What is the big problem people have with secularism?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Aim64C

 

Well, I don't know where you got the statistic from, but the simple fact is that there hasn't been a negative impact on religion in this nation due to secularism. In fact, it thrives. Not only does it thrive, it's bloated with excess. We have churches that are essentially stadiums of Jesus.

Secularism would disagree that religion is in excess. It would make no attempt to quantify or qualify religion, merely govern by logical rules.

Honestly, nobody has had a religious practice impeded by government, so why not keep up the status quo and enforce the whole "In God We Trust" idiocy?

Is it a legislated law that one must trust in God?

This is the difficulty with secularism. Humans are not capable of it. You're obviously not capable of it - and while I have moments where I can enter a completely logical state of mind almost completely free of bias - I am not capable of it, either.

It's not a legislated matter - it's not a law. It is merely a statement placed on a coin regulated by a government agency. In case you haven't noticed - there are many statements and symbols placed on currency. People are going to look at and interpret them as they see fit, and be offended, accordingly (personally, I am offended by circles - so I get pissed every time I see change, the tires on my car, and people's faces).

To that end - banning something that could be considered a religious statement is, in itself, not secularism - as secularism would just treat it like any other statement. Secularism would attempt to determine whether or not the statement impeded the purpose of the currency, if no substantial problems existed to that end - then the statement would be perfectly free to exist.

You cannot use secularism to marginalize religion - as secularism is simply not influenced by religion (or the lack thereof).

What you would be looking for is an atheistic government that believes religion is tantamount to stupidity but just as futile to attempt to correct.

I don't have a problem with secularism. The problem I have is with people who don't get it, and are simply not self-aware who try to campaign secularism. If you don't have the self-awareness to recognize your own personal agenda (and you have one in almost everything you do), then you're not capable of understanding or even envisioning secularism.

There's 2 kinds of people in this world: The ones who look FORWARD and adapt to changes in society/science...and the ones who look BACKWARDS (religious ppl) and are hellbent to have people follow the rules of a 2000 year old book. I say it's about time the first group tells the 2nd group to either adapt or be left behind, because they are a hindrance to modern society.

MrXYZ

You missed the third type of person in the world, the type who generalize to such a degree that they lose track of what is reality and what isn't. Historians look backwards to learn for the future, not every religious person follows the bible, and the same wholesome principles govern mankind as a species as they ever have : look forward too much and you omit them too. If FORWARD thinking means Zeitgeist, science ungoverned and unregulated to our species detriment, anything that once held class being trampled, and everything crude, commercialized, and obnoxious held up as the new sacred - then we should look back to times in our history, and to societies which held renaissance periods, and didn't jump from fledgling societies to "over-decadent".

The government doesn't even step in on the free exercise of religion when that free exercise leads to children dying of preventable disease.

Madnessinmysoul

Please elaborate?

The problem we run into, when discussing religion "in" government, is recognizance of what that implies, and an agreement between people to form the same definitions. Religion is larger than government and society, and draws a circle of importance around them both. Our beliefs, and every man and womans beliefs, form the governing helm which they follow. To the degree that secular society embodies the good morals my religion does, I applaud secular society, and all it's rules and provisions. If my religion is offensive to a substantial number of people in society, it can be toned back to a level that shows respect for others beliefs. In a society where 95% of the people are Buddhist, for example, it only makes sense to see the government embracing the philosophy of Buddhism, in fair representation.

It was not "wrong" for America to ever embrace Christian values, since that represented the citizenship of the time. If a fairer representation is due nowadays, then a fairer representation is due - there's no "right" or "wrong" in that, so what cause for complaint? I see only one, and that is that corporate patronage, and ties to the totalitarian aims of the new world order embrace another set of religious values that are most closely defined as satanic. Since that controls government, and not the other way around, it's quite easy to see "secularism" as the tool by which religion is leveraged out of the way, while masked behind the scenes is its replacement.

If atheists could see the new world religion being promoted through the mask of secular humanitarianism, with open eyes, it might make an impact, simply by knowing it is indeed another ideology which is a religion in the minds of world leaders. The only difference is the scope.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by facelift

 

actually no people try to shove a set belief down someone throats but its up to the individual to take it or leave.

the path of religion is between you and your maker the end.

Are you a christian?
Cause, there is this book, written by 4 guys 2000 years ago, that says otherwise:
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Northwarden

Originally posted by Northwarden

The government doesn't even step in on the free exercise of religion when that free exercise leads to children dying of preventable disease.

Madnessinmysoul

Please elaborate?

The "Christian Scientists" refuse to accept medical treatment, instead relying on faith healing and prayer exclusively. This applies to their children as well. There have been many instances of children dying of diabetes because their parents refused medical treatment and these parents were not prosecuted for neglect.

The following video has some examples.

The problem we run into, when discussing religion "in" government, is recognizance of what that implies, and an agreement between people to form the same definitions.

No, please don't mention definitions. Religious people hate those things.

Religion is larger than government and society, and draws a circle of importance around them both.

I would say it can be larger than government, but it is more than easy enough to argue that religion is in fact smaller than society.

Religions change with society quite often, take the western world as an example. Looking at the last 500 years, religious trends have adapted to society instead of the other way around.

Our beliefs, and every man and womans beliefs, form the governing helm which they follow.

Yes, but the majority of religious belief has absolutely nothing to do with governance.

How would transubstantiation alter legislation?

To the degree that secular society embodies the good morals my religion does, I applaud secular society, and all it's rules and provisions.

Hate to break it to you, but there isn't a religion around that actually has morality, merely a concept of metaphysical extortion.

If my religion is offensive to a substantial number of people in society, it can be toned back to a level that shows respect for others beliefs. In a society where 95% of the people are Buddhist, for example, it only makes sense to see the government embracing the philosophy of Buddhism, in fair representation.

Except that it doesn't. The government shouldn't care about Buddhist philosophy, it should merely adhere to the functions of governance and the most free and stable society legally possible.

It was not "wrong" for America to ever embrace Christian values, since that represented the citizenship of the time.

It never did.

Freedom of religion? Not a Christian value.
Freedom of speech? Not a Christian value.
Slavery? Christian value, we did away with that one.
Freedom of the press? Not a Christian value.
Innocent until proven guilty? Yet again, not a Christian value.
No alcohol? Christian value for some, caused a big disaster.

If a fairer representation is due nowadays, then a fairer representation is due - there's no "right" or "wrong" in that, so what cause for complaint?

Governmental function shouldn't be dependent on the religious fervor of individuals, it should focus on the concept of justice and maintaining order.

I see only one, and that is that corporate patronage, and ties to the totalitarian aims of the new world order embrace another set of religious values that are most closely defined as satanic. Since that controls government, and not the other way around, it's quite easy to see "secularism" as the tool by which religion is leveraged out of the way, while masked behind the scenes is its replacement.

Um...Satanism is inherently a religious doctrine, being an antagonistic form of Judeo-Christian theism.

And also, I don't really debate this sort of thing because it will get really damn off topic and we're not talking about conspiracy theory in this thread, merely political philosophy.

If atheists could see the new world religion being promoted through the mask of secular humanitarianism, with open eyes, it might make an impact, simply by knowing it is indeed another ideology which is a religion in the minds of world leaders. The only difference is the scope.

Except that...well...you don't really have evidence for that, do you?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Nothin wrong with that,I think that's what was stated in that outdated,living,flexible,open to interpretation document.......(I'm being sarcastic,of course)

The Constitution.

Is that Freud?.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Secularism would disagree that religion is in excess. It would make no attempt to quantify or qualify religion, merely govern by logical rules.

...I wasn't speaking on behalf of secularism. It's obvious that religion is in excess in America. There are people who make enough money through religious ministries to buy multiple mansions. That is a definitive form of excess.

Is it a legislated law that one must trust in God?

Nope, but having tax money wasted to print it on our money sure is stupid.

Aside from the fact that it is tantamount to government endorsement of monotheism.

This is the difficulty with secularism. Humans are not capable of it.

Except that they are. It's in practice in quite a few nations.

You're obviously not capable of it

I will refrain from returning the insult, but I quite clearly am.

Let people practice their religion, I won't practice one, and we can all agree to consider religious matters private

- and while I have moments where I can enter a completely logical state of mind almost completely free of bias - I am not capable of it, either.

"Listen, I'm a bit better than you, but even I can't do it"

Yeah, that's bovine fecal matter.

It's not a legislated matter - it's not a law. It is merely a statement placed on a coin regulated by a government agency.

Yes, and it is something that was added in the middle of the 20th century in an attempt to separate us from the "godless commies" that we were fighting.

It is law. It became our national motto.
Our former one was "E Pluribus Unum" and it was a lot cooler to say "Out of many, one", because it actually speaks to the individualism historically representative of American culture.

In case you haven't noticed - there are many statements and symbols placed on currency.

Yes, and none of them seem to endorse Thor as our deity of choice. But they do endorse the Judeo-Christian deity.

People are going to look at and interpret them as they see fit, and be offended, accordingly (personally, I am offended by circles - so I get pissed every time I see change, the tires on my car, and people's faces).

Yes, but that is illogical. I have a logical reason to be offended by the unconstitutional endorsement of religion that violates the establishment of clause of the 1st amendment.

To that end - banning something that could be considered a religious statement is, in itself, not secularism - as secularism would just treat it like any other statement.

Secularism can't treat anything any way. It's not a thing. Stop using it as a noun, it is grammatically incorrect and logically fallacious.

A secular state would not have such a statement on its currency.

Secularism would attempt to determine whether or not the statement impeded the purpose of the currency, if no substantial problems existed to that end - then the statement would be perfectly free to exist.

Secularism isn't apathy to religion, it's not indifference to religion, it's separation of religion from governance.

A secular state in the 1950s would look at a proposal to change our historic motto to a religious statement and say..."No...we're not going to do that"
If we did do that, a secular state would realize "Hey, we are endorsing religion here, let's stop that"

You cannot use secularism to marginalize religion - as secularism is simply not influenced by religion (or the lack thereof).

How is removing a statement on currency that shouldn't be there in the first place a marginalization of religion?

What you would be looking for is an atheistic government that believes religion is tantamount to stupidity but just as futile to attempt to correct.

No, what I'm looking at is a godawful straw man.

I don't have a problem with secularism. The problem I have is with people who don't get it, and are simply not self-aware who try to campaign secularism. If you don't have the self-awareness to recognize your own personal agenda (and you have one in almost everything you do), then you're not capable of understanding or even envisioning secularism.

And you need to get off your high horse as you clearly don't understand what secularism is.

The majority of Our species is not capable of understanding what you are trying to say because their eyes are hazed over by religious doctrine.

Morals have little to do with any of it.

I see this as self evident.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

...I wasn't speaking on behalf of secularism. It's obvious that religion is in excess in America. There are people who make enough money through religious ministries to buy multiple mansions. That is a definitive form of excess.

There is simply no metric by which to establish "excessive." It is nothing more than a subjective opinion prone to bias.

Nope, but having tax money wasted to print it on our money sure is stupid.

The cost of changing the printing dies once is far greater than the cost of any ink "wasted" on the statement (though this is a moot point as another statement of negligible difference would be in its place).

Aside from the fact that it is tantamount to government endorsement of monotheism.

One could make the assertion that it is a statement acknowledging deism. That's about as far as one could take it.

Except that they are. It's in practice in quite a few nations.

There is not a single truly secular nation. Period.

I will refrain from returning the insult, but I quite clearly am.

Because you do not believe in a God? Or because you believe in functional, pragmatic logic being the most practical form of governing?

Let people practice their religion, I won't practice one, and we can all agree to consider religious matters private

Just how private? Private like my penis, banned from public display - or private like a business?

You seem to be inconsistent on this issue.

"Listen, I'm a bit better than you, but even I can't do it"

Yeah, that's bovine fecal matter.

If you wish to take it as an insult, that's your prerogative. We are two different people. You have moments where you can be logical, and I have moments where I can be emotional. It's a completely different way of looking at things - nothing "better" or "worse" - simply what is.

Yes, and it is something that was added in the middle of the 20th century in an attempt to separate us from the "godless commies" that we were fighting.

As you have said. I'm a man who has heard many things.

Mainstream history begs to differ:

en.wikipedia.org...

It is law. It became our national motto.

And what function does the motto serve?

Moreover, if the purpose of our government is to express the will of the people - and a sufficient number of people want that as the national motto - where does secularism claim the right to deny such a measure?

Our former one was "E Pluribus Unum" and it was a lot cooler to say "Out of many, one", because it actually speaks to the individualism historically representative of American culture.

There's something to be said for making a national motto in a language that is both dead and not the language of your nation.

Not that I dislike the "old" motto - or disagree with your reasons for it being "cool." But you can't allow personal opinion into a logical analysis of the situation.

Yes, and none of them seem to endorse Thor as our deity of choice. But they do endorse the Judeo-Christian deity.

Since I've done it once, I'll do it again - and link to wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...

Certainly, the word 'God' is only used to describe Judeo-Christian entities and concepts thereof.

Yes, but that is illogical. I have a logical reason to be offended by the unconstitutional endorsement of religion that violates the establishment of clause of the 1st amendment.

The Supreme Court has routinely ruled that the motto is Constitutional and does not give preference. Further, the wording of the first amendment is as follows:

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.

In what respect does "In God We Trust" respect an establishment of religion?

There's a key word in there - 'establishment' - let's look that up.

1
: something established: as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : established church c : a permanent civil or military organization d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e : a public or private institution
2
: an established order of society: as a often capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b often capitalized : a controlling group
3
a : the act of establishing b : the state of being established

Seems you are simply confused as to what the first amendment actually says. This would also imply your reason for being upset is more emotional and personal rather than logical.

Secularism can't treat anything any way. It's not a thing. Stop using it as a noun, it is grammatically incorrect and logically fallacious.

This is also not true. Secularism is an idea - a concept. More importantly, it is an idea and concept regarding what is and is not appropriate in governing people.

A secular state would not have such a statement on its currency.

But no government can be secular - it can only apply secular reasoning. This is especially the case in our government. There is also the problem that belief in a deity is not religious in nature.

Secularism isn't apathy to religion, it's not indifference to religion, it's separation of religion from governance.

en.wikipedia.org...

Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.

In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.[1] (See also public reason.)

I apparently just called an Austrian a German.

A secular state in the 1950s would look at a proposal to change our historic motto to a religious statement and say..."No...we're not going to do that"

A religious statement? Where's the religion?

What is religion?

re·li·gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

I'm not seeing the logical connection between "In God We Trust" and "religious statement." Now, certainly a spiritual statement - but not religious, we're not doing Hail Mary's, here, or doing a call to confession.

How is removing a statement on currency that shouldn't be there in the first place a marginalization of religion?

It isn't.

You've already established that you are willing to forgo logical, factual analysis of the situation in order to act on your own personal dislike of a group of people. This pattern of behavior is consistent, and will continue within larger issues that have real legal implications.

This is why secularism doesn't work. It turns into a platform for anti-religion as opposed to non-religion.

I have religious beliefs - but I also believe the government should rely on facts and logical reasoning as opposed to religious testaments.

Personally - I feel 'In God We Trust" is not the best statement to be placing on our currency. However, I can find no logical grounds for its removal. There is no precedent within the Constitution that bans spiritual - or even religious - statements from the government. The current motto is not a law respecting an establishment of religion, nor does it interfere with the free practice thereof. It, therefor, is not unconstitutional.

Within the bounds of secularism; the statement is not inherently religious, but so closely affiliated with most religions as to be considered ill-advised. However, the statement is not clearly endorsing or supporting religion, and therefor removal is not recommended. Drafting of an appropriate replacement to submit for public approval is the recommended course of action.

No, what I'm looking at is a godawful straw man.

When you get to the end of that yellow brick road, you can ask the Wizard to give you....... come on - you hit that one at a dead sprint.

Seriously, though - I operate on a scorched-earth policy. If that straw-man is on fire it is because I've completed torching you.

And you need to get off your high horse as you clearly don't understand what secularism is.

Perhaps you should consider why you do not have a horse to ride on, or a place to ride it to before you venture to charge that I fail to understand a concept.

reply to post by Aim64C

Originally posted by Aim64C
There is simply no metric by which to establish "excessive." It is nothing more than a subjective opinion prone to bias.

When you can become a tax-free multimillionaire it is quite obviously excessive. That's not subjective, that's quite objective.

These are people that own multiple mansions and multiple luxury cars through telling people to give them money and they get off tax free.

The cost of changing the printing dies once is far greater than the cost of any ink "wasted" on the statement (though this is a moot point as another statement of negligible difference would be in its place).

...I was referring to the change that happened in the 50s.

And they could...you know, not put anything in its place. I wouldn't mind a quarter that has nothing where that statement was.

One could make the assertion that it is a statement acknowledging deism. That's about as far as one could take it.

...no, it refers to a specific deity. Deists don't 'trust' in a deity.

in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that a supreme being created the universe. Further the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe.

Source

There's no trust involved in deistic ideas, only in monotheistic ones.

There is not a single truly secular nation. Period.

Ok, how is Norway not secular?
How is Japan not secular?
How is France not secular?
How is Canada not secular?
How is Switzerland not secular?

Because you do not believe in a God? Or because you believe in functional, pragmatic logic being the most practical form of governing?

Secularism doesn't have to do with pragmatic logic, it merely has to do with religious questions being outside of the governmental sphere.

I can support secularism in government because I don't want the government intervening in cases of religious belief unless there is a specific legal issue that is nonreligious in nature.

Just how private? Private like my penis, banned from public display - or private like a business?

You seem to be inconsistent on this issue.

How the hell am I inconsistent when you're providing all sorts of logical fallacies and pointless ramblings.

Private doesn't mean 'banned from public display', it's an adjective.

I mean private as in this definition:

of, pertaining to, or coming from nongovernmental sources

source

Religion is something that pertains to and comes from nongovernmental forces.

As you have said. I'm a man who has heard many things.

Mainstream history begs to differ:

en.wikipedia.org...

From the source you provided:

It did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.

And from the source I'm about to provide:

IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957,

US Treasury

And what function does the motto serve?

To express our governing values.

Moreover, if the purpose of our government is to express the will of the people - and a sufficient number of people want that as the national motto - where does secularism claim the right to deny such a measure?

...secularism is not an object that can claim anything.

If a sufficient number of people want to establish a state religion, they can go to some other country.

The Constitution which clearly puts forth secularism says they have no legal case for it.

There's something to be said for making a national motto in a language that is both dead and not the language of your nation.

Yeah, because a motto in a traditionally academic language is so horrible.

Not that I dislike the "old" motto - or disagree with your reasons for it being "cool." But you can't allow personal opinion into a logical analysis of the situation.

I'm not allowing personal opinion. The simple fact is that motto 1 is legal, motto 2 is illegal. Motto 2 should get stricken from the record.

Since I've done it once, I'll do it again - and link to wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

Certainly, the word 'God' is only used to describe Judeo-Christian entities and concepts thereof.

Let's see...in the first part of the disambiguation there is clearly a preponderance of evidence towards the Judeo-Christian deity being the thing most referred to as "God" in the statement of "In God We Trust"

Muslims refer to their deity as "Allah"..which means the same thing in Arabic, but the language has meaning religiously. Anyway, it would still be the same deity.

The refutation[1] of the notion of a supreme God or a prime mover is seen as a key distinction between Buddhism and other views

Source

That's two down.

In Hinduism there are specific names assigned to deities.
That's three.

Jainism rejects the idea of any creator, mentor or destroyer God. According to Jainism, any enlightened human being who has achieved the state of godliness is considered to be a God.

Source

The Bahá'í conception of God does fit with the statement...

And the Sikh concept as well.

Alright then, it's the establishment of monotheism. Still is an establishment of religion. Not necessarily a specific one.

The Supreme Court has routinely ruled that the motto is Constitutional and does not give preference.

No, it's routinely held that the motto is Constitutional because it gives no preference between religions and that it has lost all meaning. That doesn't mean that the case is closed.

Further, the wording of the first amendment is as follows:

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.

In what respect does "In God We Trust" respect an establishment of religion?

Putting it on our money establishes monotheism as something inherent in our system.

There's a key word in there - 'establishment' - let's look that up.

Let's see...you defined establishment...

1
: something established: as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : established church c : a permanent civil or military organization d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e : a public or private institution
2
: an established order of society: as a often capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b often capitalized : a controlling group
3
a : the act of establishing b : the state of being established

You're clearly literate, so you seem to be missing something in what you just posted.

Arranging "In God We Trust" as our national motto is the establishment of monotheism, it is a settled arrangement pertaining to definition 1.

Seems you are simply confused as to what the first amendment actually says. This would also imply your reason for being upset is more emotional and personal rather than logical.

No, you simply don't understand what secularism is and I can quote the 1st amendment just as well as you can.

Enforcing a religious declaration as our motto by Act of Congress is the settled arrangement of religion as a governmental norm.

This is also not true. Secularism is an idea - a concept.

Yes, and ideas are uncaring, unthinking things. You're treating a concept as an entity.

More importantly, it is an idea and concept regarding what is and is not appropriate in governing people.

How about this, you seem to misunderstand what secularism actually is. Please define it.

But no government can be secular - it can only apply secular reasoning. This is especially the case in our government. There is also the problem that belief in a deity is not religious in nature.

Yeah, you definitely don't understand what secularism is. You keep repeating this statement and yet you don't back it up.

Why?
Because you can't back it up.

Any government can be secular.

Show me reasoning to the contrary.

en.wikipedia.org...

Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.

In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.[1] (See also public reason.)

I apparently just called an Austrian a German.

(emphasis mine)

No, you just put out two separate definitions of the same word. Words have multiple definitions. We're talking about the first one, that I emphasized in my quote

A religious statement? Where's the religion?

"In God We Trust" is a religious statement.

The concept of a deity is an inherently non-rational one as it has no basis in the natural world, being something entirely supernatural.

Trusting in any deity is a specific religious proclamation, as it is not something that would follow from empirical observations.

I do not trust in God.
Why?
I do not believe in God.
Why?
Because I am not a religious person.

What is religion?

re·li·gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

And trusting in a deity exists specifically in there.

I'm not seeing the logical connection between "In God We Trust" and "religious statement." Now, certainly a spiritual statement - but not religious, we're not doing Hail Mary's, here, or doing a call to confession.

We are trusting in some deity, that is a matter of religious dogma.
We are believing in some deity, that is a matter of religious dogma.
We are trusting in only one deity, that is a matter of religious dogma.

You're somehow saying that religion is only that which is doctrine and specific ritual, yet it is far more than that and the definition you gave specifically contradicts you!

It isn't.

Well, you did assert that it was.

You've already established that you are willing to forgo logical, factual analysis of the situation in order to act on your own personal dislike of a group of people. This pattern of behavior is consistent, and will continue within larger issues that have real legal implications.

It's a straw man argument!
And a slippery slope too!

Three out of my four best friends are...drumroll please...religious. Two of them are incredibly devout, one of which is currently considering the priesthood.

I have no dislike of religious individuals, though I do disagree with their beliefs. I do not actively attack people for their beliefs, though I do enjoy reasoned discussions of their positions.

I have put forth factual analysis, you just ignore it.

This is why secularism doesn't work. It turns into a platform for anti-religion as opposed to non-religion.

You've yet to demonstrate that.

Personally - I feel 'In God We Trust" is not the best statement to be placing on our currency. However, I can find no logical grounds for its removal. There is no precedent within the Constitution that bans spiritual - or even religious - statements from the government. The current motto is not a law respecting an establishment of religion, nor does it interfere with the free practice thereof. It, therefor, is not unconstitutional.

It interferes with my free practice of nonreligion. It establishes monotheism as something governmental.

Within the bounds of secularism; the statement is not inherently religious, but so closely affiliated with most religions as to be considered ill-advised.

It is inherently religious. It's a statement inherently true only to religious individuals.

However, the statement is not clearly endorsing or supporting religion, and therefor removal is not recommended.

Yes, it is.
It is endorsing religion as opposed to irreligion.

Drafting of an appropriate replacement to submit for public approval is the recommended course of action.

We already had a legal one.

When you get to the end of that yellow brick road, you can ask the Wizard to give you....... come on - you hit that one at a dead sprint.

Seriously, though - I operate on a scorched-earth policy. If that straw-man is on fire it is because I've completed torching you.

Clearly you don't understand what a straw man, not surprising for someone who invokes logic without having an understanding of it.

Have you any understanding of formal logic on any level?

Perhaps you should consider why you do not have a horse to ride on, or a place to ride it to before you venture to charge that I fail to understand a concept.

I've demonstrated that you don't understand it, I haven't charged or ventured.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Alright - post length is starting to get ridiculous - the end of my post packs the most meaning. The rest amounts to back-and-forth that is only likely to continue as "Nuh-uh, you're wrong! [favorable link]" by all involved parties.

When you can become a tax-free multimillionaire it is quite obviously excessive. That's not subjective, that's quite objective.

These are people that own multiple mansions and multiple luxury cars through telling people to give them money and they get off tax free.

That has nothing to do with government.

Moreover, there is still no objective framework that can be used to determine what is and is not "excessive." What you mean is that most people would agree that it is excessive - but that is still a subjective opinion, even if it is a common one.

...I was referring to the change that happened in the 50s.

Been around since way before then, buddy.

...no, it refers to a specific deity. Deists don't 'trust' in a deity.

www.religioustolerance.org...

The word "Deism" is derived from the Latin word for God: "Deus."

Deism is a natural religion. Deists believe in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority or holy text. Because of this, Deism is quite different from religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The latter are based on revelations from God to prophet(s) who then taught it to humans. We like to call natural religions by the title "bottom-up" faiths and revealed religions as "top-down."

The opposite of Deism is Atheism -- the lack of a belief in god(s).

Of course - that's Deism as a religion. Deism as a concept is an ambiguous belief in a God or Gods - under which most religions would fall.

Ok, how is Norway not secular?
How is Japan not secular?
How is France not secular?
How is Canada not secular?
How is Switzerland not secular?

Let's start with "how are they secular?"

Religion is something that pertains to and comes from nongovernmental forces.

And how does that work when you elect a Roman Catholic to a seat of government?

From the source you provided:

Doesn't say anything about evil commies.

And it does say that "In God We Trust" was around well before the evil commies.

And from the source I'm about to provide:

It was circulating on coins as far back as the mid 1800s.

...secularism is not an object that can claim anything.

It most certainly is. It is no different than Deism claiming something, Democracy claiming something, etc. It is a set of guidelines that can be applied to a logical process.

If a sufficient number of people want to establish a state religion, they can go to some other country.

Except, the Constitution gives them the power to do that within our own country.

Further - there is no state religion in the U.S.

The Constitution which clearly puts forth secularism says they have no legal case for it.

There is no case made for secularism within the U.S. Constitution. The only case made is for that of religious freedom, that Congress shall pass no law regarding an establishment of religion or free practice thereof. Within that context - the State can declare itself Christian so long as no laws are made to target religious institutions or tamper with the free practice of religion (IE - you couldn't make a law requiring prayer or what-have-you).

Yeah, because a motto in a traditionally academic language is so horrible.

Because most people are not going to connect with that motto. It's a dead language relegated to the world of pompous academia.

I'm not allowing personal opinion. The simple fact is that motto 1 is legal, motto 2 is illegal. Motto 2 should get stricken from the record.

So you keep saying, but have yet to demonstrate the grounds on which it is illegal.

That's two down.

In Hinduism there are specific names assigned to deities.
That's three.

Buddhism is the belief that God is an internal being, existing as a state of enlightenment as opposed to an ethereal being. Seeking enlightenment is seeking to become a deity, in essence. The wording still generally applies.

God is a synonym for a deity - therefor, the use of God as a term also qualifies the use of "deity" - which would therefor not require the individual naming of god(s).

No, it's routinely held that the motto is Constitutional because it gives no preference between religions and that it has lost all meaning. That doesn't mean that the case is closed.

I could swear there is an echo in here.

Arranging "In God We Trust" as our national motto is the establishment of monotheism, it is a settled arrangement pertaining to definition 1.

This, it is not. However, we are engaging in a battle of semantics. The use of "an establishment of religion" is the form of a noun to mean a "church," or other religious institution. Even if you wanted to stretch the wording, it cannot be clearly demonstrated that monotheism is exclusive or preferential.

No, you simply don't understand what secularism is and I can quote the 1st amendment just as well as you can.

You forget what secularism attempts to accomplish. Secularism is not about removing religion from government - it is about creating a government ruled by logic and functional reason. Since religion revolves around faith and passed-down teachings and traditions to be accepted and followed "just because" - religion can often be counter-productive to the objectives of secularism.

There's a forest around here, somewhere - but all of these trees are making it hard for me to see.

Enforcing a religious declaration as our motto by Act of Congress is the settled arrangement of religion as a governmental norm.

It is a -religious- declaration? It seems, to me, to be a spiritual statement, or a general statement of beliefs. Again, we aren't invoking a unison call to confession, hail Mary, etc.

Even taking the concept of deism (which is not a religion - but a set of beliefs) - a statement of trust in God is stating a trust in a higher system. It is not religious in nature or context, anymore than E Plurbius Unum is a federal endorsement of Federalist agendas (Go look up Federalism vs Anti-Federalism).

No, you just put out two separate definitions of the same word. Words have multiple definitions. We're talking about the first one, that I emphasized in my quote

You are not at liberty to exclude a definition of secularism that is not favorable to your position. Many of the original tenants of secularism (dating back thousands of years) are not about rejecting religion - merely focusing on what can be known and logically deduced.

I know, quite well, what your breed of secularism is. It is the breed that is still trying to see the forest through all of the trees. You're looking for an atheist government - which is different from a secular government.

The concept of a deity is an inherently non-rational one as it has no basis in the natural world, being something entirely supernatural.

This would make it a spiritual belief.

Trusting in any deity is a specific religious proclamation, as it is not something that would follow from empirical observations.

Simple logic indicates that everything we know and utilize was created by us or some other thing. Making the logical leap that the universe is excluded from this concept is difficult to call logical, or reasonable.

However, you need to go study the difference between religion and belief systems.

And trusting in a deity exists specifically in there.

That, it does not. You would seem to be in error.

Religion is a set of rules, practices and concepts that govern one's personal life and affairs. These are generally centered around a set of spiritual beliefs - but 'religious' behavior is not restricted to spiritual beliefs.

You're somehow saying that religion is only that which is doctrine and specific ritual, yet it is far more than that and the definition you gave specifically contradicts you!

That, it does not.

"In God We Trust" is a statement of belief, not a profession of religion or preempt to a ritual.

Well, you did assert that it was.

It was merely an idea you attempted to place into my mind. I specifically referenced the tendency of secularism as practiced to attempt to remove religion outside of the bounds of government prior to making the statement in question.

I have put forth factual analysis, you just ignore it.

I'm wondering when you'll realize we're on the same page. Re-read my first post in this thread.

It interferes with my free practice of nonreligion. It establishes monotheism as something governmental.

You've yet to demonstrate that.

Are you forced to say: "I trust in God?" Does it say: "Everyone must believe in God?" Are there legal or financial penalties if you do not believe in God?

Of all of the things to get upset about - "In God We Trust" is the least of concerns anyone considering themselves to be secular should be up in arms about.

It is inherently religious. It's a statement inherently true only to religious individuals.

Many people believe in God and do not identify themselves as religious.

We already had a legal one.

That got replaced with another legal one. Get over the butt-hurt, already.

Clearly you don't understand what a straw man, not surprising for someone who invokes logic without having an understanding of it.

You obviously don't understand the origin of the term straw-man - an effigy, of sorts, destroyed in an attempt to prove/disprove one's case. The "straw man" is knocked over or burned, rather than the person the straw man represents.

Thus, my response was telling you to look in a mirror, and assuring you that you were also on fire.

I speak in very symbolic terms.

Have you any understanding of formal logic on any level?

I'm an electronics major focusing on digital processing. That should answer your question.

I've demonstrated that you don't understand it, I haven't charged or ventured.

The main disagreement, here, is over the "In God We Trust" motto and appearance on currency.

Secularism maintains that the actions of a government should be based on evidence, logic, and reason - and should therefor be isolated from religious influence.

However, the U.S. is a democratically elected republic of citizen government. A large portion of the population identifies with a major religion. Further - the whole premise of the nation provides that the people have the power and authority to change the government as they see fit.

This is not an explicit concept of secularism - but democracy, secularism, and science have all generally come with each other.

Now - if people want to make their motto: "In God We Trust" - a rather factual statement when viewing a demographic break-down that shows the U.S. to be nearly unanimously of the belief in a diety(s) - then what power does a secular belief have to deny that motto?

One must seriously twist the legal system and interpretation of U.S. Law to deem the motto unconstitutional. In doing so - those twisted interpretations are then established as the standard precedent for legal interpretation. Legal issues in the future will further twist and distort those already twisted and distorted interpretations.

From a logical and reasonable perspective - this particular concern is not of such value as to merit actions to that extreme. The action would be, at the very least, unpopular and fuel a number of religiously motivated legislation that would endanger the principles this nation was founded upon.

This is what I mean by not seeing the forest for the trees. This is what I mean by secularism does not work - it can't work as an absolute. People are inherently ritualistic and spiritual in nature - this breeds religious tendencies (even in you). Facets of those/that religion will ultimately seep into the government (run by people). These are ideas people hold rather closely - purging them from the government will not be well received. Addressing the 'leaks' is a sensitive issue that cannot be done via confrontation. Especially not 60 years after those leaks appeared.

When you address things in a confrontational manner, you rapidly create an "Us vs Them" environment and run the risk of using the legal system to impose your views as opposed to enact justice. And when that happens, we all lose.

You're free to pursue the witch-hunt for phrasing that could be considered religious endorsement. It's merely a short-sighted and limited application of secularism that will have more harmful repercussions than good.

Met a fellow on the bus and we talked about Atheism.... I'm glad i am what I am.