The Dangers of Secularism

As regards whether or not there is a "vacuum" in the absence of religious belief, on a theoretical level I can certainly understand the idea that a religion or substitute for a religion is not necessary.But in actual fact, it seems to be the case that when a religion is abolished something has to take its place. I recall reading Bertrand Russell's comments about Soviet Russia: he said that they treated the writings of Marx like sacred scripture.

I believe John Paul II visited Cuba a few years back. Basically giving his tacit endorsement of Castro's government.Here's a brief wiki:

quote:

---

In the post-revolutionary era religious practice was discouraged,and Cuba,from 1962, was officially an atheist state until 1992 which it amended its constitution to become formally a secular state. While the papal visit to Cuba has strengthened official Catholicism, most Cubans share a motley of faiths that include popular Catholicism, over 50 versions of Protestantism, spiritism, African-derived beliefs.

---

That quote gets at important point. It seems that Robin and others here have conflated Atheism with Secularism. The US is secular, the Soviet Union was Atheist, and there is a big difference imo.

quote:

---

Religion as such or are you talking about sectarian conflicts or pseudoreligions?

---

Native Americans were forbidden to practice their form of religion. They were forbidden to speak their language.

quote:

---

The separation was to benefit and encourage religion, specifically the Christian religion, not eliminate it.

---

Exactly. Even though this is a democratic nation and the amendment speaks of religious freedom, religions other than Christianity weren't encouraged. It wasn't true religious freedom.Did the democratic system persecute other religions? No, the people within the democratic system did. The democratic system has nothing to do with religion or lack there of. Now people within the democratic system have been working to assure that people are free to practice their religion of choice and people are just as free not to practice a religion.Again it isn't the system that persecutes or oppresses, it is the people. Which I think brennakimi states clearer in Message 40.Secularism doesn't necessarily lead to persecution any more than any other government, economic or religious system in history.As I said before, the religious can persecute just as easily as the nonreligious.

---

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

quote:

---

As for religion, one would expect that a communist state would have to repress of even oppress religion, but Cuba is a good counterexample.

---

The communist state would not have to repress or oppress religion if the state chose that religion.See Religious CommunismIMO religion can function within any of these systems if the leadership deems it is allowed.

---

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

I think that the issue is more having to do with human "in/out group", tribal mentality.Religion, secular cults of personality, they are all the same.We want to control others, and if we can't control them, we might as well kill them.Power makes people able to do these things on a larger scale, is all.Religion is a way for the few to have a lot of power over the many.Rationality and reason is the only reason we haven't blown up the planet so far.

quote:

---

it seems to be the case that when a religion is abolished something has to take its place.

---

Well, the word "abolished" might have something to do with it.There's a difference between abolishing religion and having it decline on it's own.

As an aside, the reason your original examples didn't work is that they really weren't about "secularism". Everyone has pretty much done this to death already though the communism thing keeps hanging on. The problem with communism (assuming the Soviet-Marxist) version is that it is not secular, it is anti-religious.There is a difference between saying I will not deal with the religious, and I will oppose the religious. Yes, for most people, when religion is removed as a "truth" used to back an absolute morality, and believe morality must be the backbone of gov't, they will seek another prop.The problem is moral absolutism, and the belief that gov't must be based, or reflect, morality. Thus atheists who believe their moral system is best or better than those of Xians, can be just as rude and dominating with their system (not even questioning its bases), just like the Xians. This has been quite evident at EvC.As long as moral absolutism exists, as well as the feeling that gov't must reflect morality, there must be atrocities as a "secular" system will not exist and an anti- system will be practiced.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

well, i feel i must mention that jews in germany during the first world war survived the economic collapse during the war and the great depression because they lived in a communist type society. communism has little or nothing to do with whether or not there is religious freedom. the point of communism--as i said before--is an economic system of sharing one's talents and communal property. the only thing that would get in the way of true communism in a religious way would be the way the catholic church handles their money and property.marx didn't really invent communism, he just named behaviours already seen in society and predicted that, in the end, they would prevail over capitalism and greed.england has been partially communistic forever. ever hear of how they deal with the grazing fields? they're basically almost public land. there are walls (short stone ones) and fences with gates and anyone is free to wander through the lands and use them as long as they close the gates so farmers don't lose their livestock. i forget now what they call that system, but it's a tribal type communistic tradition.

