"Secularism is not the same as forced atheism..."

[BurtWorm]

"It’s important to understand that secularism is not the same as forced atheism – it’s about respecting the dignity of autonomous humans to make choices for themselves. That’s why the ban on forced school prayer is not an “imposition” of belief, but a position of neutrality. People can pray if they want, or not at all. Forced school prayer, by contrast, actually imposes a religious view on others. If we could be confident that men knew exactly what God is and what God wanted, then this would just fine. But we can’t – and so it’s better for the state to stay neutral when governing people of diverse faiths who answer to different gods or no gods."



The above is from a brilliant critique of Charle's Krauthammer's insane defense of certainty in Time this week.

[JanMichael]

1. Stop it! Most Americans don't GET the difference between Secular...

...and Sectarian!

It's a lost cause...

Really, people here are truly ignorant.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Secular.

Ain't that another word for Satanic?

[NAO]

9. Oh no, for xtians, "secular" is MUCH worse than "satanic" because

Satan worshipers believe in the supernatural, they just are on the "other team". You still have the same fundamental metaphysical assumption that there is a God, his enemy Satan, angels, demons, miracles, etc.

Secularism explains and runs the world WITHOUT reference to gods or devils. It just makes sense, and takes into account the everyday reality of the natural universe.

Secularism is MUCH more dangerous to Christianity than Satanism. Once people see religion as irrelevant old superstition, they are no longer slaves to priests and churches.

[BurtWorm]

10. But they're free to be slaves if they so choose.

That;s the beauty of secularism. It's all about freedom. Unfortunately, some use that freedom against it.

[RevCheesehead]

15. well, I'm a Christian, and I'm not offended by this word.

To me, secular means "not of the Church." Isn't that precisely the point of the OP?

I also disagree with your statement "Once people see religion as irrelevant old superstition, they are no longer slaves to priests and churches." That's an awfully narrow view of Christianity, and is somewhat insulting to those of us who take our faith seriously.

[Jade Fox]

3. It's amazing that people don't get this...

but they do not.

Those who need everyone to have the same values as themselves
are, as Garrison Keillor pointed out, basically uncomfortable
in a free society. They don't get the whole concept of people with
different values and behaviors co-existing.

[susanna]

4. Yes, it is amazing.

You hit the nail right on the head.

Neutrality is so that all people feel welcome in a large, dynamic society. The founders understood this quite well.

Some folks just can't stand freedom I guess. :-(

[MisterP]

7. that's a good statement: "uncomfortable in a free society"

and Krauthammer is the epitome of that...

[BurtWorm]

8. Charles Krauthammer is actually not ashamed to defend that discomfort.

He's all ready to blast "the intellectuals" who threaten good old-fashioned American values without realizing that he himself is an intellectual (of sorts) at the service of values that are as dangerous to American society, democracy and culture as any that were ever put in power.

[Jade Fox]

11. People like Krauthammer seem to define freedom as....

the right to stop others from doing things that make the Krauthammers
of the world uncomfortable.

[BurtWorm]

12. That is frighteningly right on the money.

:scared:

That's what the whole PNAC thing is about, isn't it?

[A HERETIC I AM]

5. The advent of free, secular public education early in the last century

was instrumental in creating the largest and most affluent group of citizens the world has ever known namely, the American middle class.

We are going BACKWARDS in that regard in this country these days. The inappropriate influence of the radically religious in secular society creates an environment that becomes the ANTITHESIS of progress.

Having a public education system that is free of religious influence of ANY kind is necessary to the production of an intelligent, well rounded work force. Why corporate America stands for the likes of the creationist movements of late in Kansas and Georgia is beyond me.

[BurtWorm]

6. And assholes on the right called Dewey's Democracy and Education

which was a major force in the creation of that system one of the most "dangerous" books of the 20th century.

Who's un-American here, really?

