Secular Intolerance

[Harbal]

As per above, the meaning you apply to secular makes as much sense as putting a "a best before" label on toilet paper.

Best before you leave the bathroom would make some sense.

[Dubious]

As per above, the meaning you apply to secular makes as much sense as putting a "a best before" label on toilet paper.

Best before you leave the bathroom would make some sense.

I would think you fellas in the UK must have "best before" expiry dates on required items even if not in those exact words?

[Harbal]

I would think you fellas in the UK must have "best before" expiry dates on required items even if not in those exact words?

We have "best before" and "sell by", I don't think we have "use by" any more. None of these are displayed on toilet paper btw.

[Nick_A]

I cannot get into this now but will be back to it later. However I will post these two links to clarify what I mean by secular.

http://cace.org/the-powerful-religion-of-secularism/

Conclusion

Secularism is a powerful and persuasive religious force that dominates contemporary culture in an exclusivist and intolerant manner. It has as its primary goal the eradication of all other religious forces from the public domain other than itself. We do not seek the replacement of hegemonic secularism with enforced Christianity. Rather, in pluralistic modern societies, and especially in our schools, we argue for the right of the organs of public life to be free from under the yoke of a secular religious ascendancy. In particular, when parents band together to provide education for their children, we argue for the right of communities, as the UN Charter of Human Rights reminds us, to be able to choose the religious direction of the schooling provided for their children.

http://www.humanreligions.info/secularisation.html

1. What Do Secular, Secularisation, and Secularisation Theory Mean?

“...the ongoing, growing, and powerful movement called secularism, a way of understanding and living that is indifferent to religion -- in fact, not even concerned enough to pay it any attention, much less oppose it. ”National Council of Churches1

Secular means without religion. Non-religious people lead secular lives. Secular government runs along rational and humanistic lines. This is the norm in democratic countries. The individuals that make up the government are rightly free to have whatever religion they want, as are the populace. Because of this freedom, in a multicultural world, there is a requirement for governments not to cause resentment or divisions by identifying itself with a particular religion. The most well-known phrase proposing secular democracy as an ideal is Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" [paraphrased].

Secularism, promoted by secularists, is the belief that religion should be a private, personal, voluntary affair that does not impose upon other people. Public spaces and officialdom should therefore be religion-neutral. Secularism ensures that religions are treated fairly and that no bias exists for a particular religion, and also that non-religious folk such as Humanists are treated with equal respect. It is the only democratic way to proceed in a globalized world where populations are free to choose their own, varied, religions. ⇒ See Secularism.
Secularisation is the process of things becoming more secular. Most of the Western world has seen this paradigm come to dominate politics and civil life, starting from the time of the Enlightenment. For example in 1864 the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) published a document as a hostile response to fledging secularisation, as growing tolerance for other religions and the growing power of democracy was challenging the RCC's power to implement its doctrine in the countries of Europe2. Thus as the world develops morally and tolerance and public equality come to the fore, religion, because it causes issues, retreats from the public sphere as people prefer to meet on neutral terms, in peace.

Secularisation Theory is the theory in sociology that as society advances in modernity, religion retreats and becomes increasingly hollow. The theory holds that intellectual and scientific developments have undermined the spiritual, supernatural, superstitious and paranormal ideas on which religion relies for its legitimacy, and, the differentiation of modern life into different compartments (i.e. work, politics, society, education and knowledge, home-time, entertainment) have relegated religion to merely one part of life, rather than an all-pervading narrative. As this continues, religion becomes more and more shallow, surviving for a while on empty until loss of active membership forces it into obscurity - although most theorists only hold this happens for organized public religion, not for private spirituality. ⇒ See: Definitions of Secularisation Theory: Why is Religion Declining?

Of course Simone must get in the last word since if true, no matter how good and noble secularism appears on the surface it is doomed to fall deeper into intolerance and the eventual destruction of the human spirit and its conscious potential. It is nature's way and the natural result of the human condition.

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil

The religious fanatics and the secular intolerants will do whatever possible to make sure our species is crushed through self destruction. Will a new religion emerge in the cause of objective human meaning and purpose that doesn't insult the logical mind but at the same time responds to the human needs of the heart? It is possible but who can tell? One thing for sure, the secular intolerance of those like Greta and fooloso4 as demonstrated on this thread assures that whatever means possible to crush it will be tried.

[Harbal]

I cannot get into this now but will be back to it later. However I will post these two links to clarify what I mean by secular.

I cannot get into this now either, but, like you, I will be back later. However, I will not be clicking on your links because I don't want to ruin the mystery of what you mean by secular.

[Dubious]

I would think you fellas in the UK must have "best before" expiry dates on required items even if not in those exact words?

None of these are displayed on toilet paper btw.

...that makes sense since input is usually much more conditional than output the latter invariably depending on the former for its completion. Sometimes the differences between groups and nations just disappear. There's hope for the world after all!

[davidm]

I cannot get into this now but will be back to it later. However I will post these two links to clarify what I mean by secular.

What you mean by secularism has no bearing on what secularism means -- any more than if you claim "banana" means "orange," then it's true that a banana is an orange! Sorry, it isn't true.

Your links are of no use. They are stupid. To call secularism a "religion" is asinine. I've already told you what secularism means. It means nothing more than that. Many Christians are secular.

Now of course the meaning of words change and evolve, and it may perhaps come to be the case that eventually "secularism" will be taken to mean "atheist." But I think we should resist that because especially in debates like this, the precise historical meaning of words is important. To fail to recognize the secularism was born of a desire of theists to be shielded from the state is to twist history and engage in propaganda.

There are examples of relatively harmless (though still somewhat annoying) changes in word meaning. Nowadays "enormity" has come to be synonymous with "enormousness." That is not of great import I suppose but it is annoying. Their meaning is not at all the same.

[Greta]

Whose ad homs haven't you experienced? Greta is one of the few people who've tried to have a reasonable conversation with you, Nick, but you do have a knack of being able to bring people to the point of exasperation. I think you're a bit too ready to jump to conclusions about people.

The trouble is that hatred and hostility are almost contagious in the way they spread through a group. So Nick has at times brought out ugly aspects of me, which is fine because I then learn more about who I am and mistakes to avoid. Even those who want to harm you ultimately help you if you keep your emotions down and head screwed on. There's a lesson in everything.

I take it not too many here have seen this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww-88rwt4ms

This is classic secular intolerance. Anything that questions the supremacy of the Great Beast is by definition expressing hatred and hostility. That is why Jesus had to be killed. He was preaching hatred and hostility in the eyes of advocates for the Beast. Give us Barabbas. The Beast has spoken. Imagine yourself as a kid in school surrounded by all this secular intolerance. It must be a horror. Why not turn to drugs and gangs in the desperate need to feel meaning and purpose?

No, you and the alleged Jesus or closer to opposites - he preached love and you preach hatred. Jesus did not preach hatred, rather he said to give Caesar his due but stay focused on the spiritual journey rather than getting too closely involved with everyday life.

Jesus did not keep saying how much he hated secularists.

I see you as being sick, far closer to Satan the Accuser, spreading discord and foment everywhere you go while pretending to be on "the right side". Is this really where you want to go - to fall ever deeper into paranoiac hatreds? Do you really wish to waste your life on hatred?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Oh how pious and self-righteous are some on here. Perhaps they should look in the mirror and find one not so virtuous and innocent.

Well that lets me out. I still refer to twin peaks as the bustline on an attractive woman. I lack a progressive education so what do I know?

How typically self-absorbed of you to think I was referring to you. I don't read your crap any more-- there's no need to. It's all the same: ' 'Atheists' are evil. Simone Wail said blah, blah, blahhdy blah blah blaaaah'. The responses to you are far more interesting.

[Nick_A]

The trouble is that hatred and hostility are almost contagious in the way they spread through a group. So Nick has at times brought out ugly aspects of me, which is fine because I then learn more about who I am and mistakes to avoid. Even those who want to harm you ultimately help you if you keep your emotions down and head screwed on. There's a lesson in everything.

I take it not too many here have seen this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww-88rwt4ms

This is classic secular intolerance. Anything that questions the supremacy of the Great Beast is by definition expressing hatred and hostility. That is why Jesus had to be killed. He was preaching hatred and hostility in the eyes of advocates for the Beast. Give us Barabbas. The Beast has spoken. Imagine yourself as a kid in school surrounded by all this secular intolerance. It must be a horror. Why not turn to drugs and gangs in the desperate need to feel meaning and purpose?

No, you and the alleged Jesus or closer to opposites - he preached love and you preach hatred. Jesus did not preach hatred, rather he said to give Caesar his due but stay focused on the spiritual journey rather than getting too closely involved with everyday life.

Jesus did not keep saying how much he hated secularists.

I see you as being sick, far closer to Satan the Accuser, spreading discord and foment everywhere you go while pretending to be on "the right side". Is this really where you want to go - to fall ever deeper into paranoiac hatreds? Do you really wish to waste your life on hatred?

Christianity is not lovey dovey. When a secularist reads the following they are horrified. How can such an attitude be worthy of respecting much less following Jesus? Understnding scriptutre requires opening to man’s potential for “rebirth” into a higher quality of being. The idea appears satanic and full of hatred for you yet rebirth is the core of Christianity. Take out the core and it is secularism. That is why the world only accepts secularized Christianity or Christendom. Christianity is a threat to its secular dominance so is simply intolerable. Under these conditions secular intolerance is as horrific in school systems as it is understandable as a worldly reaction.

