The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Religion & Philosophy

Laïcité/secularism is the future of religions. Are you pro or con?

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 3 · >>
GreatestIam2 On June 21, 2019




Ottawa, Canada
#1New Post! May 18, 2019 @ 13:36:18
Laïcité/secularism is the future of religions. Are you pro or con?

Religions are debatably the main cause of war and civil unrest. Religions terrorize each other’s people as well as secular non-religious secular people. The terms inquisitions jihads, homophobia and misogyny, are all I should need say to prove my case on this statement.

Laïcité is full separation of church and state, which promotes a country of secular laws and forbids divisive displays or religious affiliations so as to reduce and prevent the main cause of wars and strife, which are religions.

Canada is a country where equality of all people is sought and religions are anathema to this goal. Secularism is a champion of equality.

The main argument on this topic would be on the tolerance and freedom of and from religions. All one needs do is look at countries under religious rule, to see that some have intolerantly banned atheism, even though it is clear that countries with less religiosity are more peaceful and law abiding than countries with more religiosity.

Muslim reform, as jihads and terrorism shows, is difficult for Muslims. France has just opened it’s first Mosque with a female imam which embraces gays and left leaning Muslims and that indicates that France’s laïcité is having the desired effect of helping Islam reform.

Are you for laïcité/secularism or against it?

Regards
DL
Leon On about 14 hours ago




San Diego, California
#2New Post! May 18, 2019 @ 13:56:02
History has not proven your contention that the less religious a country is, the more peaceful it is (i.e. non-aggressive). Russia, during its Communist heyday, was anything but non-aggressive. I actually think it’s the other way around: People use religion to suit their desires.
GreatestIam2 On June 21, 2019




Ottawa, Canada
#3New Post! May 18, 2019 @ 14:49:13
@Leon Said

History has not proven your contention that the less religious a country is, the more peaceful it is (i.e. non-aggressive). Russia, during its Communist heyday, was anything but non-aggressive. I actually think it’s the other way around: People use religion to suit their desires.


Ignore the stats if you like. I will not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

Regards
DL
Leon On about 14 hours ago




San Diego, California
#4New Post! May 18, 2019 @ 15:29:15
@GreatestIam2 Said

Ignore the stats if you like. I will not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

Regards
DL


Explain 20th century Russia then. Thanks.
gakINGKONG On about 2 hours ago




Okinawa, Japan
#5New Post! May 18, 2019 @ 16:36:51
@GreatestIam2 Said

Laïcité/secularism is the future of religions. Are you pro or con?

Religions are debatably the main cause of war and civil unrest. Religions terrorize each other’s people as well as secular non-religious secular people. The terms inquisitions jihads, homophobia and misogyny, are all I should need say to prove my case on this statement.

Laïcité is full separation of church and state, which promotes a country of secular laws and forbids divisive displays or religious affiliations so as to reduce and prevent the main cause of wars and strife, which are religions.

Canada is a country where equality of all people is sought and religions are anathema to this goal. Secularism is a champion of equality.

The main argument on this topic would be on the tolerance and freedom of and from religions. All one needs do is look at countries under religious rule, to see that some have intolerantly banned atheism, even though it is clear that countries with less religiosity are more peaceful and law abiding than countries with more religiosity.

Muslim reform, as jihads and terrorism shows, is difficult for Muslims. France has just opened it’s first Mosque with a female imam which embraces gays and left leaning Muslims and that indicates that France’s laïcité is having the desired effect of helping Islam reform.

Are you for laïcité/secularism or against it?

Regards
DL



Calvin and the Huguenots were French (not the punk band). His contribution is a greater gift to the free world than the statue of Lady Liberty.
chaski On about 6 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#6New Post! May 18, 2019 @ 16:39:40
1. The USA has been in wars for all but about 20 years of our 200+ year history. "We" are supposedly a religious country.

(Side note: There are some that argue that no country in the history of the world rivals the USA in terms of war, but his is factually untrue.)

2. The last war of the USSR, no defunct, was with Afghanistan and ended in 1989. From the creation of the USSR they were officially atheist or non-religious. Some would view that their involvement in wars rivaled the USA, others would argue that it did not.

