Secularism as protection for religion

Good luck with your evil plan!

(a fragment, below...)
.
.
.
The arguments you sometimes see
Is God one part, or is He three?
They simply dont apply to me; I do not hold those views.
To have the government maintain
One view is right, is just insane;
For if one faith is set to gain, all others, then, must lose.
A secular society,
I think religions must agree,
Maintains each churchs right to be possessed of their belief.
To separate belief from state
Should really be beyond debate
For me to be accused of hate for saying so? Good Grief!

http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/08/those-rude-atheists.html

Rabid atheist that I am, I strive to argue the same point when I discuss American secularism and the Constitution with people. Many are surprised to discover that the strongest arguments for a secular government came from the Baptists among the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, and that it is only recently that the majority of Baptists have turned from secularism.

Wish I was there in Brisbane.

The Founding Fathers of the United States were a great deal closer to the religious bigotry that had so infected European affairs. Directly they were influenced by the profound bigotry of the established Church in England and the religious tests that forced Catholics, non-Comformists and others to either sit on the sidelines of public affairs or feign the orthodoxy. Slightly more distant but, I'm sure, still very clear in their minds was the horrors of the Thirty Years War and how religion and politics were such a poisonous mixture.

Unfortunately, particularly in the US, there has been a rather consistent attack on the Enlightenment, largely centered on the ideological religious conservative element of the Republican Party. If what looks to be a major victory for the Democrats does one thing, it's likely going to convince the fiscal conservatives to retake the party.

Working for income on Tuesday,otherwise would love to attend !

I guess Cuttlefish's poem would make a nice summary already...:-)

Why dont you make a mp3 or video of the talk and post it for the non-Queenslanders?

Cheers from Melbourne !

Cuttlefish, that's a wicked rhyme, scanning and all. I may end my talk by quoting it.

The talk was going to be titled "Avoiding another Thirty Years' War", but I thought people wouldn't get it.

It seems your theory predicts that in a secular society, while most religions will end up with a larger share of the total participants in religion, the few dominant religions will end up with much smaller shares of the total participants - no longer being dominant religions at all, and being much more similar in size and influence to other religions. That is - in a non-secular society, religion is dominated by giants and dwarves - one or few religions with huge numbers of adherents, and many religions with very few adherents. In secular society, on the other hand, religion would be dominated by average-sized religions, with most religions having roughly equal numbers of adherents.

I think many religious people - especially leaders - would find it very hard to give up the hope that their religion might one day become dominant.

Drat, I seem to be engaged that evening.

The American founders were probably more mindful of the English Civil War (Puritans and all that) and its aftermath than they were of the 30 Years War though. They were largely influenced by Locke whose father was in the Civil War and who lived himself through the Glorious Revolution.

Heh. My own present basic assumptions are the Robbins Axioms of Logic, that the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms may be jointly affirmed without self-contradiction, and that Reality and Evidence are relateable.

Your talk's description would appear to presume (or infer?) that no net societal evolutionary advantage can be provided by selection of any particular "religion" or possible non-religion alternative(s) occupying a similar social ecology niche. I suspect this is not correct.

I think you misunderstand why many people are upset. I believe in secularism, but I am upset with how it is fraudulently practiced in America.

We have public schools in America. That means that all citizens must pay for schools through taxes. Hence, some parents are being forced to pay for public schools through taxes, but then told if they want the benefit of public schools they must send their children to schools that specifically attempt to indoctrinate the children with the belief that the parents' religious teachings on creationism, sexual abstinence and gays is wrong. That has to be the single most offensive form of state coercion that exists today in America, and certainly violates the parents' right of free exercise of their religion. Anyone who promotes such a policy based upon securalism is a fraudulent securalist violating the principle behind the first admendment.

It could be easily avoided by allowing school choice. However, most fraudulent secularist fight against school choice. Due to this behavior, it is actually these fraudulent secularist who are using the power of the state to indoctrinate children with the beliefs that the fraudulent secularist promote. The fraudulent secularist are actually the individuals who are violating the founding secularist principles of our nation established in the first admendment.

If you want to promote secularism, promote it. Just promote it honestly and not fraudulently, and I will support you.

Aaron: that's one of the single most confused posts I've seen in a long time. I'll only take the mistake that's easiest to deal with and leave the rest to others:

".. and certainly violates the parents' right of free exercise of their religion."

That's quite simply false. It limits the power parents have over their own children. Few people think that parents should have unlimited rights with regards to their own children (they're not allowed to sell them or kill them or use them as slave labor, for instance). The limitations may be debated. But they have nothing to do with the rights of free exercise of religion. Those are separate issues. It doesn't really have anything to do with the first amendment (not that I'll ever understand why you Americans revere that old document so intensely either; Europeans tend to find the attitude odd and slightly eerie).

