Naive Secularism.....
true
Side Score: 6
|
 |
false
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
Secularism is based on a misunderstanding of what religions and/or governments are. People group up based on shared core values.Sometimes these social groups (that always vy for political control) are recognized as "religious" and sometimes they aren't. When they aren't it is always by naive secularists. Side: true
|
I would not go so far as to identify separate schools of thought surrounding secularism, as I do not think they have been so adequately differentiated as to draw any such sharp and codified delineations. My point was more with respect to the natural variation in understanding that can occur within any generalized viewpoint. What secularism means is heavily dependent upon the context which informs it. For instance, secularism in contemporary America is not what it was at founding. The separation of church and state often taken today to mean a more thorough removal of religion from state affairs was not so meant at that time. Rather, secularism was understood in contrast to the relationship the British state had to the Church during the colonial era and stood as a direct repudiation of that relationship with little to no extension beyond that. I would suggest that while secularism commonly means something different in America (and most other Western states) today, this is not inherent to secularism but rather a reflection of the present context in which secularism is understood. I would agree that the more common, contemporary, Western understanding of secularism is somewhat naive insofar as a thorough removal of religious influence from state affairs is not only implausible but ultimately even anti-Democratic. But, for reasons mentioned, I do not think this naivety is inherent to what secularism must mean. Side: false
1
point
And give the man a cigar---you are exactly right! Secularism means "apart from the Church." So by proxy a Secularist IS apart from the Church. Separated from it by dint of ideology and ethos. The term says nothing about a government or a government's relation to the church. So if I am a secularist you really would know nothing aobut my thoughts on Government and separation of church and state. All you would know is that I am personally "outside of the church" in my ideology. So the very title of the debate is a misnomer. Secularism is NOT naive regarding its view of government. Since politically ideology is not brought into play with the word. And it has been my experience that most secularists are anything but naive, as they are skeptics (the opposite of being naive!) about the possibility of a well-run and fair and efficient government being entangled in Theology. The debate might have been better worded if it posited that anybody believing that separation of church and state is a viable and possible ethos was being naive by thinking that. But this is untrue as well, as it IS very possible for a government to be separated from all religion, and for it not to allow the Church any influence. We need only look at the old USSR or China or even modern say Socialist Democracies like Sweden and Canada and France, who do just fine without ANY connection to the Church. I am a Secularist. I am an Atheist. Period. My thoughts on political science on the other hand are a completely different matter altogether. Hope this helps. SS Side: false
1
point
Did you not even read my post? The one you pasted part of? Look up the word secularism. It says nothing about the holder of that view's politics. It ONLY means "apart from the church"--by dint of the prefix "sec" --from the Latin "secularis." from Webster's.................. Middle English: sense 1 of the adjective and sense 2 of the adjective from Old French seculer, from Latin saecularis, from saeculum ‘generation, age,’ used in Christian Latin to mean ‘the world’ (as opposed to the Church); sense 3 of the adjective, sense 4 of the adjective, and sense 5 of the adjective (early 19th century) from Latin saecularis ‘relating to an age or period.’ Side: false
|
