Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

What is a secular nation?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I did refute your points, the ones I think are wrong anyways. Then I pointed out you have a paranoid, conspiracy-ridden, and incorrect worldview. If you want to see it as an insult I understand why though really I feel more pity then contempt. What is it like to live in a world where every other person you interact with is a closet commie out to destroy your way of life? Sounds unpleasant.

Thankfully most people I know do not subscribe to leftism.  I follow the perspective of Ezra Taft Benson, a true conservative and a patriot.  You claim to be an Eisenhower Republican but many of your statements sound awfully close to social justice activism.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

He is not completely immoral. No one outside of perdition can pull that off.

He is just the walking embodiment of Babylon from the Book of Revelation. I am not saying he is the antichrist or anything important like that. Lots of people fit that description but if you feel you need to ally with Babylon to preserve Zion I would suggest you are doing it wrong.

I thank the Lord that Trump is doing his important work and has prevented Hillary from furthering the depraved designs of Obama and the left.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, longview said:

I thank the Lord that Trump is doing his important work and has prevented Hillary from furthering the depraved designs of Obama and the left.

When Obama was being elected and some people were comparing him to Moses and attributing his election to some divine mission, I found that extremely disturbing. I was a conservative and had been my enitre life, also an admirer of Ezra Taft Benson. So it was horrifying to me when Trump had 13% of support before the official campaigning had begun before the election. My party has been deeply disappointing. Ascribing God to Trump's doings is part of the problem. I really don't think God is making it that easy for you and I expect that the real work of righteousness is harder than electing one man in a highly polarised political climate. Using Trump as a symbol of God's work and Hillary as a symbol for the adversary (or Obama versus McCain similarly) is not inspired or good or helpful. These are classic examples of partisanship, and imo among the worst of its kind.

Link to comment
On 9/7/2019 at 11:08 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I appreciate all of the contributions to this thread so far. There have been some well-developed thoughts expressed.

As a springboard for giving my view, I will cite this definition of "secular state" from Wikipedia.

Going by this definition, then, a secular state or, if you will, a secular nation, must be neutral on matters of religion. Ponder carefully what this means. It cannot support or promote any particular religion, but neither can it be hostile to religions in general or in particular. To do so is to support and favor irreligion.

The government in a secular state must maintain a hands-off attitude when it comes to religion. It must allow citizens to engage in the free exercise of religion, whether it be in privately owned houses of worship or on the public square.

It cannot force students in a public school, for example to engage in prayer or Bible reading, but neither can it forbid groups of like-minded people at that school from gathering under their own volition and auspices to engage in such religious activity. It cannot force students under threat of a poor grade to read religious texts, but neither should it, for example, prohibit a student from reporting on the Book of Mormon for a class assignment that permits the student to choose his own book to fulfill the assignment.

The example was brought up in this thread of a creche display on public property. Under the definition highlighted here of a secular state or a secular nation, private groups should be allowed access to public property for such displays. To forbid them is hostile to religion and tends to favor irreligion, which the secular state, being purportedly neutral, must not do.

Furthermore, forbidding people of faith to unitedly engage in public dialogue regarding affairs of government, be they members of a political action group or of a church, while irreligious people and groups are permitted to do so, is hostile to religion and favors irreligion, contrary to the theoretical definition of a secular state or a secular nation.

Thank you for providing that definition.  That said, while I understand that America has chosen to be a secular nation, as evidenced by the U.S. Constitution. I wonder if it's possible for any U.S. citizen to act in a secular fashion, neither for or against any religion.

I'm currently stumped, wondering how any possibly could.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is that an admirable quality? To give as good as you get?

Admirable? Obviously not. “Turn the other cheek” is the standard Christ set. 

I do think it appropriate, though, to consider provocation when assessing a man’s behavior. 

I’m old enough to have seen many U.S. presidents come and go, beginning with Eisenhower and Kennedy. I’ve never seen a sitting president attacked more viciously and incessantly than Trump, not even Nixon, and I had thought it couldn’t get any nastier than that. 