That old document? Hell, it's barely over 200 years old. There are books that people read today, believe it or not, that are even older than that.

That's the trouble with those Europeans. A flighty bunch, mostly with governments set up in the 20th century -- amazing! One of them had a revolution just a few years after ours, but they liked it so much they did it again and again, finally settling down (one hopes) only within my lifetime.

Off-shore, of course, there are a couple that haven't gloried in a revolution since the 17th century or earlier. Is it significant that they're not quite really in Europe?

Some day you'll learn to appreciate our mature wisdom in these matters.

[A wave to Iceland, with sincere wishes for getting the financial craziness straightened out soon.]

llewelly, I don't have a theory about what will happen with particular religions. Some will wax, some will wane. But there is likely to be religion in any foreseeable society, so if we think being secular will eliminate religion we are just kidding ourselves. And it is likely that there will be a dominant or widespread religion in most if not all societies. Since no religion can know they will be that one, they shouldn't bank on it, and support instead equality of choice and rights for all belief states. It's in their interests.

Hence, some parents are being forced to pay for public schools through taxes, but then told if they want the benefit of public schools they must send their children to schools that specifically attempt to indoctrinate the children with the belief that the parents' religious teachings on creationism, sexual abstinence and gays is wrong.

I have to pay for an interstate highway system the vast majority of which I've never driven on. I'm paying for a military that I firmly believe our leaders are misuing. Paying taxes for things I don't use or don't approve of is the cost of living in a society and is a separate issue from what should be taught in secular schools. Those parents have the freedom to instruct their children in their own beliefs (and have many advantages over the schools) and can send them to private schools, just as I can choose to pay to fly over those roads, rather than to use them to get across the country.

That has to be the single most offensive form of state coercion that exists today in America ...

Not even close.

... and certainly violates the parents' right of free exercise of their religion.

"Free exercise" doesn't mean "all possible obstacles are removed." Believers live in a society in which they have to interact with others who do not share their beliefs. For example, why do I have to pay for police protection, sewers, roads, etc. that serve tax-exempt churches? We can't all get what we want.

John--

Wow--I would be honored. Consider this my official written permission for quoting, in part or in whole, anything from my site.

If we had prayer in school, religious people could argue that "Paying taxes for things I don't use or don't approve of is the cost of living in a society and is a separate issue from what should be taught in ...schools. Those parents [who don't want their kids to pray in school] have the freedom to instruct their children in their own beliefs (and have many advantages over the schools) and can send them to private schools, just as I can choose to pay to fly over those roads, rather than to use them to get across the country.

Here is the first Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What is the free exercise thereof religion? It is the ability to exercise one's religion without interference or coercion from the state. Those who want the state interfering in the parent's right to raise their children according to their own religion are fraudulent secularist who are ignoring the parent's right of free exercise thereof religion.

Unfortunately, some of the commenters in this thread are fraudulent secularist who think the state has the right to interfere in parent's right to free exercise thereof religion.

If you accept that the state has the power to coerce and interfere in the free exercise thereof religion, do not cry when that power is turned against you.

What is the free exercise thereof religion? It is the ability to exercise one's religion without interference or coercion from the state.

I must have missed the congressional session where they outlawed private religious schools.

You seem to be having some problem with the notion of "secular" so let me help you. The absence of religion in school curricula is not the imposition of religion. The inclusion of religion in school curricula would be. A student praying is not forbidden, as I understand the US Supreme Court decision. A teacher leading students in prayer, or the school making prayer a school activity, is. It's not complicated. Not putting something into a school curriculum is not establishing religion. It's the exact opposite.

I hope this helps. Stop posting to this thread now. Have a nice life.

If I am not mistaken, in the majority of cases in which a school prayer has been opposed it has been a member of a different religion, rather than an atheist, who has complained.

Sponsoring one type of prayer, to the exclusion of others, would violate the establishment clause. Given the number of religions, it would be foolish to think that a school could reasonably sponsor all types of religious observation. There simply is no way to treat all religions equally, save for secular schools with no establishment of religious observation.

Why do you not want me posting in this thread anymore? Can you not handle people debating your basic assumptions?

I understand secular. I think you do not understand secular. Secular means that the government is neutral in the debate over religion. It should choose no side. When via policy it is coercing some parents to either forgo a public education so as to not have their children indoctrinated with teaching that their religious beliefs are wrong, then it is not acting neutral or in a secular nature.

I agree that coercive prayer is a violation of secularism, but so is the coercive teachings that some religious beliefs are wrong.

Until you understand that, you are not a secularist.

I agree that coercive prayer is a violation of secularism, but so is the coercive teachings that some religious beliefs are wrong.