3. Since the fall of the USSR, the Russian Federation has become "religious" again and has been in various wars since it inception.

So the comparison of (as and example) the USA vs the USSR/Russia Federation (relative to the religiousness of the two countries) is a bit mixed.

> Perhaps a better example is China. China is an atheist country, or at least far less religious than either the Russian Federation, the USA or really most of the world) and has been involved in far fewer wars than either the USA or the USSR/Russia Republic.

This would support the notion that, in the long term, the absence of religion is a factor. Truthfully, however, it is more likely that China is just smarter when it comes to war than the other world powers.

Religion undoubtedly, as proven by history, has been a major factor in wars and the justification of wars.

However, the ultimate reason for war has, historically, been resources (raw resources, land, money).

In more modern times (post WW 2) the reason for war has primarily politics (Democracy vs Communism) coupled with resources (strategic resources like oil) and land (strategic locations like the Middle East).

In current times (post 9/11), it depends on who's side you are on....

> On the one side (primarily Shia leaning Islamic countries and militant organizations) religion has been the primary reason.

> On the other side (essentially the "West" ) the wars have gone back to being about resources, and sometimes revenge

> Except China, who seems to be moving forward with the more sustainable idea of economic power.

Apologies as I admit all that is over simplified... but hey, this isn't a history class.
chaski On about 6 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#7New Post! May 18, 2019 @ 16:45:26
@gakINGKONG Said

Calvin and the Huguenots were French (not the punk band). His contribution is a greater gift to the free world than the statue of Lady Liberty.


Yes, and the Roman Empire had a greater gift to the world than the Great Pyramid.

As is usually the case your comparisons are astonishingly trite and meaningless.

Why don't you try a more realistic comparison? Perhaps the historical impact of the Magna Carta vs the historical impact of Calvinism?

Just a thought.
Leon On about 14 hours ago




San Diego, California
#8New Post! May 18, 2019 @ 18:06:12
@chaski Said

1. The USA has been in wars for all but about 20 years of our 200+ year history. "We" are supposedly a religious country.

(Side note: There are some that argue that no country in the history of the world rivals the USA in terms of war, but his is factually untrue.)

2. The last war of the USSR, no defunct, was with Afghanistan and ended in 1989. From the creation of the USSR they were officially atheist or non-religious. Some would view that their involvement in wars rivaled the USA, others would argue that it did not.

3. Since the fall of the USSR, the Russian Federation has become "religious" again and has been in various wars since it inception.

So the comparison of (as and example) the USA vs the USSR/Russia Federation (relative to the religiousness of the two countries) is a bit mixed.

> Perhaps a better example is China. China is an atheist country, or at least far less religious than either the Russian Federation, the USA or really most of the world) and has been involved in far fewer wars than either the USA or the USSR/Russia Republic.

This would support the notion that, in the long term, the absence of religion is a factor. Truthfully, however, it is more likely that China is just smarter when it comes to war than the other world powers.

Religion undoubtedly, as proven by history, has been a major factor in wars and the justification of wars.

However, the ultimate reason for war has, historically, been resources (raw resources, land, money).

In more modern times (post WW 2) the reason for war has primarily politics (Democracy vs Communism) coupled with resources (strategic resources like oil) and land (strategic locations like the Middle East).

In current times (post 9/11), it depends on who's side you are on....

> On the one side (primarily Shia leaning Islamic countries and militant organizations) religion has been the primary reason.

> On the other side (essentially the "West" ) the wars have gone back to being about resources, and sometimes revenge

> Except China, who seems to be moving forward with the more sustainable idea of economic power.

Apologies as I admit all that is over simplified... but hey, this isn't a history class.


I would even argue that the Islamic violence isn’t about religion either.
Erimitus On about 7 hours ago




The mind of God, Antarctica
#9New Post! May 18, 2019 @ 21:13:56
I am not sure they are mutually exclusive.
GreatestIam2 On June 21, 2019




Ottawa, Canada
#10New Post! May 18, 2019 @ 22:11:02
@Leon Said

Explain 20th century Russia then. Thanks.


I do not have to or need to.