Matthew 10: 34 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

[Nick_A]

Oh how pious and self-righteous are some on here. Perhaps they should look in the mirror and find one not so virtuous and innocent.

Well that lets me out. I still refer to twin peaks as the bustline on an attractive woman. I lack a progressive education so what do I know?

How typically self-absorbed of you to think I was referring to you. I don't read your crap any more-- there's no need to. It's all the same: ' 'Atheists' are evil. Simone Wail said blah, blah, blahhdy blah blah blaaaah'. The responses to you are far more interesting.

Now I'm insulted. You left out one blah. It may have been a mistake but it does seem like an intentional slight and probably an attempted insult.

[Nick_A]

davidm

Your links are of no use. They are stupid. To call secularism a "religion" is asinine. I've already told you what secularism means. It means nothing more than that. Many Christians are secular.

Of course secularism is a religion. Its God is the Great Beast and it supplies meaning and purpose for its subjects. Instead of commandments, it "good" is maintained through laws and regulations. What else would you want from a religion?

[davidm]

davidm

Your links are of no use. They are stupid. To call secularism a "religion" is asinine. I've already told you what secularism means. It means nothing more than that. Many Christians are secular.

Of course secularism is a religion. Its God is the Great Beast and it supplies meaning and purpose for its subjects. Instead of commandments, it "good" is maintained through laws and regulations. What else would you want from a religion?

Since secularism is nothing more than the belief, shared by a great many theists, that church and state should kept separate as a means of protecting religious beliefs, then you believe there should be a state-mandated religion and religious tests for public offices and perhaps even holding a job. Got it.

[Nick_A]

davidm

Your links are of no use. They are stupid. To call secularism a "religion" is asinine. I've already told you what secularism means. It means nothing more than that. Many Christians are secular.

Of course secularism is a religion. Its God is the Great Beast and it supplies meaning and purpose for its subjects. Instead of commandments, it "good" is maintained through laws and regulations. What else would you want from a religion?

Since secularism is nothing more than the belief, shared by a great many theists, that church and state should kept separate as a means of protecting religious beliefs, then you believe there should be a state-mandated religion and religious tests for public offices and perhaps even holding a job. Got it.

Would you agree that this belief which defines secularism is actually a 'religion defined as nothing more than a belief system that moves its members to action or to support a cause with fervent devotion. Secularism which has society itself, the Great Beast, as its god is a religion that seeks to be the dominant religion.

It will exhibit secular intolerance and suffer the same failings as any other secularized religion in modern society. Secular ethics and its PC are an open invitation to all forms of hypocrisy.

So, I contend that for humanity to survive technology it will need a new understanding of god as well as a new understanding of Man: new wine in new bottles capable of reconciling science and the essence of religion. It is possible but I cannot see it happening before first hitting bottom. I do hope I'm wrong but the resistance of the Beast to psychological awakening is extremely powerful.

[fooloso4]

Nick if God himself/herself/itself/none of the above disagreed with you you would accuse him,her,it,none of the above of secular intolerance.

By the way, you still have not grasped what Weil was saying about the will of the people. Or perhaps you did and just wanted to gloss over it. Although she was prone to extremes she was far more moderate than you in her views of society. So much so that you would accuse her of secular intolerance if you did not know it was her who wrote a statement you disagree with.

Can you find a dictionary that defines secular the way you do? Of course not, but perhaps you think the reason is that they are all controlled by the Great Beast and secularly intolerance of those who define secular as you do.

A friendly word of advice: do not continually tell us what a secularist will find poisonous or horrifying. We don't. It is a form of antagonism and hardly accurate. Unless it is the attention you thrive on it is far more likely that you will find people more receptive to what you have to say if you were to simply state your views and not attempt to defend them by attacking "secularists". The implication is that we cannot think for ourselves and your assumption is that the fact that we do not agree with you is evidence of the fact that we cannot think for ourselves.

As to the passage from Matthew, it does not mean that you should use the internet to find targets to attack. It means that Jesus' message was in some way at odds with certain beliefs (And perhaps practices depending on the extent of Paul's influence on the author of Matthew and where he stood with regard to the faction between the Jewish followers of Jesus who followed the Law and the Jewish and Gentile followers of Paul who claimed it was no longer necessary.) and so those who are to follow him (or Paul's version of him) will be at odds with their own families who follow these other ways and teachings. He is not referring to secularism or the Great Beast but to religious Jews who opposed the claim that he was the messiah. The destruction of families was not the goal but a consequence of having to choose.