Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84  Well, if they did tolerate people that did not tolerate others, they would be idiots, wouldn't they. The idea of tolerance is to not hate/harm etc, each other for petty differences, allowing it to be an one-way street is just asking to be hated/harmed by these people.
Secularism does not mean the politicians do not have a religion, it means that they do not show it in their jobs. It is perfectly allowed to be affected by religion, but i cannot count anyone secular if they draw arguments from religion in public office. Maybe it is even that religion only distracts from standpoints, it is easier to say I'll be a "good Christian"(or whatever) then it is to give your standpoints. (what being a "good Christian" seems subjective to me)
Where did you get that idea? Certainly not from Americas politics? |
Let me begin by saying I am aghast at the American political situation. I do not approve of the "Christian right" by any means. I am Canadian and proud of it. And I have enjoyed time with gay friends over the years, and shared smiles and beers together at cast parties, etc. That doesn't mean we had to agree on everything, but we supported each other and enjoyed each other. I have a good Muslim friend also, and have spent much time with him eating, going to movies, etc., and if you are wondering, no not to convert him.
So I don't push my faith down others' throats. To me that isn't human. But to have faith is my human right, and to deny me that is equally inhuman.
The Nazi ideals and philosophy were certainly harmful, but not particularly religious. The Romans worshiped the Emperor, and later their version of Jesus. Both groups committed great atrocities, whether for religious reasons or not.
The point is that everyone has a world view, a philosophy of life that colours (Canadian spelling) everything we do. If your philosophy of religion is that you can put on and take off your religion like a tee-shirt, thats good for you. But most of the world wakes up and goes to bed with convictions about how things should be and why they should be that way. These convictions may change, but reflect a part of our personality as a deep part of our makeup.
I would be surprised if anyone could present any good arguments for religious philosophies being categorized and evaluated differently than other philosophies with regard to the potential influence of state policy. Honestly, if we all evolved, then what is the difference between "fair trade" and Orthodox Judaism? If there is no God, then they are all just ideas.
Humanity has been almost absolutely religious since its beginning. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. But I don't think the absence of religious influence will keep us safe from such atrocities. Our secular age is relatively young yet. But as far as faith and state affairs is concerned, I would argue that under your solution Atheists are able to represent their worldview in public office, while those who hold a faith-based ethical philosophy are not.
We are on dangerous ground. There are people who would outlaw religion, to eliminate discrimination. That in itself is a discriminatory philosophy. I personally resent people assuming I am discriminatory because I believe in God. In Canada religion is practically eliminated from politics and the workplace. One can't have "Christmas" cards on one's desk anymore. If we push it much farther it will be enforced Atheism, look no further than China.