It has gotten to the point that the haters are even going after Trump’s supporters en masse. One can scarcely dare to wear a campaign emblem or slogan on one’s person or clothing without being verbally and physically assaulted in the street. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Admirable? Obviously not. “Turn the other cheek” is the standard Christ set. 

I do think it appropriate, though, to consider provocation when assessing a man’s behavior. 

I’m old enough to have seen many U.S. presidents come and go, beginning with Eisenhower and Kennedy. I’ve never seen a sitting president attacked more viciously and incessantly than Trump, not even Nixon, and I had thought it couldn’t get any nastier than that. 

It has gotten to the point that the haters are even going after Trump’s supporters en masse. One can scarcely dare to wear a campaign emblem or slogan on one’s person or clothing without being verbally and physically assaulted in the street. 

Depends on where you are or the political demographic of the people you have around you, I suppose.  He's quite popular in many parts of Texas, so much so that people who are against Trump are the people who might get assaulted.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Thank you for providing that definition.  That said, while I understand that America has chosen to be a secular nation, as evidenced by the U.S. Constitution. I wonder if it's possible for any U.S. citizen to act in a secular fashion, neither for or against any religion.

I'm currently stumped, wondering how any possibly could.

As I understand the definition, being a citizen of a secular state does not restrict one’s personal behavior with regard to religion. It only pertains to what powers government may or may not exercise in that regard. 

It would be absurd to think a citizen of a secular state would be forbidden, for example from belonging to and freely exercising a particular religion. That, in fact, would be the antithesis of a secular state according to the definition I provided. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Thank you for providing that definition.  That said, while I understand that America has chosen to be a secular nation, as evidenced by the U.S. Constitution. I wonder if it's possible for any U.S. citizen to act in a secular fashion, neither for or against any religion.

I'm currently stumped, wondering how any possibly could.

It sounds like you think there are hindrances to such neutrality, is that correct?

Edit: I did not find it hard to "act in a secular fashion" while gathering to worship in LDS temples and chapels or reading my scripture in my home or going on splits with the missionaries. There was nothing contrary to public secularism in those behaviors.

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

As I understand the definition, being a citizen of a secular state does not restrict one’s personal behavior with regard to religion. It only pertains to what powers government may or may not exercise in that regard. 

It would be absurd to think a citizen of a secular state would be forbidden, for example from belonging to and freely exercising a particular religion. That, in fact, would be the antithesis of a secular state according to the definition I provided. 

That doesn't quite address what currently has me stumped.  I'm not seeing how any U.S. citizen could not act either in favor or opposition to any religion.  And by any citizen of the U.S. I'm including any government official who is also a U.S. citizen.

It seems to me that any action we take is either in favor or opposed to some religion.  And that since U.S. government officials are also, at least usually, U.S. citizens as well, how can any of them act in any way other than in favor or opposed to some religion.

I know the U.S Constitution provides for a separation of church and state, at least in theory, but how in practice does that ever actually happen, since every act, as I see it, is either in favor or opposition to some religion.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, longview said:

Thankfully most people I know do not subscribe to leftism.  I follow the perspective of Ezra Taft Benson, a true conservative and a patriot.  You claim to be an Eisenhower Republican but many of your statements sound awfully close to social justice activism.

So it is all the people you do not know that hold all these secret perverse political views? Maybe you should get to know them? It seems like your understanding of them comes from a media echo chamber and not real experience.

I cannot speak for him but I suspect Ezra Taft Benson would have been disgusted by Trump. Elder Benson was also censured repeatedly by the other apostles for his political comments. Once he became the prophet he still endorsed the constitution and spoke well of the principles of the United States but his extreme views were moderated. I am curious what happened to change that.

