CreateDebate


Debate Info

24
24
No Yes
Debate Score:48
Arguments:36
Total Votes:51
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No (20)
 
 Yes (16)

Debate Creator

atypican(4875) pic



Is secularism a peaceful religion?

No

Side Score: 24
VS.

Yes

Side Score: 24
2 points

Although secularists CAN be religious, secularism itself is neither a religion nor does the separation of religion and politics have anything inherent to do peace, or most other issues.

Side: No
1 point

What is a religion if not a group of people categorized by commonality of belief about what's most important?

Side: No
MuckaMcCaw(1970) Disputed
2 points

One thing it certainly isn't, is an organization that seeks to suppress all religions' powers by operating outside of the religion.

Side: Yes
Atrag(5666) Disputed
1 point

If it is an orgnaised group of people united by the commonality of being secular... what is the name of the organisation ?

Side: Yes
2 points

Secularism isn't a religion. So it makes no sense to ask the question.

Side: No
1 point

Welcome to CreateDebate!

How do we distinguish a religious value system from a secular value system? They may be described differently, but name one truly significant difference between the two that can't be reduced to pure semantics. How do those categorized as secularists behave (besides that they describe their value systems differently) significantly different than those categorized as religious?

What is a religion if not a group of people categorized by commonality of belief about what's most important?

Side: No
2 points

There is no reason why secularism has to be peaceful.

Side: No

This argument is nonsensical, secularism is the absence of religion. Even if you are a religous person, whenever you do a simple activity (like brushing your teeth) that does not involve praying or praising your God, then it is a secular act.

Side: No
1 point

This argument is nonsensical

That's a matter of opinion.

secularism is the absence of religion.

Here on planet earth, we do not have such a thing as "absence of religion" we have differing perspectives concerning religion.

Even if you are a religous person, whenever you do a simple activity (like brushing your teeth) that does not involve praying or praising your God, then it is a secular act.

That seems nonsensical to me. People do activities they either consider very important, or not very important. We don't classify people as importantists and non-importantists because everybody has ideas about what they think is more or less important.

Some of us like using the god metaphor to describe what we value most, and others don't, this doesn't really make what we value most fundamentally different.

We can tolerate a certain amount of value system variance but on core issues (religious issues) we are willing to fight and die just to make sure we are surrounded by others with similar enough values.

Side: No
1 point

secularism is not a religion, it is a principle. as long as its implications are concerned i (personally) believe that the religion and the state must be separated. one should follow his religion with full faith and the state would be responsible for secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. that is everyone's personal concern.

Side: No

Care to explain how a concept proposing that humanity moves towards a world where governments remain neutral on issues concerning religious beliefs, freedom of worship is guaranteed and religious institutions aren't given legal authority is a religion?

Side: Yes
1 point

It's an alternate religious ideology that falsely claims 1. Not to be itself a religious ideology, and 2. That it's possible for a government to be neutral on such matters.

Side: No
2 points

I asked for an explanation as to why secularism is a religion and in response you simply stated that it is a religion and that you believe secularist claims to be false. This isn't the most convincing of explanations, I'm afraid I'm going to need more than just this before I can understand your stance on this matter.

Side: Yes
2 points

Please define secularism.

Side: Yes
0 points

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secularism

[My thoughts are in these brackets]

Secularism the [delusional] belief that religion should not [Along with the delusion that it could not] play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society

Side: No
2 points

Sometimes I really want to rewrite your debate titles. You're going to completely throw people off by referring to secularism as a religion and using the term peaceful. Political principle is a better term than religion and I'm not sure what you're getting at when you ask whether it is peaceful or not. Maybe I'll try to figure it out tomorrow.

Side: Yes
1 point

You have to realize that I haven't been exposed to a distinction between what a religion is and what a government is that I find valid, to understand where I am coming from. I was inspired by the title of a different debate "Is Islam a peaceful religion"

They are all just socially established value systems to me, and the ostensibly "non-religious" value systems are in no way more peacful than others as far as I can tell.

I was pretty sure that people would focus on whether or not it's reasonable to consider secularism as a religion more than whether as "a political principle" it is conducive to peace. But I am fine arguing either.

Side: No
2 points

I live in Spain and in our modern history we had General Franco, a dictator, in control. Many countries in Europe refused to support Franco's Spain but the catholic church funded education, among many other aspects, in Spain to the point where 100% of the schools were catholic and every student had the follow this doctrine. Their huge influence in Spain meant that, to a large part, the catholic church were governing Spain. This is what secularism is against. It isn't "oh our president shouldn't allow Christian beliefs to effect his judgements" - this would be silly because of course all of his beliefs, including religious ones, are going to effect it. Rather, it is say that no religious body should govern.

The definition of secularism that I am most familiar with his the idea of the separation of power. That the government should have distinct branches (the executive, the legislative and the judicial) that should have equal but distinct powers that cannot be negated by the other branches. I would suggest religious bodies are another branch.

Side: Yes
1 point

This is what secularism is against.

It boils down to wanting certain groups to wield more power than others. Most religions, unlike the religion of secularism, at least admit that this is their aim. They don't try to get people to buy the bullshit story that they're religiously neutral.

The definition of secularism that I am most familiar with his the idea of the separation of power. That the government should have distinct branches (the executive, the legislative and the judicial) that should have equal but distinct powers that cannot be negated by the other branches. I would suggest religious bodies are another branch.

Nothing about that jumps out as objectionable. Perhaps you can pursue this angle to help me improve my thinking on the subject?

Side: Yes

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secularism

Secularism: the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Religion: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

The idea of a god or gods existing or even the idea of it making a difference if one exists, is delusional itself. Do we want society run by delusional people? No.

Side: Yes

Note:

My original post [I feel] did not fully address the topic of the debate. My new argument supporting my original is this:

Just google all of the religious wars and genocides that have happened. Also look at the theocracies in history and in present. Compared with this secularism would have to be, if not more, peaceful.

I also do not consider secularism a religion (look at my original post).

Side: Yes