What secularism is

galen

lily, I did not say the UK was a theocratic state. You are extrapolating in an exaggerated manner from what I did say. Do you actually think that it was the separation of church from state in the repressive regimes you refer to that made them repressive? I don't.

China does not fit the description of secular that the UK National secular Society describes just as the ones you referred to from the twentieth century didn't. I do not know anything about the North Korean approach to religion. They do have a dead person as their official head of state, which I find somewhat weird but whether that is relevant to religion or to secularism I have no idea.

I think my understanding of secularism and what it is for, which the NSS article in the OP describes extremely well, is leagues apart from some other people's understanding of it. Nobody, so far, has said exactly what they disagree with in that article, which is telling I think.

DD is just arriving from Edinburgh. Happy Christmas, everyone.

Galen - so if muslim girls want to wear their hijab in school, their parents have to try to get them into a muslim school. Not so easy as in the UK, there are very few.

So I be.ieve

Believe!

And you base your post of 15.43 on what particular personal knowledge of France soontobe?
Apart from getting the wrong end of the stick re secularism you seem to be living in some parallel universe where schools and or the state teach good old C of E to all their meek little kiddywinks. It is NOT the respondibility of the State to dictate our beliefs thank god thst went out with religious persecution centuries ago. Lets not go back to burning heretics!

'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'

You seem unable to understand soontobe that what you believe is personal to you. You may believe in heaven and hell - others are either undecided or don't believe - conceptually or materially - in the existence of heaven and hell.

This inability of certain sections of people from all religions or belief systems to appreciate that their beliefs are unquestionable and inherently superior, has, I feel, caused and continues to cause many of the problems in the world today.

France is a secular state but I don't think it has done a particularly good job of integrating its population and has far worse race relations that we do. I'm inclined to think, though, that this lack of cohesion may well be more connected to resentments arising from its colonial history - in particular in relation to Algeria - than to secularism.

A review in "Christianity Today" of a book called "Society without God" which looks at the effect of secularism on societies, with particular reference to Swedish society, concluded that:

"Zuckerman proposes what he calls a "socio-religious irony." The world's great religions speak of caring for the sick, the poor, and the orphaned, and of practicing mercy and goodwill toward fellow humans, yet these traits are often more evident in the world's least religious nations."

The reviewer points out that this does not prove causation - that secularism results in a more altruistic and caring society - but she nevertheless recognises that it is something worth considering.

I realise this is straying away from the OP. But, as some posters appear to think that the current privileged position of the C of E provides some sort of ethical/moral framework which would not be there without its presence, I thought I'd just throw another thought into the mix.

Good post, Eloethan

I have not mentioned France as far as I know.

I didn't say you did.

I think Eleothan is bringing together all the strands of this discussion, soontobe - not just your point of view.

I was answering Soutra.
And now I can see that she thought I was talking specifically about France in my post to Penstemmon, but I was talking in general, not specifics.

Merry christmas to all.

I'm not convinced by the statement that altruistic characteristics are ' often more evident in the world's least religious nations'. I'm sure this quote ignores a huge body of meticulous research to back it up. Otherwise it sounds very much like wild generalisation on no evidence.

States like China and N Korea are not secular - they merely replace the deity with the State, and worship proceeds as before - this is also true of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, both of which were led by people who knew the technique well - Hitler, a Roman Catholic who claimed God's approval for what he did, and Stalin - who was trained in a seminary.

I must say it's pleasing that nobody has thrown their teddies out of the pram during these threads - it doesn't happen often!

That's a cop-out, feetle. Although the ideologies of totalitarian regimes are often compared to religions and share some chacteristics, they are not faiths. And they are secular to the extent that they suppress religion. Perhaps the lack of personal animosity has to do with the spirit of Christmas. Love and peace and so on!

Soontobe and a healthy and prosperous 2015 to you.

Thanks Nonu. And the same to you, and everyone else on here.

.
Oops should have also have said to all others !!

I tend to agree with feetle's point. States that actively suppress religion are not secular in the sense explained in the OP article, which is the proper and full sense. Using secular to mean simply not religious is not strictly correct and I think using it thus it causes a lot of confusion.

Secularism as described by the NSS (see OP article) has no wish to suppress religion. I keep saying this but it does not seem to be taken on board. Beats me why not. Secularism as described by the NSS supports everyone's freedom to believe or not believe, with none having any privileges and none being suppressed.

So, a state that suppresses religion(s) should properly be called religion-suppressing, or even anti-religion. Secularism is not, repeat not, in favour of suppressing religion. Anyone who persists in believing so is just being obtuse and stubborn and, I suspect, can't have read the article in the OP, or, if they have, they've misunderstood it.

Which is sad.

Exactly bags

Depends on which definition of suppression you use.

Which definition of the word suppression are you using?

Not sure if you are just talking about me thatbags?