I am looking at stats and do not care about any country which is a statistical oddity or exceptions to the rule.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

Regards
DL
GreatestIam2 On June 21, 2019




Ottawa, Canada
#11New Post! May 18, 2019 @ 22:14:40
@gakINGKONG Said

Calvin and the Huguenots were French (not the punk band). His contribution is a greater gift to the free world than the statue of Lady Liberty.


This relates to the O.P. how?

Can you not judge if the secular law under discussion is a good move to reduce the causes of religious strife and violence?

Regards
DL
GreatestIam2 On June 21, 2019




Ottawa, Canada
#12New Post! May 18, 2019 @ 22:22:04
@Erimitus Said

I am not sure they are mutually exclusive.


The definition for both terms is still developing.

Have you noted how these days some are calling themselves atheist Christians and agnostic atheists.

How they square those circle, I don't know.

Regards

DL
chaski On about 6 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#13New Post! May 18, 2019 @ 23:33:47
@GreatestIam2 Said


...atheist Christians and agnostic atheists.




I sort of get the "atheist Christian" thing. It is obviously completely inaccurate, but I get it.

The "agnostic atheist" is just stupid.
Leon On about 14 hours ago




San Diego, California
#14New Post! May 19, 2019 @ 01:18:45
@GreatestIam2 Said

I do not have to or need to.

I am looking at stats and do not care about any country which is a statistical oddity or exceptions to the rule.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

Regards
DL


I’m not denying there is a correlation. I’m just not ready to accept your theory as to the cause.
chaski On about 6 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#15New Post! May 19, 2019 @ 04:13:42
@Leon Said

I would even argue that the Islamic violence isn’t about religion either.


Sorry.... long post to follow...

Interesting (at least to me) the violence perpetrated by so called terrorist groups is essentially (from a legal/ law enforcement perspective) perpetrated by organized violent crime groups.

The violence perpetrated by governments is organized legal violent groups.

(Side note: Some will argue against this, but terrorism is at its core a crime. Yes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. None the less, either way, terrorist acts are foremost crimes against the state... murder, kidnapping, destruction of public or private property, etc... crimes. They may or may not be historically justified... or justified by history... but remain crimes against the state. I am happy to expand and further explain that to anyone who might be confused or uncertain.)

Back to the organized violent (crime) groups... there are (obviously) a variety with a variety of both claimed purposes and actual goals...

The Zionists wanted a Jewish homeland.

The PLA wants its land back.

The IRA wanted a "free" Ireland.

The Colonists (present day USA) wanted freedom from the King.

Islamic Terrorists want freedom from the repression of the West... aka the USA and its allies.

The Mafia wants freedom from the Law.

They all want to buck the system and all violate the law to do this...

They all want a few things:
> Money
> Power
> Resources
> Influence
> Freedom... or some level of freedom

etc.... etc... etc...


The difference between organized violent (crime) groups is their perspective... and (sometimes) legal standing...

> The Mafia wants money to gain power to gain more money...

> The Zionists wanted money to gain the ability to gain power to obtain their homeland.

> Muslim terrorist want money to gain the ability to gain power to throw off the shackles of Satan (aka the USA and its allies)

> Countries like the USA, USSR/Russian Federation, GB/UK, etc... want money to gain the ability to gain power to gain control over the world's resources that provide money to gain more power....

We are far beyond Maslow's hierarchy of needs here folks...

"We" are all (nearly all) being used by the few who want...
> To gain Money
> To gain Power
> To gain more money Money
> To gain Resources
> To gain Power
> To gain more Money
> etc.

"You" or "we" can start reckoning the process wherever we want, but ultimately the goals are the same....

...money... resources...violence...power...money...

or

... violence... money... violence... money... power... violence...resources... power... etc

The motivations are, ultimately, power and money.

The claimed motivation is freedom... sometime supported by religion...

The tactics and strategy shift in order, but focus on: money, resources, power, violence...

And propaganda to make it all tase good.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 3 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Religion
Sat Dec 05, 2009 @ 19:04
3 586
New posts   Religion
Sat Mar 25, 2006 @ 19:00
3 362
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Mon May 11, 2009 @ 21:25
22 1379
New posts   Atheism
Thu Dec 10, 2009 @ 23:26
108 6042
New posts   Religion
Sun May 23, 2010 @ 21:11
3 764