[punpirate]

13. Corporate America...

... simply loves the culture wars. As long as they can keep that religious churning going, their agenda slips right through the Congress and the state houses almost unnoticed. As well, many of the fundies today are "free-market" capitalists who have made laissez faire capitalism a part of the Christian liturgy (see, particularly, Ted Haggard and his New Life Church in this regard).

When Bush says "freedom" and "democracy," it's all part of his world view of spreading multinational corporatism. The fundies equate freedom and democracy with the right to spread a very corporate brand of Christiandom.

[RevCheesehead]

16. Bingo.

It's an argument of distraction, meant to keep us busy arguing about pointless crap, while real shit happens that affects millions.

[A HERETIC I AM]

17. I agree they love the diversion it creates, but i dont see how the head of

ANY major company that is involved in anything remotely technical would want an undereducated or miseducated workforce.

THAT was the point i was trying to make.

[RevCheesehead]

18. I agree with your point...

However, I don't think today's corporations are interested in looking to the future, even if it affects their work-force. Today, the ONLY thing, the bottom line, is profit and immediate results.

[punpirate]

19. They're much less concerned...

... about their workforce here than they are in the production of mindless consumers.

I understand what you're saying--but it's an old paradigm. Where are the commercial sector jobs going today which require education? India, principally, simply on the basis of costs.

Yes, all this will cause a general collapse in the system eventually, but laissez faire capitalism has never been concerned with anything but the short term. Unbridled greed always causes it to overreach and destroy itself.

Some people in this country (the WalMart executives and their ilk, for example) believe that their wealth will come from lower and lower wholesale costs--derived from lower and lower labor costs overseas--and they'll dominate in a market composed of wage earners in this country making $7-8/hr. This thinking is infectious, and deleterious.

In a sense, think of this way. For the moment, consider that it's an either/or situation (which it isn't, exactly); a corporation can invest $1 million in lobbying for tax breaks which save it $10 billion per year for the foreseeable future. Or, it can resist that urge, and some of that tax goes into supporting education, at the federal, state and local levels, which may pay long-term benefits in corporate creativity and efficiency. Which does it do, these days?

Beyond that, the more education is starved, the more corporate money becomes essential to simply keep educational institutions going at a bare minimum. A company like Monsanto, for example, gains power and influence in the scientific community--and control of scientific inquiry--by spending a couple of hundred thousand a year to endow a biochemistry chair at a large state university. Without tax breaks, it would be paying tens of millions into that state university system without being able to control the research done, would have less opportunity to corrupt the independence of research done at that institution.

Like I say, I think the notion that corporations need increasingly well-educated people is only partly true today. The paradigm has changed.

Cheers.

[NMMNG]

14. If only the fundies could get this

But they are blind to logic.

[sweetheart]

20. AS if THAT's an issue...

I mean really, when i'm deeply worried that the US government is
forced atheism, and not secular, i'll let you know. ;-)

Seems rather that Theism vs. Secularism is the current problem,
and "forced atheism" is just a fallacious term used for argument
to justify theism.

[BurtWorm]

21. kick

[johnaries]

22. Freedom OF Religion vs. Freedom FROM Religion.

I'm sure most of you have heard this argument: "Freedom of Religion doesn't mean Freedom From Religion". I had a conservative friend make this argument once, and we argued the point for several minutes until I realized that his definition of "From" was different from mine.

While I considered "From" to mean that if I chose not to practice any Religion no one could force me to. His definition was based on the idea that Courts were trying to STOP people from practicing ANY religion. Apparently, this is the message that the Religious Right is putting out.

I sent him this link:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa012901b.htm
which gives the 3 tests that the Courts use to determine if an action violates Church/State Separation. I pointed out that in the Lemon test it says "The practice either promotes OR INHIBITS religion".

He shut up after that.

But maybe this is the message we need to get out to the public. We don't want to END Religion, we just don't want the gevernment to engage in practices that either promote OR inhibits religion.