Is political secularism a neutral position?


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

Political secularism, by which I think of groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation, has billed itself as neutral position, as a defender of the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against government establishing religion. Many school districts, and a fair number of government agencies seem to accept secularism's inherent neutrality as fact.  Is it?  One Catholic writer, from Crux, argues that:

Secularism claims to possess a new way forward for humanity. It identifies rational thought, empirical investigation, and social harmony solely with itself. It casts a shadow on religion, ostracizes it, and identifies religious belief with violence, ignorance, and fantasy.

A rabbi in my area, Daniel Lapin, has labeled such groups as "secular fundamentalists."  I like that because it distinguishes agnostic/atheists of good will and open-mindedness (who might very well self-identify as 'secular') from those who insist that all religion must be driven out of the public square, and that believers are foolish, at best.

THOUGHTS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

...Freedom from Religion...solely with itself...casts a shadow on religion, ostracizes it...all religion must be driven out of the public square...

There is nothing "neutral" in above ideas.  If anyone espouses those ideas and claims to be neutral, they're either a liar or incapable of clear, logical, rational thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, zil said:

There is nothing "neutral" in above ideas.  If anyone espouses those ideas and claims to be neutral, they're either a liar or incapable of clear, logical, rational thought.

My thoughts completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
33 minutes ago, zil said:

Yes, I copied them straight off your screen, then triggered a remote shut-down of your computer so I could post first.

the compound floor needs scrubbing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I would have done better to let my primary example, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, speak for itself.  In its FAQ section, FFRF responds to the question of why it exists with the following:

After reading the quote, see if you think I am being fair. Is there a hostility there, or are they truly neutral?

Quote

Why is the Foundation concerned with state/church entanglement?

First Amendment violations are accelerating. The religious right is campaigning to raid the public till and advance religion at taxpayer expense, attacking our secular public schools, the rights of nonbelievers, and the Establishment Clause.

The Foundation recognizes that the United States was first among nations to adopt a secular Constitution. The founders who wrote the U.S. Constitution wanted citizens to be free to support the church of their choice, or no religion at all. Our Constitution was very purposefully written as a godless document, whose only references to religion are exclusionary.

It is vital to buttress the Jeffersonian "wall of separation between church and state" which has served our nation so well.

 

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

The FFRF is part of the secular satanisn monster spreading the earth. I have nothing but utter hatred towards them.

And in other news, Rob Osborn just joined the corporate board of the American Atheists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, I do not believe America is, or even should be, an officially Christian nation.  Neither would I support a political party that had Christianity as an official part of its platform.  Still, the U.S. remains 70% Christian, based on self-identification.  For secularists to argue that our founding documents are secular and godless is absurd. Rather, we practice true tolerance. We allow the minority--including the irreligious, to do and believe according to their consciences.  That some are offended by public invocations and benedictions, by Christmas displays, and by public appearances of the 10 Commandments suggests to me that a few in the irreligious minority have gotten a bit full of themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I would certainly not advocate for a state sponsored religion, a group that proposes a non-belief in God is not even in the top 20,000 religions I would want the state to promote. 

 

 

The truth is, law has its basis in morality. Without a moral anchor to ground our decision making, there is nothing to keep our laws from being corrupted. We are left to whatever "seemed like a good idea at the time." 

When our laws become corrupted, people suffer. 

 

An acknowledgement of God's existence is no more a religion than atheism is a religion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Our Constitution was very purposefully written as a godless document, whose only references to religion are exclusionary.

I guess they missed the First Amendment.

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It is specifically prohibiting government from interfering with religious freedom.  Yet the activities of the FFA do nothing but use the strong arm of government to hamper religious freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I guess they missed the First Amendment.

It is specifically prohibiting government from interfering with religious freedom.  Yet the activities of the FFA do nothing but use the strong arm of government to hamper religious freedom.

I agree. Too add, the FFRF's main objective is to suppress religion and promote secularism. On their own website they state- "The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion." What are they smoking? Nothing could be further from the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To balance out this string, we should keep in mind that sometimes the greatest enemy to public expression of religion comes from within our ranks.  Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has been directed by Rev. Barry Lynn, who was a Baptist minister (now he's with the more liberal United Church of Christ, I believe).  Hillary Clinton is Methodist, and yet campaigned strongly against Christian conscientious objection (to providing abortions or abortion insurance coverage, to catering gay weddings, etc.).  AND, there are times when those of other religions, or of no religious persuasion, are our greatest defenders.  Rabbi Daniel Lapin is a great friend of conservative Christianity, and Charles Krauthammer also supports religious liberty. 

I'm wondering if the offense non-believers take against believers is due to their belief that sincere religions tends to drive many towards more conservative political values?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Political secularism, by which I think of groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation, has billed itself as neutral position, as a defender of the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against government establishing religion. Many school districts, and a fair number of government agencies seem to accept secularism's inherent neutrality as fact.  Is it?  One Catholic writer, from Crux, argues that:

 

 

A rabbi in my area, Daniel Lapin, has labeled such groups as "secular fundamentalists."  I like that because it distinguishes agnostic/atheists of good will and open-mindedness (who might very well self-identify as 'secular') from those who insist that all religion must be driven out of the public square, and that believers are foolish, at best.

THOUGHTS?

Like with most any vehicle, it is near impossible to drive a political agenda (secular or otherwise) in neutral--that is, unless you are going down hill. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited by wenglund
Clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share