|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Mar 10, 2012 14:39:41 GMT
There have been quite a few mentions of secularism in this forum since January. But there hasn't been much discussion of what we think of secularism. So therefore this topic for discussing issues like: - Should separation of state and church be absolute (as in the American model)?
- Should religious discourse be excluded from government (as in the French or Turkish model)?
- Should religious schools be allowed to get state funding?
- Should some churches be disestablished but recognised as "national churches" (as in Finland and Sweden)?
- Should parties founded on an explicitly religious basis be allowed?
- Should religious oaths be possible for confirmation in a public office?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Mar 10, 2012 17:34:44 GMT
Should separation of state and church be absolute (as in the American model)?
Yes. If we claim one religion should have a privileged place, how are we different from most Muslim-majority countries? And Jesus: "Rend unto etc..
Should religious discourse be excluded from government (as in the French or Turkish model)?
"Discourse?" Explain.
Should religious schools be allowed to get state funding?
Do the religious not pay taxes? Is diversity in choice of schooling to be frowned upon? Should religious people have to pay toward non-religious schools?
Should parties founded on an explicitly religious basis be allowed?
Should religious oaths be possible for confirmation in a public office?
Er, why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Mar 10, 2012 18:10:49 GMT
Should separation of state and church be absolute (as in the American model)? Yes. If we claim one religion should have a privileged place, how are we different from most Muslim-majority countries? And Jesus: "Rend unto etc.. This isn't so much as a single religion being privileged, but several ones. In Luxemburg and Germany, religions that are not regarded as threats to democracy receive benefits. And the American model also has more absolute freedom of religion that is more difficult to infringe on, while in Europe new religious movements tend to be more at risk of facing restrictions. Think of Scientolofy, for instance. Should religious discourse be excluded from government (as in the French or Turkish model)?"Discourse?" Explain. Basically trying to limit the role of religion in government ("no doing God") or in the case of Turkey limiting its role in the public sphere. Bans on religious symbols in public buildings is also a good example of this position. |
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Mar 10, 2012 18:41:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Mar 10, 2012 22:04:24 GMT
[/li][li]Should separation of state and church be absolute[/quote] Yes. You mean the theoretical American model. In practice, the American government is usually in bed with Christian fundamentalism and dictates laws on the basis of religious ideology. Look no further than our good friend George 'God-told-me-to-invade-Iraq' Bush to see just how well that works. [/li][li]Should religious discourse be excluded from government (as in the French or Turkish model)?[/quote] Yes. [/li][li]Should religious schools be allowed to get state funding?[/quote] Yes. All independent schools (both religious and non-religious) should receive some form of state subsidy. It's cheaper than building new government schools and helps to relieve pressure on the state school system. [/li][li]Should some churches be disestablished but recognised as "national churches" (as in Finland and Sweden)?[/quote] No, all churches should be disestablished and none of them should be recognised as national churches. [/li][li]Should parties founded on an explicitly religious basis be allowed?[/quote] Yes. [/li][li]Should religious oaths be possible for confirmation in a public office?[/quote] No. We should also ditch ridiculous traditions like the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in Parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 11, 2012 1:29:57 GMT
My answers are almost the same as Sankari's (except I think one of his answers is contradictory):
Almost but not absolute. Sometimes christian organisations do social welfare better than government, and there may therefore be times when the two work together.
If I understand the question, yes.
This is where Sankari's answer is confusing to me. I think a mix of state and private funding is common in all sorts of areas (private & public hospitals, transport, media, etc) so no reason not to have it here also, provided there are clear criteria, and provided religious groups aren't favoured, as Sankari says.
All disestablished and no recognition - for both the government's sake and the churches'.
Yes. Why not? It's a democracy.
No. let's not make people behave hypocritically (as seems to be happening in the US).
Secularism is good for the state and good for the church. I think the US is an interesting case. It was established supposedly as a christian state, one nation under God, In God we trust on their coins, etc, but also with separation of church & state. All this is tricky to deal with now that many people are not theistic. I think christians should voluntarily give up their "right" to have those God reminders on coins and mottos, in deference to their non-believing compatriots, but I imagine such a suggestion would be howled down in the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Mar 11, 2012 3:49:14 GMT
Almost but not absolute. Sometimes christian organisations do social welfare better than government, and there may therefore be times when the two work together. We're talking about the role of religion in government. When a government organisation cooperates with a Christian charity organisation, that's something entirely different. It's not a case of mixing religion with government. Sorry, I began that post with a 'No' when I meant to say 'Yes.' The rest of the post explains my position. Edited now. 'In God We Trust' was a 1950s innovation, replacing the original 'E Pluribus Unum.' It did not appear on American currency before then and has no relevance to the aims of the Founding Fathers. |
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Mar 11, 2012 13:08:35 GMT
No. let's not make people behave hypocritically (as seems to be happening in the US). Maybe I don't quite get the point here? In the U.K., if one is required to take an oath e.g. before giving evidence in court or taking up a position as a Member of Parliament one has a choice of a religious oath (in accordance with one's religion) or an affirmation if one has no religious allegiance. Are people in the US obliged to give a religious oath? |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 11, 2012 22:33:31 GMT
Maybe I don't quite get the point here? In the U.K., if one is required to take an oath e.g. before giving evidence in court or taking up a position as a Member of Parliament one has a choice of a religious oath (in accordance with one's religion) or an affirmation if one has no religious allegiance. My mistake. I mis-read the question. In Australia we have the same choices (though interestingly, when I had to give evidence in an industrial court many years ago, everyone else swore on the Bible but I, the only christian to my knowledge, gave an affirmation). I was also thinking about prayers to open parliament and local councils and other things like that, which weren't part of the question, but which I associate with the oaths. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Mar 14, 2012 15:20:17 GMT
- Should separation of state and church be absolute (as in the American model)?
Almost, alternative religions like Scientology should not receive the cold shoulder they receive in some European countries right now, but the government should reserve the right to ban some religious practices, even if they are consentual. I'm against special advantages, as in Germany, though religious may play a public role in expressions of mourning. - Should religious discourse be excluded from government (as in the French or Turkish model)?
No, Germany is a good example here of a country where there is religious discourse in politics (also in the secular parties, from the right to the left) that doesn't end up in "doing God" for votes. - Should religious schools be allowed to get state funding?
Yes, if they satisfy reasonable criteria. Religious schools should be required to teach evolution, of course. - Should some churches be disestablished but recognised as "national churches" (as in Finland and Sweden)?
No. - Should parties founded on an explicitly religious basis be allowed?
Yes. - Should religious oaths be possible for confirmation in a public office?
Yes, but they should be entirely optional. (as in the American model)? You mean the theoretical American model. In practice, the American government is usually in bed with Christian fundamentalism and dictates laws on the basis of religious ideology. Look no further than our good friend George 'God-told-me-to-invade-Iraq' Bush to see just how well that works. I think we should give the Americans more credit here. Though there are movements against particular religions (Islam, New Religious Movements), the government is actually more tolerant to religious organisations than several European governments (and I don't only mean dictatorships like Belarus and Russia). But yes, latterday Christian fundamentalism does have influence on politics. But I think that's inevitable in a democracy and though I dislike the influence, I wouldn't like (even) more restrictions on democracy to curb it. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Mar 15, 2012 5:46:43 GMT
I think we should give the Americans more credit here. Though there are movements against particular religions (Islam, New Religious Movements), the government is actually more tolerant to religious organisations than several European governments (and I don't only mean dictatorships like Belarus and Russia). Legislated tolerance means nothing when the national culture is replete with religious bigotry. No need to restrict democracy. All they need to do is enforce the separation of church and state that they claim to uphold. Right now they're making a total mockery of it. |
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Mar 15, 2012 15:21:04 GMT
I think we should give the Americans more credit here. Though there are movements against particular religions (Islam, New Religious Movements), the government is actually more tolerant to religious organisations than several European governments (and I don't only mean dictatorships like Belarus and Russia). I agree. The Amish religion, to give just one example, would face great difficulties in Europe because of its "divergent" lifestyle. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Mar 16, 2012 8:28:06 GMT
I agree. The Amish religion, to give just one example, would face great difficulties in Europe because of its "divergent" lifestyle. Considering the Amish originated in Europe, I doubt that very much. |
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Mar 16, 2012 12:40:26 GMT
I agree. The Amish religion, to give just one example, would face great difficulties in Europe because of its "divergent" lifestyle. Considering the Amish originated in Europe, I doubt that very much. Well, they must have left for a reason. ;D Also, there doesn't seem to be too many of them in Europe nowadays. According to this website, the only surviving Amish settlements in Europe are of the more "progressive", modernity-friendly "Beachy" persuasion. amishamerica.com/do-amish-live-in-europe/ |
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Mar 16, 2012 15:42:15 GMT
There used to be a large Anabaptist presence in West-Europe for a while, but they were heavily persecuted, especially after the Münster Rebellion. Amish and other Mennonites are of course from the pacifist wing of Anabaptism, so they didn't have much to do with the rebellion, but they were also persecuted. I suppose most Amish came from West Germany and Switzerland because the Amish speak a western dialect of High German.
In the Netherlands still exists a notable Mennonite presence but as Turoldus said, it's mostly progressive (or, more precisely, socialist). But I wasn't thinking of the Amish when I wrote that, more of the groups that are likely to be called "cults". Probably the only issue the Amish would face here is with their objection to higher education. I doubt that many European governments would tolerate that under freedom of religion (understandably).
|
|