....and I also missed the congressional session where "Christianity is false" was made a required part of the non-existent national curriculum.

Creationism is a religious belief. Some parents do not want to be coerced into the choice of having to forgo public education to prevent their children from being taught that creationism is false. Public policy has left them no choice but to forgo public education to prevent their children from being taught information which is contrary to their religious beliefs. That is state coercion which violates their right to the free exercise thereof religion.

It is no different than if the public schools were to have mandatory prayer and then say well those who do not want their kids praying can always send their kids to private schools that do not have prayer.

Creationism is but one issue. If you believe in secularism, you have to believe in allowing parents choice and flexibility to prevent any proscribed form of thinking that violates the principles of the first amendment.

Creationism is a religious belief.

So is handling vipers. And circumcision (for Jews). And gender-segregated classes (for some Muslims). And not eating meat (for some Buddhists).

So, if I understand you correctly, schools shouldn't teach that poisonous snakes can kill you even if you pray, or that it is not necessary to be circumcised, or that women are equal to men, or that raising meat animals is OK.

I agree -- we should have schools teach all religious beliefs (since we don't want it favouring any one in particular). We can devote one week to Christianity, and one week to Islam, and one week to Zoroastrism, and one week to animism, and one week to Hinduism, and one week to Shintoism, and one week to Buddhism, and one week to paganism, and one week to Asatruism, and one week to Scientology, and one week to Taoism, and one week to Solar Temple-ism, and one week to FSMism...and that gets the curriculum pretty close to Christmas...err...Saturnalia...err..Sol Invictus...well, whatever...

And of course in the rest of the curriculum nothing could be taught that would at all possibly contradict any of the beliefs of all those religions.

Yeah, that should work out just great.

@Aaron Durst:
"Creationism is a religious belief. Some parents do not want to be coerced into the choice of having to forgo public education to prevent their children from being taught that creationism is false. Public policy has left them no choice but to forgo public education to prevent their children from being taught information which is contrary to their religious beliefs. That is state coercion which violates their right to the free exercise thereof religion."

I agree 100%. We should stop teaching biology and life sciences in schools because it's controversial and opposes some peoples' religious beliefs.

Sex Ed should be tossed out as well.

We should also stop teaching geography because that defies the belief the earth is flat. (Yes. Some people still believe that. It's mostly based on the bible, too.)

Chemistry of any sort should no longer be taught because it stands in opposition to some of the new ager type religions.

Literature should no longer be taught in any form because an awful lot of books throughout history were inspired by religion.

Study of space and the ocean argue against astrology and great floods, respectively. No more of those either.

Psychology and all of its various workings can no longer be taught because the scientologists and a few other religions stand opposed to it.

Teaching factual history defies a good many religions. No more history class either.

No more math for the kids because practically every "holy" book has measurements for random things and damn near every one of them is flat out wrong or nonsense.

Also most of the electives would be tossed out for offending one religion or another. (Band? You can't have a band unless you play a hymn for every form of religion that ever existed!)

So, here's your revised secular public school list according to Aaron's logic:

1st period: PE
2nd period: PE
1st Break
3rd period: PE
Lunch
4th period: PE
5th period: PE
2nd Break
6th period: PE
7th period: PE

At least until someone comes up with the 'church of lazy'. Then PE is out too.
Oh wait. You meant you only wanted to get rid of things that offended *your* religion.
I see. Carry on then.

I never realized that the free exercise of religion meant one must never be subjected to a view contrary to their religion. This must make life very difficult. I hope these people don't have televisions, the internet, newspapers, radios, etc. Did you know that some people actually believe in other gods or no god at all. Im' shocked!

If we had prayer in school, religious people could argue that "Paying taxes for things I don't use or don't approve of is the cost of living in a society and is a separate issue from what should be taught in ...schools.

If we had government-led prayer in schools, that would be violating the first part of the First Amendment -- the rights of everyone who disagreed with that type of prayer. Again, that's a separate issue from what's done with your taxes.

What is the free exercise thereof religion?

The right to swing your religious fist ... and that right stops exactly at the tip of my nose.

Those who want the state interfering in the parent's right to raise their children according to their own religion are fraudulent secularist who are ignoring the parent's right of free exercise thereof religion.

So we have to let parents kill their children in sacrifice if they want to? Sorry, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the welfare of all its citizens, including children. The state has an interest in an educated citizenry, in that it is necessary for the defense and welfare of everyone. Your free exercise is to be left alone with your own beliefs but when those beliefs infringe on the rights of others, including your own children, the state has the right to step in. Teach 'em what you want but you can't keep 'em ignorant (or unclothed or unfed or not medically cared for).

I understand secular.

