What's wrong with secularism?

Secular countries always end up with degeneracy (see: Sweden)

It hurts my feelings.

Because it can go to extremes unlike modern catholicism

Becuase hitler, stalin, mao, the khmer rouge, duerte and everyone else i dont like are atheists

It's satanic and retarded
Atheism is a mental illness

There is nothing wrong with secularism.

>secularism will lead to a lack of guilt for growing children to harvest organs
PROVE ME WRONG
PRO TIP. YOU CAN'T

secularism is the goat

Depends on how you define it. But even if you define it just as a separation of religion and state, it's wrong because it's insincere. The ideas of state and politics are inherently religious and sacral in themselves, so this separation is not possible.

?
Secularism doesn't exclude morals, it just means not basing your morals on erligion.

>implying that a Marxist regime constitutes a separation of church and state
>can't into totalitarianism
stop posting anytime

and morals can be changed far more easily than a dogmatic religion like catholicism where an inquisition was as succesful as atheists say it was

Literally nothing. The only people against secularism are mentally challenged, white nationalists, and conservatives who believe in an authoritarian, religious based society who are worried about "muh degeneracy" since it triggers them so much

1. Slippery Slope
2. Not really. Morals are built on instincts.The only morals that are enforced by dogmatic religion are those who are generally seen as immoral by most people, such as throwing gays off rooftops, beating your kids on the reg, and ritual sacrifice.

>thinking that atheism are bad because of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao

Perhaps increased religiosity is a symptom, and not the cause?

Theocracies always end up with dejenuracies (see: Yemen)

Secularism leads to moral decline. Driving religion out of the schools takes away one of the main sources of moral authority and guidance. If you happen to be born into a wealthy family then you will probably turn out fine - after smoking a few joints and sucking a couple of dicks at University. But for the working class child - with absent parents, surrounded by bad influences - taking away morality and replacing it with nothing can devastate lives.

Nothing. Go back to the Middle East.

>sucking a couple of dicks at University
I think you had a different life than some other folks might have had.

>half the posts in this thread talk about atheism
Retards.

hitler was a christian you fag he even said he is going to kill thr jews for the christian god was a good friend pf the pope as well.

Love to see how uneducated you christfags are.

Btw atheism can never tell you to do anything evil or anything at all unlike religion.

Christfags can't separate atheism and not shoving their religion into everything

Secularism leads to atheism.

Is that so? Therefore religion does not deserve a place in our society.

He got it
You didn't
[spoiler] but why?

I'd like to point out that you're all confusing secularism, laicism and atheism into one big mess.

Like the guy:
>Secular countries always end up with degeneracy (see: Sweden)

To become the king of Sweden one must "belong to and profess the "pure evangelical faith", as defined in the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and the Uppsala Meeting of 1591" i.e. the Church of Sweden.
It is not a secular country.

Order, civility, peace, prosperity, charity - these are not the usual virtues of human societies. Steps must be taken to preserve them. Law and religion shape culture, just as culture shapes law and religion.

>Order, civility, peace, prosperity, charity
And these are present in occidental secular societies more than in the oriental fundamentalist ones. Isn't it funny?

>order, civility, peace, prosperity, charity

Every nation that has these are secular.

Arguably the most domestically peaceful large nation ever to have existed was Britain from around 1880-1950. Secularism - and liberalism in general - has transformed Britain into a much more violent place.

Realistically, only that people lose one of the key stones that communities are often built upon, but that can be replaced with a bit of effort

No, user. Hitler wasn't an atheist. What you hate are men, not atheists.

You're going to have to expand upon this if you don't want to look like a retard.

This doesn't prove theism is true, only that theism is convenient for society

Secularists also seem to forget where their treasured ideals of liberty and the rule of law originated - in the minds of Protestant Christians.

it's bait, it's not meant to be expanded upon

Well of course.

I myself am agnostic. But I understand that Theism - specifically Christianity - is a force for good.

>secularism and liberalism
>Neo liberalism
FTFY

It had more to do with Britain being the most powerful country in the world and later losing that status. Also the whole Irish business would take away the "domestically peaceful" post WWI.

>Secularists also seem to forget where their treasured ideals of liberty and the rule of law originated
Those go back to ancient Hellas and likely even further. And no it was not "Protestant christians" but anglo-saxons and their liberal mindset that again goes further back than their christian faith.

Well what do you value more truth or social cohesion?

"Neoliberal" thinking has lead to economic stagnation. But the huge rise in crime and disorder is the result of secular and liberal attitudes to morality, schooling, justice, and punishment.

>Huge rise in crime

What? Crime has gone down almost entirely across the board.

Yeah, because Britain went full free market after the WWII, right?

Yeah, ancient greeks sure loved Jesus.

crime per 1000 is lower than before, only because of mass migration, but total crime is higher

You could make the opposite point, that secularism is only right if you feel a moral imperative for secularism to dominate society. secularism isnt the default humans organize society by a long shot. On the contrary, before the 18th century segregating religious institutions from civil institutions was unheard of (or extremely unusual).