I didn't know this had been "done to death." All I've been reading is how bad religion is for the world. My point is that secular systems can be just as bad.I take secular to mean "non-religious." I certainly understand your point about the difference between atheistic communism and your ordinary secular government such as in Europe or the US, but still call both Soviet Union and, say, England, secular as opposed to Iran, say, which is not secular.Most governments used to be religious; now most governments are secular. During the period of time we've been discussing (1st half of 20th century), there was an increasing trend toward the secular, both in governments and in culture. After WWII, the churches began emptying in Europe even more rapidly than before (at least that's what I read), but not, for some unfathomable reason, in the US.Since then there has been a fundamentalist backlash in all three Western religions.I'm not sure if there is something in the very nature of communism that makes it vicious, but it certainly has been. I am well aware, of course, that communism as practiced in the Soviet Union was not really "communism," but since they called themselves communists, it's proper to use the term.

What you said about the jews is interesting. Have any links of interest on the subject?(BTW, yours was a very reasonable post. I was expecting a savaging.)

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

I don't believe secularism can be said to be the primary cause of the two world wars and the holocaust as there were many factors, but I do think it played a role.I think humans have a psychological need for certainty of truth, for hope in the future, for meaning and purpose, and for acceptance by their peers. All of these needs have more or less been met by religion in the past. When these needs are not met, this creates a very unstable situation where the first brilliant person with a lust for power and a talent for demagoguery can wreak havoc as he attempts to gratify his lusts.I think secularism does create a vacuum in the minds of the populace and may prevent these needs from being met. Unless these people are taught to be extremely skeptical, this vacuum will suck in any doctrine that is fed them and they will rush to support this new "cause" as the highest ideal of humanity.

Fascism is obviously more complicated in its relationship to religion, but to call the Fascist governments of WWII "religious" seems rather misleading to me. I'm not sure about the Japanese Empire or Italy, but I think I can say something about Hitler's "religion."If this is religion, then this is something very different. I am aware of his references to the Christian church in his political speeches but I certainly don't think he was a sincere Christian.From what I can gather he believed in something along the lines of Creative Evolution, of which he was the spearhead. Mankind would evolve into the Superman, eliminating inferior races along the way--this was something that was destined by the evolutionary Will.His moral system consisted of the following: What's good is what's powerful and what's bad is what's weak.In a technical sense, this, I suppose, is a religion but it's totally different from the traditional sense of religion. It is not other worldly at all.We have to add, though, that he liked the Church because (a)Christians hated Jews (traditionally) and (b)the church was anti-communist. So he did have that in common with the Christians.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-16-2005 02:20 PM

Christians have this habit of saying that those Christians that do terrible things are not real Christians.IMHO this is silly and most dishonest.Real Christians do really really bad things for very Christian reasons. That was true in the past and is true today.We don't get a By just because they did bad things. We don't get to exempt ourselves from culpability as Christians for the EVIL that other Christians do.As Christians we must see and acknowledge both the good and bad in Christianity, and strive to eliminate the bad in the future.We need to realize that Christianity, even today, is one of the most exculsionary organizations around and filled with bigotry and hate. We need to look internally at Christianity and ask what it has done wrong and how it will do better in the future.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The motive that you are describing, Jar, obviously cannot be my motive since I am not a Christian.I said what I said about Hiter's beliefs because I think it's true.

I did not mean to assign some Christian motive to you. But I also want to make the point that as a Christian, neither I or any other Christian can get around history by saying "so and so was not a REAL Christian". Christians do really bad things often in the name of Christianity.Actually, I was not even thinking so much about Hitler, but about Christian Schools for American Indians that forced kids to forgo their native language and heritage to save their souls and the Christianization of the South and Central American cultures where we, in the Name Of Christ, took away their language, history, religion and then burned all their written records.Compared to what was done in the Name of Christ in the Americas, the holocaust pales. Here we did what Hitler only dreamed of.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion