Comment by brobdingnagians
5 years ago
Depends on how you define secular. Most secular states are simply neutral and promote plurality of culture and religion, i.e. allowing choice. The other type of secular state is one which is openly hostile to religion.
The US is becoming openly hostile to religion, as many of the comments in this thread evidence, which is distinct from neutrality. I agree with religious freedom as such, with everyone being on equal standing.
If you define secularism as the USSR or China, I would disagree with their long term stability, or even with liking their regimes.
The evidence doesn't support your claim. The least religious countries are among the most stable and most peaceful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_coun...
Their crime and imprisonment rates are far below those of the US. Even on an individual level, the presence of non-religious individuals is assocated with a series of positive societal effects: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227616923_Atheism_S...
Religion isn't necessary for public morality, and as America has shown, is often actively harmful. America is full of people who assume that they are good people BECAUSE they go to church rather than because of their acts. By and large, these are generally not good people. Instead, they're among the most judgmental and least helpful members of society.
To paraphrase Gandhi, "I like your Christ, not your Christians". The religious in modern society can't even be bothered to read the Cliff Notes of their own book, otherwise they'd be focused on helping the poor and remembering that rich people have trouble getting to heaven rather than going around promoting guns, no taxes, and slashing social safety nets.
I am trying to avoid a flaming discussion here but am also trying to moderate your comment. I am trying to promote guns, no taxes, and slashing social safety nets but am also spending much time, talent, treasure on helping of those needy. I am disagreeing with state force but am also disagreeing with selfishing. I hope that the comment here is clarifying your view on the generalised population.
Same here. Frankly if the GP's "Cliff Notes" version tells them that the Bible says to agitate politically for taking away other people's means of self-defense, or for seizing other people's property by force to be redistributed to the GP's preferred causes, then the GP really needs to put down the abridged version and read the original. Pacifism and charity are portrayed as virtues, to be sure, but it says nothing about forcing those virtues on others, and doing so strays about as far from the core message as it's possible to get.
3 replies →
I think the argument could be made that most of the top countries you mentioned are linguistically and racially homogenous. I don't really have a conclusion on whether religion helps or hurts a more racially diverse population but just something worth pointing out.
I don't think China is racially homogenous.
A Gallop poll serves as your evidence for religion's impact on stability and peace? This is pie-in-the-sky cherry picked data, stylized as a scientific inquiry.
> The US is becoming openly hostile to religion
I don't think the US is becoming openly hostile to religion.
It is becoming hostile to religion in the public sphere, a good thing if there ever was one.
Just like your sexual practices, keep your religion at home and please stop bothering other people with it.
How about church membership
Funnily enough, one of the most secular countries, Sweden, has a 50%+ church membership. But it's an anomaly; church membership is still a good litmus test for secularity everywhere else.
> Sweden, has a 50%+ church membership.
Could it be that in Sweden, you get some sort of tax rebate or discounts at supermarkets if you are officially registered with some religion?
1 reply →