What secularism is

Any chance of getting back to what promised to be an interesting discussion before it was hijacked by a complete misinterpretation and reductio ad absurdum, then?

Probably not Soutra – this is Gransnet after all.

The people who are asking questions would do well to read the article I linked to in the original post. They will find all the answers there. In addition, they can pick out any part that they think challenges religion in some way and tell us what it is.

No-one seems to want to do that. Possibly because they can't actually find anything to object to. Possibly because secularism as described by the National Secular Society is not anti-religion in any way. It is not pro-religion either. I think that's their problem. They can't bear to face up to the fact that a non-religious approach to life has the same value as a religious one and that the beliefs people hold (including non-religious beliefs) shouldn't entitle them to any privileges in law.

I'm going to take pause from this now. I hope some people found the article in the OP useful and interesting.

I feel your despair, bags. It seems perfectly obvious to me that non-religious is not the same thing as anti-religious.

The article was indeed interesting, bags - thank you!

I would probably never have given the matter much thought <mea culpa> but it is a stimulating topic and (apologies to those to whom this is obvious) I realise now that a secular state is much more protective of the religious freedom of the individual than one where religion and the state are synonymous.

bagis Just bang you head against a wall – or not.

With you completely on this, bags. Additionally, the notion that being religious confers some privilege or ability to be kinder or more caring than non-religious people is insulting. A secular state would bring more equality across the board. Let's allow those who want to teach or follow their religion do it in a way that doesn't impinge on those who don't. Not too much to ask, surely?

The state has no interest in WHICH brand of toilet rolls you buy. They are completely detached from whether you go for one of the many varieties of soft/strong/coloured paper, or whether you go for the shiny tracing-paper ones, or indeed in whether you cut up last week's radio times.

This does not mean that they are suppressing the use of toilet paper by their citizens, they just see it as up to them which, if any, they choose. It is none of their business (sorry about that pun)

Similarly, the state should have no interest in WHICH brand of Christian denomination you belong to, or if you choose a different faith entirely, so they should not have a "state-connected" favourite.

This does not mean that they are suppressing the use of religion by their citizens, they just think it is up to them which, if any, they choose. It is none of their business.

I suspect soontobe (she has had nost to say on the subject) is just enjoying keeping up the argument.

Or not.

[hm]

perhaps?

?

Just a thought
No one ever murdered 12 people in cold blood for publishing secular cartoons.

galen, forgive me for being dense, but your last two posts are so abstruse that I am at a loss to understand them.