Secularism Is Not The Bad Guy

[R. S. Martin]

This grew out of my other thread The Clergy Project and was originally posted there. However, I think it's rather off-topic and should have its own thread so I'll re-post it here:

 

I also appreciate what Brian Worley of exminister.org has been trying to do for decades: "Ex-minister is a unique brand of religious skepticism within a non-believing movement. What’s unique is that it genuinely respects and appreciates good religion knowing that society would miss it if it were gone.

Skepticism shouldn’t be hostile towards religion. I entered the movement as a former minister. Although I no longer believed the creed, religion is much more than doctrines and dogmas; it’s a cultural phenomena and a way of life for the majority. Rather than fighting religion over metaphysics (study of existence) and epistemology (study of knowledge), I believe we ought to be focusing upon ethics (study of action) with an eye towards goodness.

The common good is the intention of religion and secularism when properly focused; lets keep it that way. The dualism of secularism & religion should forge a better world; Ex-minister’s work is to keep them from foolishly dueling."

 

I looked at Ex-minister just now. I see him polarizing the situation with religion being the good guy and secularism being the bad guy. He uses terminology like "hardened secularism" versus "saintly thought values, ethics and morality." He makes it seem like religion is necessary to preserve what is good in society. As Richard Dawkins points out, "trying to be a good person" is not at all what makes a person religious--that "most of us try to be a good person."

 

It is my observation that at best, religion is irrelevant with regards to making a person good or bad, and at worst it "makes good people bad"--a quote from I forget where. Stats have been found to suggest that there are more divorces among religious people, more criminals, etc. Those stats may be controversial. However, the only evidence I have yet seen--the only evidence Christians will come up with when pressed or challenged--for society being worse in the case of secularism is the cases of Hitler (whom we know was seriously oppressive as sanctioned and supported by the Catholic Church and therefore not secular*), Stalin, and other oppressive communist leaders. The argument can be made that those cases of communism are not a true picture of secularism because ideology was the real driving force behind the oppression--as it is in religion.

 

In my opinion, for a real picture of secularism, we need to look at countries like we see in northern Europe where secularism is rampant and people are free and happy.

 

I agree with Ex-minister that if everybody can co-exist happily with nobody getting hurt, then let religion be. Note the "if." There are three conditions in there: 1) co-exist--many religionists disagree with merely co-existing; they feel obligated to impose beliefs, values, and practices--often via civil law, 2) happily, or without conflict and/or harassment of any kind, 3) with nobody getting hurt. "Nobody" equals children, women, and minorities as well as powerful rich males--all of whom may be inside or outside of a specific country's dominant religion. Don't overlook the fact that women and children inside white Protestant fundamentalist churches in North America tend to get hurt just as much as inside fundamentalist Muslim communities in Arab countries. Though the methods of injury may differ, the harm is just as real. That of liberal religion is less easily documented.

 

*See the sources in

, Sept. 18, 2010.

[roadrunner]

I think to flourish you have to get rid of religion. There will always be some nutcase that takes it too far not to mention you have to evangelize to the religion to spread then what if it takes over and most earthlings think that stem cell research is unethical. we're back to the bronze age. I think it seems bad to fathom a world without a moral god because it hasnt happened yet. if you RIP god out of society cold turkey yes there will be a panic and an immoral field day. because people whose LIVES were based on it had it taken away. Economics dont work that way though. Its more of a gradual change. We shouldnt have to co-exist. I say do away with it altogether.

 

Hey, for fun since I have nothing better to do heres my procedure on the death of religion.

 

1.there should be a law "no new religions introduced without evidence" we have enough CRAP out there. Last thing we need is one more hunch to cope with what cant be explained. If a church wants to form they will have to provide a basis for the religion in order to be consider a non-profit. this will stop the exponential growth and dying religions will ultimately succomb to reason and other religions that have not yet fallen

 

2. Make religion a portion of curriculum for kids social studies. They learn politics in civics why not take religion. Match the god with the religion. extra credit for getting the region where it was adopted and failed rapture dates This puts a realistic approach on religion. its no longer some mystical supernatural art. youve demoted it to a mere foot print in history and exposed the attrocities to kids so they can discard it at an early age. not waste their life and see the light at 50.

 

3. Now, more than ever, people are able to adapt to change. Kids now have seen 4 different iphones a new model car every year. life goes obsolete in front of them. i think thats why you see more youth turning from the faith. theyve been on their toes all their life. Throw away the good for the better. Religion is only a good enough explanation until we have a better explanation. Old people on the other hand have lived in the same house for 50 years, and sit in the same seat at church. they HATE change. But eventually this group will die off and the church will have to evolve to a more liberal viewpoint just to maintain.

 

this procedure would happen of the course of several years where society has ample time for generations to slowly ween themselves of a moral code that was etched in a rock and develope the ability to live alongside one another without the invisible babysitter.

 

That was fun....dont see it happening in 2012 though

[R. S. Martin]

It was fun to read, too. I can imagine what would happen if new churches had to provide evidence for their beliefs. They would figure out how to prove that their version of god exists. Then we'd be stuck with making laws to define the validity of supernatural claims. Er, well, since we have presidents and prime ministers who can talk in tongues--or who would surely swear on the validity of answered prayer--I'm not sure if we'd have any problems with the evidence part. I suppose that is why churches do so well to begin with--no taxes and all.

 

But putting failed apocalypse dates in social studies...now that sounds like fun.

 

And what else...Oh, religion=iPhone. That one might work. Baptist till your tenth birthday. Episcopalian until your fifteenth birthday. Unitarian Universalist till your seventeenth. And then BOOM! secularist for life...remember all those failed apocalypse dates from social studies, right???!!!

 

Now, all we gotta do is get our national leaders and their supporters on board...

 

Hmmm.