The Forum > Article Comments > Secularism is not atheism > Comments
Secularism is not atheism : Comments
By Max Wallace, published 10/11/2008Secularism is a form of neutral government that listens to all points of view. Militant and some moderate Christians don’t want that.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
- 9
- 10
-
- All
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 4:10:05 PM
| |
Runner. To detail the faults of secularism as the cause of all the worlds "ills" holds no water, when we see the abuse of children in "Christian" surrounds, and the interference and denial of peoples rights and being by "Christians".
When you respect all people, then maybe respect will be shown to you! Until then your words mean nothing, except to yourself. Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 4:15:12 PM
| |
Bennie is at least far more truthfull than those that claim that Secularism is neutral.
'hear Obama’s about to rescind the US ban on stem cell research, which is definitely a secular approach.' Kipp writes 'Runner. To detail the faults of secularism as the cause of all the worlds "ills" holds no water, when we see the abuse of children in "Christian" surrounds, and the interference and denial of peoples rights and being by "Christians".' So where do you get the idea that child abuse is wrong? It is amazing how quickly secularist revert to absolutes when they claim they don't exist! Posted by runner, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 4:26:35 PM
| |
Ah but don't get carried away Runner. According to this http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24640321-601,00.html you have your work cut out.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 4:47:35 PM
| |
Runner said "So where do you get the idea that child abuse is wrong".
That bizzare question does require an explanation. Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 5:28:31 PM
| |
Max Wallace has dived into some pretty complex issues that we’ve been trying to sort out for a long time. How do we set rules in society so the faithful can live harmoniously alongside the unbelievers?
It’s been a curly question ever since the Goths sacked Rome, and the faithful (believers in the Roman gods) were blaming the unbelievers (the Christians) for bringing a softness to the Roman Empire that was helping to bring about its downfall. As a secularist, Wallace firstly has to rethink who is enemy is. At the moment he’s vaguely blaming the ‘militant and some moderate Christians.’ However most Christians I know are quite fond of democracy and the concepts of secularism. They would even go so far as to say that, to a large extent, Christians are responsible for inventing such concepts. I understand that the first cries of ‘separation of church and state’ came from Reformation Christians who wanted to follow the Bible in good conscience and not have the state impose its beliefs on them. ‘Secularism’ was proposed to protect the church from the state, not the other way around. I note how ‘secularism’ and ‘democracy’ (as we have come to know them) are Western inventions arising in countries heavily in debt to Biblical traditions. If you want to experience life far from the protections of secularism and democracy, try going to live in countries that do not have significant numbers of Christian churches. Was it secularism that brought our freedom to worship, or was it our freedom in Christ that helped define the ideals of secularism? I suspect it was more the latter. Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 13 November 2008 3:44:37 AM
|
“We live in a Democratic Secular society thus we must listen to the will of the people and if people want to promote a good form of life through religion.... it would only be an undemocratic person who would stand in their way of expressing their views.” I don’t believe anyone is preventing this, Liberal Minded. It’s the imposition of religious dogma on others that rubs me the wrong way.
I hear Obama’s about to rescind the US ban on stem cell research, which is definitely a secular approach. It would be unacceptable for ‘pro-lifers’. In a few generations from now when the anticipated benefits of this research has emerged there will still be those against it. Do we ignore medical knowledge because of its origins, for example? If the government went that way, we’d be a theocracy. I don’t see it happening.