Kismet wrote:Wha? Abhorrent? No, I'm just saying its not neutral. Because the result of it is not neutral. Just look at all this cynical smarmy hatred of religion on these forums. It comes from embracing humanist values. Just so, secular values would rob humans of conviction. It is a state contra conviction, not merely neutral.
Ah! Now we're getting to the bottom of your problem and misunderstanding. And indeed, you undermine your own position.
This forum is not neutral - it is a place where we can all give our views on whatever we like and sometimes on religion. That would be the same wherever we were based, whether in a highly religious theocracy or in a neutral, secular state. (I hope it's not lost on you that it is very likely to be the religious theocracy that would seek to limit our freedom of speech here.)
This forum is not secular, but it is a place where many secular humanists meet. This forum does not need to be neutral - and I've no idea what a neutral forum would even look like if it was only allowed to say things that were neutral and free of judgement.
However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with a secular State.
The UK isn't a secular state - religions hold sway and have undeserved influence and power. In the US, the state is nominally separate from religion, but religion there too has unearned influence. But it's closer to being secular than some - but not as secular as others - but we're at the secular end of the spectrum.
But a secular state is not one where Humanists have the same level of undue power and influence that religions currently have in our countries: it is one where decisions are made on the basis of the strength of arguments, not on the basis of what one religion says their holy book says.
But that does not mean that people are prevented or hindered in any way from believing whatever they like. As now, we are free in both countries to think what we like - we can be devoutly religious; we can believe in aliens from the planet Zog; we can believe gods created the Universe 6,000 years ago; or we can believe she didn't.
That's as it should be (unless you'd like a totalitarian state where we are told what religious beliefs we should have?). But there are some limitations put on how we
express our beliefs. Although each country has different laws, there are not many fundamental differences between us.
Think what a secular UK or US would be like. For example, we would not have (only) male Bishops in the House of Lords by right (ie just because they are the Church of England and not because they have any particular expertise or unique knowledge) influencing our laws; we would not have the state funding religious schools (they would have to fund their own, with careful controls to ensure they did not indoctrinate).
Life would go on much as it is at the moment - just that bit of influence of religions would disappear. The State would not be influenced by religions and would give no favour nor privilege to religions. Nor would they give favour or privilege to Humanists. It would be neutral. And it would carry on with policies and laws not really that much different to what they do now, basing them on a consideration of the evidence.
But the big mistake you seem to be making is thinking that a secular state would force us all to be atheists. Utter nonsense. This (very nearly, certainly compared to some theocracies) secular State that we live in here does not force us to be religious (although this current Government is heading in that direction and the religious influence in the US seeks to curb rights there).
Unless of course, you think we should all be forced to be religious, indoctrinated from a very early age into whatever is the dominant religion of the day?
)
)
Could it be you have an inadequate view to the truth? I think so, but I'm just giving you my P.O.V.