What is Secularism?

[MissileMan]

quantity does not an argument make

It does if the quantity is zero as is this case.

 

[manu1959]

It does if the quantity is zero as is this case.

there are religous teachings and manuscripts that prove the existance of god and religion

 

[MissileMan]

there are religous teachings and manuscripts that prove the existance of god and religion

They may be evidence of a religion, but they are in no way scientific evidence of the existence of God. You're going to have to do way better than that.

 

[manu1959]

They may be evidence of a religion, but they are in no way scientific evidence of the existence of God. You're going to have to do way better than that.

there is scientific evidence that jesus existsed and that what he did occured and he stated that he was the son of god so there...evidence...all other religions have similar evidence....all you have is books and therories and calculations based on an assumption and you say it is proof that god does not exist....i would say that your proof is weak

 

[MissileMan]

there is scientific evidence that jesus existsed and that what he did occured and he stated that he was the son of god so there...evidence...all other religions have similar evidence....all you have is books and therories and calculations based on an assumption and you say it is proof that god does not exist....i would say that your proof is weak

I believe that a man named Jesus Christ existed. I do not however believe he was the son, or incarnation of God. Other than anectdotal, from the bible itself, there is no evidence of any of the "miraculous" deeds claimed. Simply alleging that someone is God doesn't make it so.

You also have totally misrepresented what I said. Evolution is a scientific theory that has a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support it. I never said, nor do I claim that the theory of evolution or the evidence that supports it is evidence that God does not exist, you just did. I cannot disprove the existence of God anymore than you can prove it. I said when you can provide sufficient scientific evidence to support the theory of creationism, I will lead the fight to get it added to schools.

 

[manu1959]

I believe that a man named Jesus Christ existed. I do not however believe he was the son, or incarnation of God. Other than anectdotal, from the bible itself, there is no evidence of any of the "miraculous" deeds claimed. Simply alleging that someone is God doesn't make it so.

You also have totally misrepresented what I said. Evolution is a scientific theory that has a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support it. I never said, nor do I claim that the theory of evolution or the evidence that supports it is evidence that God does not exist, you just did. I cannot disprove the existence of God anymore than you can prove it. I said when you can provide sufficient scientific evidence to support the theory of creationism, I will lead the fight to get it added to schools.

fair enough .... do you or would you tell your kids about god .... even though you say there is no evidence .... you would only teach them evolution?

sorry gotta run i have a meeting

 

[MissileMan]

fair enough .... do you or would you tell your kids about god .... even though you say there is no evidence .... you would only teach them evolution?

sorry gotta run i have a meeting

If I were to introduce my kids to religion, I would wait until they were old enough to truly understand the concept. I would also introduce them as much as I could to all religions. If any particular one piqued their interest, I would assist them in obtaining more information on that particular religion. One's choice of religion, or choice to not observe one, should be a highly personal affair free from any outside interference.

 

[manu1959]

If I were to introduce my kids to religion, I would wait until they were old enough to truly understand the concept. I would also introduce them as much as I could to all religions. If any particular one piqued their interest, I would assist them in obtaining more information on that particular religion. One's choice of religion, or choice to not observe one, should be a highly personal affair free from any outside interference.

my son is six he has been introduced to all religions and evolution

he will be asked to read darwins book, the bible, and two other religious texts of his choosing...he will be required to do this before his 16th birthday...after that..it is his life to do with as he chooses

 

[MissileMan]

my son is six he has been introduced to all religions and evolution

he will be asked to read darwins book, the bible, and two other religious texts of his choosing...he will be required to do this before his 16th birthday...after that..it is his life to do with as he chooses

great minds think alike!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No they don't. Most liberals are Christian. They don't think "secularism" should replace "Christianity" in society.

However, many are concerned that conservatives want to replace our SECULAR government with a THEISTIC one.

If liberals don't think secularism should replace Christianity in society, then why are they attempting to squash all forms of Christian expression in public places and only allowing secular forms of expression? That is "replacing" Christian expression with secular expression.

If I were you I would not be as concerned with our government becoming theistic as I would worry about our government becoming secular. The churches are not pushing theism as a form of government - however secular groups are very much pushing a secular agenda into our government. (note: it is a prerequisite for communism.)

That is patently false. Morality and religion are independent of one another. Secular humanists have well grounded morals - and who are you to judge what and whos morals are superior?

Are you saying that secularists and atheists actually have "morality"? Hmm, how can they have morals like Christians if they have no God? Why should the government be supporting secular morality over Christian morality?

Absolutely and COMPLETELY False. Atheists are not even classed as "secularists" because the have a definite "belief". Even if you want to class them as secularists, atheists would make up less than 5% of all secularists in North America.

AGNOSTICS are secularists - but when we think of secularism, we mean "non-religious". More below.

I am very hard put to tell the difference between an atheist and a secularist. If anything I guess one could say that atheists are not necessarily secularists (as there seems to be a variety of types of secularists) but a true secularist does not believe in God and therefore must necessarily be an atheist because of that one belief.

Again, atheism and secularism are separate. The government does NOT support atheism, as that would violate the establishment clause, as atheism is a "belief".

We both agree that atheism is a belief. Also, the same goes for secularism. For example, you just mentioned secular humanism which has a set of morals or beliefs. I think you are trying to say that secularism is two different things.

Science and History are not "Atheistic" training. Science and history are FACTS. Religion on the other hand is NOT fact, but FAITH - quite separate.

Why not learn the "facts" about religions?

The existence of god cannot be proven - it is faith and not fact.

Having said that, children should be taught "about" religion, provided that no specific religion is touted as "the true one" - leave that for CHURCH where it BELONGS.

I agree that the government schools should not be touting any specific religion. I also think that government schools should not be teaching about sex either as it is very involved with a person's morals and behaviors. (examples: acceptance of homosexuals or not advocating abstinence) Why is it the secularists think they can teach sex to children in the schools? Isn't that imposing a set of morals or beliefs upon the students?

The main premise of your argument that "secularism" is "atheism" is false, therefore this concept that the government is somehow pushing the belief of "atheism" is also false.

For the record, north american religious adherents, in order of "popularity":

postdenominational (independent) Christians: 81,834,000
Catholics: 71,749,000
Protestants: 70,350,000
Secularists (non-religious): 29,526,000
Orthodox Christians: 6,458,000
Jews: 6,065,000
Muslims: 4,587,000
Anglicans (Christian): 3,217,000
Buddhists: 2,855,000
Atheists: 1,720,000
Hindus: 1,373,000
Chinese folk religions: 861,000
New Age: 851,000
Baha'is: 813,000

Regards

Andy

The government is mainly pushing the belief of "secularism" which to me is the same thing as atheism as both promote the omission of God. As you have already admitted, secularism is a belief system. Here is a link to the Secularists Catechism written by Charles Watts 1896. Quote:

QUESTION. -- What is Secularism?
ANSWER. -- In its etymological signification, it means the age, the finite, belonging to this world. Secularists, however, use the term in a more amplified sense, as embodying a philosophy of life, and inculcating rules of conduct that have no necessary association with any system of theology.

QUESTION. -- Have the Secularists an official statement of their principles?
ANSWER. -- Yes, those recognized and adopted by the National Secular Society, which are as follows: -- Secularism teaches that conduct should be based on reason and knowledge. It knows nothing of divine guidance or interference; it excludes supernatural hopes and fears; it regards happiness as mans proper aim, and utility as his proper moral guide. Secularism affirms that progress is which is only possible through liberty, which is at once a right and a duty, and, therefore, seeks to remove every barrier to thought, action, and speech. Secularism declares that theology is condemned by reason as superstitious, and by experience as mischievous, and assails it as the historic enemy of progress. Secularism accordingly seeks to dispel superstition, to spread education, to disestablish religion, to rationalize morality, to promote peace, to dignify labor, to extend material well-being, and to realize the self-government of the people.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_watts/secularists_catechism.html

 

[theim]

No they don't. Most liberals are Christian. They don't think "secularism" should replace "Christianity" in society.

However, many are concerned that conservatives want to replace our SECULAR government with a THEISTIC one.

With absolutely NO basis in reality, and this is what floors me. What makes you think Conservatives want to creat a Theocracy? That our President is religious? That he uses the G-Word in public? That we have a Christmas tree instead of a holiday tree?

That is patently false. Morality and religion are independent of one another. Secular humanists have well grounded morals - and who are you to judge what and whos morals are superior?

BS. This classic liberal "just because someone beleives in a higher power and wants to help people and give to the poor and respect their fellow man does NOT mean they are more moral than the latex-fetish gay porno star and (screeching voice) WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE THEM!!!!!!!"

 

[MissileMan]

Are you saying that secularists and atheists actually have "morality"? Hmm, how can they have morals like Christians if they have no God? Why should the government be supporting secular morality over Christian morality?

Contrary to Christian belief, Christians do NOT have a monopoly on morals.

I agree that the government schools should not be touting any specific religion. I also think that government schools should not be teaching about sex either as it is very involved with a person's morals and behaviors. (examples: acceptance of homosexuals or not advocating abstinence) Why is it the secularists think they can teach sex to children in the schools? Isn't that imposing a set of morals or beliefs upon the students?

I haven't heard any evidence that schools are telling kids sex is right or wrong. They provide information to kids about what it's for, how it works, and what can happen if it's used. Abstinence should be added to the course as a form of birth control, not as the only thing taught.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Contrary to Christian belief, Christians do NOT have a monopoly on morals.

Never said that. However, liberals are so concerned that Christian morality stay out of government...why shouldn't we also be concerned that Secular morality stay out of government?

I haven't heard any evidence that schools are telling kids sex is right or wrong. They provide information to kids about what it's for, how it works, and what can happen if it's used. Abstinence should be added to the course as a form of birth control, not as the only thing taught.

Schools are teaching kids that homosexuality is OK, that it is to be tolerated and accepted. This is definitely against the teachings of Christianity and other major religions.

Why is it that abstinence (a typical Christian value) always seems to be LACKING in the Secular teachings about sex? It is only through outside pressure that it is beginning to be added as an "option". Not teaching abstinence upsets a lot of parents who want to teach their children that sex is NOT an option until they are grown up, able to take care of themselves (and any offspring), and hopefully married.

The Secularists who promote so much sexual information to maleable children are basically saying that sex is OK and if you get pregnant, one of the "options" is to get an abortion. This is TOTALLY against the teachings of most Christians. The Secular agenda attacking our children is also attempting to take away parental rights through legislation that allows an underage child to make her own decision to get an abortion without parental consent. Can you not see how INSIDIOUS this is?

The Secular agenda is to attack Christianity and then replace Christian morals with Secular morals and attitudes through our children in the public schools.

 

[MissileMan]

Never said that. However, liberals are so concerned that Christian morality stay out of government...why shouldn't we also be concerned that Secular morality stay out of government?

First of all, I think it's fair to say that the bible is well represented in the laws of this nation. Biblical morality is the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. I am a firm believer that there needs to be a distinct line between legality and morality. You cannot, nor should you attempt to legislate morality. If any group wants to impose morality, then they must have it enacted as a law.

Schools are teaching kids that homosexuality is OK, that it is to be tolerated and accepted. This is definitely against the teachings of Christianity and other major religions.

You have the option to present your counterpoint to your kids.

Not teaching abstinence upsets a lot of parents who want to teach their children that sex is NOT an option until they are grown up, able to take care of themselves (and any offspring), and hopefully married.

Again, parents have the option to present this standpoint to their kids.

The Secularists who promote so much sexual information to maleable children are basically saying that sex is OK and if you get pregnant, one of the "options" is to get an abortion.

Under our current laws, abortion is an "option". While I disagree personally with using abortion as birth control, it is legal. But I'll add this point. I'm willing to bet that a significant percentage of abortions are performed because the pregnant girl is afraid to go home and tell her parents about it. Unwed pregnancies are going to happen no matter what religion, no matter what the economic situation, and no matter whether they were lectured on abstinence. If you don't want your daughter to sneak off and get an abortion, assure her that if she were to make a mistake, that she could find understanding and guidance at home.

 

[manu1959]

public education should present both sides of every argument equally or they should present no sides of the issue.

 

[theim]

You see missile, I do not not have children yet, but when I do, I do not want their school teaching them something I don't believe in. I don't want the school telling my child that homosexuality is A OK when I don't believe it is, I don't want my school teaching my son how to put on a condom with the attitude of "oh they're just gonna have sex anyway, so it may as well be safe sex." I want my school to stay out of the Sex Ed business save the basics, because otherwise what you get is like that one kid in Chicago who raped a woman, but hey, at least he used a condom. I don't want to have to present a "counterpoint" to my child to counteract the school's classes. I don't think that is too much to ask.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

First of all, I think it's fair to say that the bible is well represented in the laws of this nation. Biblical morality is the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. I am a firm believer that there needs to be a distinct line between legality and morality. You cannot, nor should you attempt to legislate morality. If any group wants to impose morality, then they must have it enacted as a law.

I agree that if any group and that includes Secularists wants to impose morality then the majority must agree and vote it into law.

You have the option to present your counterpoint to your kids.

Again, parents have the option to present this standpoint to their kids.

Under our current laws, abortion is an "option". While I disagree personally with using abortion as birth control, it is legal. But I'll add this point. I'm willing to bet that a significant percentage of abortions are performed because the pregnant girl is afraid to go home and tell her parents about it. Unwed pregnancies are going to happen no matter what religion, no matter what the economic situation, and no matter whether they were lectured on abstinence. If you don't want your daughter to sneak off and get an abortion, assure her that if she were to make a mistake, that she could find understanding and guidance at home.

Why should parents have the "option" to present different standpoints to their kids when it comes to sex education? One minute you guys are saying that if religion is taught, all religions should be taught to make it fair. Now you are saying when it comes to sex, the school can teach whatever the heck it wants to teach and if the parents want a different point of view presented, they have to do it themselves. This is a double standard that you are supporting.

Personally I think the schools should get out of the business of teaching sex education, especially since now they are starting it in the elementary grades and are broadening the subject much too far. This is the domain of the parents and our schools should not be used to replace parental responsibility.
Schools are not doing a very good job of teaching reading or math...what makes anybody think that they are doing a good job with sex?

Actually the real point behind the sex education program is to take away parental rights and responsibilities and shape society. It is time for parents to wake up and monitor exactly what is going on in their schools and take back their power. The Secularist agenda is attempting to take over through the children.

 

[MissileMan]

Why should parents have the "option" to present different standpoints to their kids when it comes to sex education? One minute you guys are saying that if religion is taught, all religions should be taught to make it fair. Now you are saying when it comes to sex, the school can teach whatever the heck it wants to teach and if the parents want a different point of view presented, they have to do it themselves. This is a double standard that you are supporting.

There is no double standard in play here. You want to moralize sex education and teach that premarital sex is wrong, premarital sex is bad, and abstinence is the way to go. That opinion should be one expressed to your kids by you, not by the teacher. They are being taught that there are homosexuals in the world, and that they should be treated with the same respect as anyone else. Any opinion of yours that you wish to impart on your kids to the contrary should be done by you, not the teacher.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There is no double standard in play here. You want to moralize sex education and teach that premarital sex is wrong, premarital sex is bad, and abstinence is the way to go. That opinion should be one expressed to your kids by you, not by the teacher. They are being taught that there are homosexuals in the world, and that they should be treated with the same respect as anyone else. Any opinion of yours that you wish to impart on your kids to the contrary should be done by you, not the teacher.

Clearly you have no clue as to how morals and beliefs are passed on to the next generation. Children absorb ideas from their elders, from those they perceive as being in charge. Perhaps you think sex education only takes place in one or two classes in high school. Not so! It is scary how this "sex education" has wormed its way into all the grades. Today the secularists in the education field are pushing a very organized agenda starting at the very lowest grades, even kindergarten, inundating the children with all sorts of Secular propaganda.

How is a parent to compete with that? How can a parent provide an effective counterpoint when their little second grader is being daily or weekly suffused with the idea that it is OK for Heather to have two mommies? It is just not realistic and the children especially at the younger ages are like little sponges sopping up all sorts of attitudes propagandized by the Secularists.

Many parents would like to have another CHOICE for teaching their children if they could afford it. This is one reason why the Secularists are totally against school vouchers. They don't want anybody to have a CHOICE when it comes to parents teaching their own Christian values to their own children.

 

[MissileMan]

Clearly you have no clue as to how morals and beliefs are passed on to the next generation. Children absorb ideas from their elders, from those they perceive as being in charge. Perhaps you think sex education only takes place in one or two classes in high school. Not so! It is scary how this "sex education" has wormed its way into all the grades. Today the secularists in the education field are pushing a very organized agenda starting at the very lowest grades, even kindergarten, inundating the children with all sorts of Secular propaganda.

How is a parent to compete with that? How can a parent provide an effective counterpoint when their little second grader is being daily or weekly suffused with the idea that it is OK for Heather to have two mommies? It is just not realistic and the children especially at the younger ages are like little sponges sopping up all sorts of attitudes propagandized by the Secularists.

Many parents would like to have another CHOICE for teaching their children if they could afford it. This is one reason why the Secularists are totally against school vouchers. They don't want anybody to have a CHOICE when it comes to parents teaching their own Christian values to their own children.

I wouldn't call a story about Heather and her 2 mommies sex education. It might inspire questions that would require some though. The telling of said story might indeed be a part of some grand conspiracy to desensitize your kids to homosexuality. The only thing I can tell you for sure, is that I'm not a party in it.

The message I'm getting from you is that you want teachers to impart your morals to your kids. If you are going to rely on the public school system to teach your kids morality, then don't be shocked and upset when teachers impart their morals on your kids.