The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Are we really secular or pagan? > Comments

Are we really secular or pagan? : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 12/4/2017

The first thing to be said about this is that there is no such neutral sphere. The error of secularism is that it limits what it understands as being religion to identified belief systems.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
So which "christians" are right ones sells? You seem to think they are all the same.
Is it the mormons, the catholics, the adventists? Maybe its the clappers, or one of those snake sects in the US. Is it them fellas I see on TV all the time asking for money? What about those orthodox folk, hillsong, the jehovas or the protestants?
The jews think it is them.

See how stupid your babble is now. You dont speak for ALL xians.
You dont even speak LIKE most xians.
You just rant garbage in the hope that we wont notice your glaringly illogical argument which you cant back up with anything better than "I feel it" or "I want it to be true".

And what has "idolatry" got to do with he real question behind secularism? Whether your god is real or not?
Stop with the baffle them with BS method of proselytizing and just be honest.
Do you believe and worship the god of the bible and why?
Posted by mikk, Thursday, 13 April 2017 12:38:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« Secularism is an ideology … »

Not according to the Oxford English Dictionary : it is “the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions”
.

You also wrote :

« Secularism … tells us that … there exists a neutral and rational sphere of knowledge … to the exclusion of any religious knowledge »

No, it does not.

Religious knowledge is “knowledge about religious matters” (OED definition). An obvious example of “religious knowledge” is knowledge of the history and beliefs of the major world religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Animist Religions, etc.

What you call the “neutral and rational sphere of knowledge” does not exclude religious knowledge. It includes it.

Acquiring knowledge of religious beliefs is perfectly neutral and rational. But actually adopting such beliefs is far from neutral. Nor does religious belief find its justification in reason. It is an act of faith.
.

Allow me to add that, to the best of my knowledge, Peter - but please correct me if I am wrong - there is nothing in Christian doctrine to prevent you, as an Anglican deacon, from advocating (and adopting) secularism, yourself, respectful of the neutrality of the State as regards religious beliefs or lack of them.

I imagine you would not be very happy if the State decided to impose some religion on you that was not of your own free choosing.

In my humble opinion, Peter, a little tolerance in this domain, on your part, would not go amiss. It might even be preferable. Don't you think ?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 13 April 2017 1:29:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Milena,

The article did not mention or discuss atheism - it was about secularism.

You can be an atheist, yet religious and good; or conversely you could believe in God, yet be secular and bad.

Churches and similar establishments have no monopoly on God, religion or goodness.

A person could believe in God and whatever else their church teaches, but if for example, they do whatever they believe it takes, including killing others, in order to attain heaven and obtain 72 virgins there, then they are a perfect example of secularity, because what they seek is not God, but sexual gratification.

---

Dear Banjo,

If 'secularism' is only about separation of state and church then I also fully subscribe to it. Certainly, churches need to be protected from the corrupting influence of worldly power.

However, one of the uses of the word 'secular' is derived from the Latin 'saecularis', or "worldly" - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular
I think that this is the sense of the word which the author meant.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 13 April 2017 2:15:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

Milena is a spammer. You’ve just replied to a spammer. They're not going to see your response, I'm sorry to say.

OLO’s getting a lot of these lately: they post short, pointless, semi-relevant comments in the hope that some click the little house icon to visit their webpage so that it gets more hits.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 13 April 2017 2:32:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You suggest :

« … one of the uses of the word 'secular' is derived from the Latin 'saecularis', or "worldly" - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular I think that this is the sense of the word which the author meant »

You could be right, Yuyutsu, but I’m afraid we’ll never know.

The dictionary also indicates another meaning for “secular”, dating from the 1850s :

« In English, in reference to humanism and the exclusion of belief in God from matters of ethics and morality »

In fact, the word Peter employed was “secularism” and the same Online Etymology Dictionary indicates the following meaning for “secularism” :

« doctrine that morality should be based on the well-being of man in the present life, without regard to religious belief or a hereafter, 1846 » :

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=secularism

However, we should not lose sight of the fact that Latin is now what is known as a “dead language”. It is no longer spoken and has ceased to evolve – though, theoretically, it remains the official language of the Holy See and the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

I do not see why we should presume that Peter, who is, apparently, a deacon in the Anglican Church and holds a university degree in biology, is attributing a sense to the word “secularism” which is different from that of the Oxford English Dictionary, the recognized authority in the English language.

He has every right to do so if he wishes but, in that case, he should indicate his own definition. As he didn't, I can only presume that he is employing the word as it is generally understood.

Anyway, whatever meaning he attributes to the word “secularism”, Section 116 of the Australian Constitution is quite clear on the matter :

« The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth »

That's fine with me.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 14 April 2017 1:19:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

«I can only presume that he is employing the word as it is generally understood.»

Personally, unless in a political context, I understand 'secular' to mean "worldly", or "one who has regard for things of the world" (and to the extant of their secularity, for nothing else). How about the others here?

«The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth»

What a joke! It's like expecting a blind person to observe the traffic lights. How could they possibly tell what's religious and what's not? There are only two ways they could follow this constitution, either:

1. Allow everyone to do anything, including murder (as is the case in Islam) and fraud (as is the case in Scientology), just in case it may be religious; or
2. Employ a perfect sage/seer that would tell them what's religious and what's not - but then, how could they possibly tell who is a perfect sage/seer (if even there is one in the land who is willing to do that job)?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 14 April 2017 12:00:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy