced of their {opinion\understanding\worldview} coupled with conviction that they should lead others away from paths of error?Yes it can be steeped in religious, or atheistic or "class" beliefs, but it seems to me that all dictators feel they should naturally be leaders.shwubbya is no different there. I wonder if we wouldn't be better served by having say 100 candidates drawn by a lottery that then go through an "american idol" election, where they would have to answer certain positions town-hall stylejust some loose thoughts, offered freely ... {{edited to show relevance of comments to topic points raised by the topic author}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*15*2005 08:19 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Getting way OT there.

do you know of a place where communism is actually practiced?as oppossed on oligarchy dictatorship that pretends to be communist?there are socialist countries, and they have no particular problem with allowing believers to practice their beliefs.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

still OT? what's the last line in the original post?