>crime per 1000 is lower than before, only because of mass migration

So you be sayin' that dem migrants be causing less trouble than the native Brits?

What does international power have to do with public order, beyond wealth? In the late Victorian/Early Edwardian the working classes lived in poverty unimaginable today - yet they the crime rate was far lower than it is today.

English liberty - embodied in the Habeas Corpus Act, 1679 and the Bill of Rights, 1689 - was unique in history and fundamentally Protestant. Incidentally, many of the liberties it tries to protect are now being eroded in secular Britain.

no I be sayin' that hooligans are still hooligans, but 1/8th of paki kids are offcial criminals

As everything is relative to Human thought in a secular society, there is nothing absolute or supreme to provide a moderate central point that nearly everyone agrees on. As such, it is inevitable that, for any number of reasons, radical change will occur, for better or (generally) for worse. This change can destroy and subvert culture, and lead to the destruction of a society if extreme enough. My explanation is probably shit though, because I'm tired af.

>What does international power have to do with public order, beyond wealth?
Its derivation does, a lot.

>yet they the crime rate was far lower than it is today.
feel free to share your sources, don't forget to substract Muslims from current statistics, since they are clearly not "secular".

>and fundamentally Protestant
It seems fundamentally liberal, since Protestantism can happily exist without it.

>was unique in history
What about Magna Carta? Did you omited it on purpose?

>Incidentally, many of the liberties it tries to protect are now being eroded in secular Britain.
If they are many, listing at least five, should not be a problem.

It still amazes me that people believe this when it is demonstrably false.

The first thing you have to bear in mind that a high proportion of the prison population before WWI were incarcerated for crimes that would not be crimes today - drunkenness, playing games on the street, riding a bicycle without lights, obscene language etc. If Edwardian standards of justice were applied today the entire youth population would be in prison.

But let's just take serious offences. In 1915 there were 78,000 serious offences, with a population of 36 million. In 1981 there were 2.5 million serious offences, with a population of 49 million. As you can see, a remarkable increase.

People here want to burn people alive.

I don't think secularism is itself a problem, and I think most religious people agree as well.

Having a division between state power and church power benefits both the state and the church in my opinion.

That said, there's a difference between having a secular state, and having state atheism.

I was using the ameircan example not the british and was not entirely sure of the facts of my homeland so did not use it
sorry for thought crime

for sources see: and the Penguin Social History of Britain.

>Magna Carta
A document that was largely forgotten until a late 17th century revival - which only supports my argument that English liberty was a unique product of Protestant Christian thought.

>five

Two of the most important are either revoked or constantly undermined: the right to bear arms (gone) and habeas corpus, which has been eroded with anti-terrorist legislation. A prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment has also allegedly been violated by the British Government in Northern Ireland - though I can't confirm that.

If you take these changes, along with the ever increasing surveillance, it's clear that England is now a less free and more disordered nation after secularization. The parallels with Soviet Russia are striking.

Nothing except for being weak against globalist scheming.

>Nothing unless you hate peace and prosperity.

Say that to all those SECULAR ATHEIST COMMUNIST countries during the cold war.

Edgy americans.

>Secular atheist communist
Do you even know what secular means? The USSR and other countries with state atheism were in no way secular.

>English liberty was a unique product of Protestant Christian thought.
Can you expand on that? My knowledge of English history would imply that English people were traditionally liberal, therefore When they founded their religion they injected their values into it. Not that the English liberalism spawned out of nowhere when they flipped Pope of.

>the right to bear arms (gone)
The right was limited to protestants and was often curbed even before secularization. The modern restrictions (starting in 1903) on firearms were response to improvements in technology.

>and habeas corpus, which has been eroded with anti-terrorist legislation
And how´s that relevant to secularism? It was specifically a reaction towards a entirelly new threat of extremly religious people commiting acts of terror. Not the mention the Secular Liberal human rights were the biggest opponent of the AT laws, not the protestant church.

>The parallels with Soviet Russia are striking
Russian restriction on freedom are on entirely different level, especially the Soviet ones.

btw can anyone link a decent article on the rise of crime in Britain? That stuff seems interesting.

Being a theocrat is edgy and transgressive.

Everything, it's a separation of morality and political rule.

Just read the Abolition of Liberty, by Peter Hitchens.

Very agreable post.

Non-confessionalism promotes a higher level of discourse, away from violent anti-clericalism and religious fundamentalism.

Also, corruption in the RCC goes down as secularism goes up, and christianism still plays a part in western democracies - see christian democrats.

I'd prefer a more serious one, not pure ideology.

>Can you expand on that?
Well, we could have a discussion the relationship between Protestantism and English liberty, but we'd be getting away from the point - which is that most secular values originated in the minds of Christians. By making this point, I'm suggesting the values held dear by both Christians and atheists are better preserved by a Christian society, as opposed to a secular one.

By bringing up Soviet Russia, I wasn't referring just to the way the party curtailed individual freedoms. I was also referring to the way in which they aggressively drove out religion. The two are intimately connected and I think this is one of the lessons of the 20th century: Ecclesiastical power is chief rival to the totalitarian state - as you destroy religion, you empower the state.

This is evidenced by the erosion of the liberties I mentioned - you can justify it all you like (just as the governments at the time did) but the fact remains those rights *are* either gone or eroded. This goes along with the erosion of our civil liberties in ways unforeseen by our forefathers: CCTV, phone hacking, internet surveillance.

Secularism is brand new. I think secularists are about to find out that by removing Christianity from the institutions of the state, you create a vacuum for something else; namely, totalitarianism or radical Islam.

Then perhaps some Jose Harris, Private Lives, Public Spirit: A Social History of Britain 1870-1914.

Compare and contrast with modern Britain.

Doesn't exist.
"secular" states are simply crypto-religious.

>Well, we could have a discussion the relationship between Protestantism and English liberty, but we'd be getting away from the point
I find this topic interesting, if you are knowledgable on it I would enjoy if you someday started a thread on it. Since another Commonwealth which was catholic held liberal views too.
>Ecclesiastical power is chief rival to the totalitarian state - as you destroy religion, you empower the state.
Thats not an imperative. It can be a rival, but whatever it is chief rival, or rival at all is dependant on which state we are talking about. In USSR it was big rival for majority of its existence. In Nazi Germany it was sometimes allied, sometimes not. In Saudi Arabia it is a friend of the state.
>By making this point, I'm suggesting the values held dear by both Christians and atheists are better preserved by a Christian society, as opposed to a secular one.
For example I value my freedom of creed. How would it be better preserved in christian society?
>which is that most secular values originated in the minds of Christians
That one is obvious, since Christianity was mandatory before secularism.
>I was also referring to the way in which they aggressively drove out religion.
It was driven out by violence, unsuccesfully. Hardly comparable to Britain where it just withered away.
>you can justify it all you like
As a liberal I oppose those. I was listing the issues that called for such measures. In the past these laws were eroded too, when some extraordinary issues called for it. Hardly an effect of lack of enforced religiosity.
>This goes along with the erosion of our civil liberties in ways unforeseen by our forefathers: CCTV, phone hacking, internet surveillance.
Maybe because our forefather never heard of that technology? Also the extreme surveillance is British thing.

I don't think crypto means what you think it means.

cont.
> I think secularists are about to find out that by removing Christianity from the institutions of the state, you create a vacuum for something else; namely, totalitarianism or radical Islam.
Thats quite a leap. Especially since you are defending a "softer" form of totalitarianism. But I think I take the risk and stay supporting the freedom of creed. Radical Islam is a demographical problem not cultural one (as in White Europeans converting). Nazism and Communism are dead and won't rise in foreseable future.

this guy?

secularism in a liberal capitalist democracy lowers the birthrate below replacement rate.

FIRST POST BEST POST

please delete this

>duerte
Please don't offend great leaders with comparing them with 3rd rate shitters.

Hey, Duterte, my mang. Take something for that edge will ya?

It's too often associated with socialism, specially in non-Western countries.

Since socialism is a retarded economic system, specially when managed by non-whites, its failures are blamed on secularism, and this creates a whole religious backlash. That's basically the history of the Arab world since the 1950s.

Secularism would be fine if the people aren't stupid. But the people are stupid thus we find ourselves in this post-morality world where 'might makes right' rather than respecting and adhering to natural law and deontological ethics.

>we must separate the Church and the state!!!
>the freemasonry should be allowed to keep its huge influence in the political, economical and judicial system of every nation, though, that's just fine

Why are secularists such hypocrites? I'm not against laicité on principle, I just with they applied the same criteria to the Freemasonry, which they don't. So the whole "secularism" and "laicité" discourse seems less like a principled stand against clerical influence in politics, and more like a particular group enforcing a power grab by banning different groups from competing for the same power centres, while maintaing its own.

Nothing.

What people don't seem to understand is that secularism is not atheism. Not all rectangles are squares. What secularism means is that religion and public life are kept separate. Church and state are separated. You can be both religious and secular.

False dichotomy.

Nothing really wrong with it the only issue is that it is not an inherent good what matters is the other characteristics of the society and should be criticised just like anything else.

How so? Why the Catholic Church keeping schools is bad, but the Grand Orient de France controlling the entire judiciary of France is good?

Because I have never met a person on the planet Earth, especially not a secular person, who openly says "Boy I sure love them freemasons!" You're chasing ghosts here.

Still the Freemasonry has a huge influence between the secular movement in countries like France, Mexico and Turkey which are known for its enforcement of secularism.

I actually believe the biggest problem with their power is that no one knows about it. Everyone knows when king and priest have power, because they are public figures. But when masonic lodges manipulate the state institutions to get what they want, no one knows what is happening, so you believe they are ghosts.

Which is why I believe the concept of "secularism", unless applied to the Freemasonry, is a farce. Ban judges from belonging to masonic lodges and I will believe in "laicité".

If you can back up your theories with evidence and prove causal links between A and B then maybe people will believe you and start caring.