No, you don't ... in the legal American sense, anyway.

Secular means that the government is neutral in the debate over religion. It should choose no side. When via policy it is coercing some parents to either forgo a public education so as to not have their children indoctrinated with teaching that their religious beliefs are wrong, then it is not acting neutral or in a secular nature.

No, that's not close to right. The government does not have to pretend that the Earth is the center of the universe just because some few religious people believe that. The government merely has to let those people believe what they want, in spite of science, and allow them to speak their mind. But the government can go right on training its scientists how to send space probes to Mars by slinging them past the sun in the center of the solar system. If those peoples' faith can't stand seeing space probes, the government does not have to take their weak and feeble faith into consideration and stop sending out probes. Neither does it have to teach its future citizens the lowest common foolery in the name of some misguided "neutrality."

Some parents do not want to be coerced into the choice of having to forgo public education to prevent their children from being taught that creationism is false.

They do not have a constitutional right to demand that the schools favor their beliefs. Sending your child to a public school is not guaranteed in the free exercise clause and neither is that all your taxes will be spent as you like it. You are trying to expand the free exercise clause beyond religion. The free exercise clause most certainly doesn't guarantee that you or your beliefs will never be contradicted by government.

John wrote

And it is likely that there will be a dominant or widespread religion in most if not all societies. Since no religion can know they will be that one, they shouldn't bank on it, and support instead equality of choice and rights for all belief states. It's in their interests.

That's a very Rawlsian view. I like it.

Aaron wrote

It should choose no side. When via policy it is coercing some parents to either forgo a public education so as to not have their children indoctrinated with teaching that their religious beliefs are wrong, then it is not acting neutral or in a secular nature.

Problem is, the children are not taught that their religious beliefs are wrong. However, when those religious beliefs generate fact claims about the world, then it is not a promotion of religion (or lack thereof) to teach that those fact claims are false when they are false. The world is not 6,000 years old, and any religion that makes that as a fact claim has laid itself open to testing and falsifying via evidence. That's not an attack on a religious belief per se, it's a religiously neutral falsification of a fact claim. It's irrelevant whether the fact claim originates in a religion or a faulty scientific hypothesis. The evaluation of fact claims by science is religiously neutral. It's the religion's problem if its fact claims happen to be false, not the state's problem or science's problem.

RBH: Yes it's self-consciously Rawlsian. And in fact that's what I'm going to argue in the talk, with a twist. Individually, if you happen to be a member of the dominant, even almost universal, religion, you still ought to support secularism because you do not know if you offspring will remain in your religion, and you should want them protected if they don't.

This only applies to rational religious believers, of course.

As to the second point, I have always said that if a religion makes contrary to fact claims, so much the worse for that religion. Believe, if you want, that the earth is 6006 years old. No science says that, and it will not be taught to school students until sciences actually do say that. Nor will they teach the Matrix...

but then told if they want the benefit of public schools they must send their children to schools that specifically attempt to indoctrinate the children with the belief that the parents' religious teachings on creationism, sexual abstinence and gays is wrong. That has to be the single most offensive form of state coercion that exists today in America,

Nonsense. The point of an education is not to confirm preexisting prejudices and keep away evidence that contradicts them. It is to challenge each and every preconceived notion!

and certainly violates the parents' right of free exercise of their religion.

Nonsense. Parents are free to tell their children that the teachers are wrong.

And by the way, do you not even know that "thereof" means "of that/of it"? Don't you notice that "thereof religion" is ungrammatical just like "of it religion"? ~:-|

When via policy it is coercing some parents to either forgo a public education so as to not have their children indoctrinated with teaching that their religious beliefs are wrong, then it is not acting neutral or in a secular nature.

I agree that coercive prayer is a violation of secularism, but so is the coercive teachings that some religious beliefs are wrong.

What you have missed is that some things are facts, so they can be taught without problems, and yet contradict religious claims. For example, the Bible says several times, implicitly and explicitly, that the Earth is flat and has four corners and foundations, and that the sky/heaven is solid and has the shape of an upside-down kettle. Another example: the Aztec religion taught that it is necessary to sacrifice hearts every day because otherwise the sun wouldn't rise the next day.

Creationism is a religious belief.

Thank you for providing the third example.

One more thing. You only talk about the rights of parents. But children, too, have rights. For example, they have the right to not have an education withheld from them. Don't you think?

It's irrelevant whether the fact claim originates in a religion or a faulty scientific hypothesis. The evaluation of fact claims by science is religiously neutral. It's the religion's problem if its fact claims happen to be false, not the state's problem or science's problem.

We have a winner.

Can't make the talk. Got text?

I will put it up here eventually. It takes time to convert notes for a talk into a comprehensible essay.