I am a practical guy. I want to do what works. This makes me sound like a leftist on some topics and like a hard boiled conservative in others. I am not definitively an Eisenhower Republican but Eisenhower was a moderate conservative. He did not dismantle the New Deal. He undermined McCarthyism. He was pre southern strategy when the Republicans under Nixon appealed to racist whites to score votes and try to win the South. He signed the Civil Rights Act and helped make desegregation a reality. He was a real fiscal conservative and warned about an excessive deficit. In the U2 spy plane incident he lied to the world and felt bad about it publicly and privately despite the circumstances compared to today when there is no shame left in deceit. His warnings in his farewell address about the military industrial complex have proven to be prophetic and measured. We have not had a statesmen like him since. I put him in the same rank as Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Washington. 

I have liked Presidents since. I like Carter and Ford for both trying to restore a nation’s faith. I was hopeful with Obama’s idealism and oratorical ability but it came with a kind of naïveté. I think LBJ did a pretty good job. Reagan’s trickle down economics were largely bunk but his administration’s negotiations with the Soviets rewrote the world map for the better.

I think part of the problem with the Republicans is that they/we have lost all sense of real history of beliefs and goals. People seem to think Trump’s ideals are a continuation of Reagan when they do not bear much relation to even those of Bush 8 years before. Holding up Ezra Taft Benson as proof that conservatism can be true and good ignores the fact that Reagan and Trump do not share much in common beyond being populist elections. Reagan won over the other party and was a master of compromise and persuasion and a skilled negotiator dedicated to free trade. Trump offends everyone, sees compromise at all times as weakness, insults those who disagree, drags negotiations into the public eye making it impossible for anyone to back down on anything without losing face, and has replaced free trade and other economic ideals with hyper-nationalism and speaks the economic language of zero-sum mercantilism.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I agree with that, which is why the government shouldn't subsidize religion with tax subsidies, including both direct payments and economically equivalent tax deductions.

Religion itself is not the focus, but the value of charity and its definition by the secular state. Currently, the US government subsides / exempts churches as charitable organizations because advancing religion is considered a charitable activity and benefits the public good. Of course this can be argued against, like any other "Chesterson's fence" that remains in place decade after decade / century after century as long as there are still adults in the room.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That doesn't quite address what currently has me stumped.  I'm not seeing how any U.S. citizen could not act either in favor or opposition to any religion.  And by any citizen of the U.S. I'm including any government official who is also a U.S. citizen.

It seems to me that any action we take is either in favor or opposed to some religion.  And that since U.S. government officials are also, at least usually, U.S. citizens as well, how can any of them act in any way other than in favor or opposed to some religion.

I know the U.S Constitution provides for a separation of church and state, at least in theory, but how in practice does that ever actually happen, since every act, as I see it, is either in favor or opposition to some religion.

I guess I’m not seeing a problem. 

In a secular state, one who works for or represents the government  in any capacity would be duty bound, in theory at least, to observe any regulations binding on the government, including strict neutrality in matters of religion. I think most people would understand that when they take on such a role. 

Said government officer, agent or employee, when “off-duty,” as it were, would of course be free to exercise any personal rights and liberties pertaining to religion that are granted under the First Amendment to citizens of the nation.  

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Ahab said:

... I know the U.S Constitution provides for a separation of church and state, at least in theory, but how in practice does that ever actually happen, since every act, as I see it, is either in favor or opposition to some religion.

I believe I understand what you are saying, so perhaps this is a distinction without a difference or a moot point, but the phrase "separation of church and state" appeara nowhere in the US Constitution:  The Constitution references only "free exercise" and the " establishment" of religion.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In a secular state, one who works for or represents the government  in any capacity would be duty bound, in theory at least, to observe any regulations binding on the government, including strict neutrality in matters of religion. I think most people would understand that when they take on such a role. 

What's your take on the county clerk, in Kentucky I think it was, who refused to sign same-sex marriage licenses based on personal religious belief? I personally think she was wrong and the proper action would be to resign rather than retain the post and not fulfill the duties. I say this based on what you say -- it is a secular government and those who work for it are duty bound to follow its laws and regulations.

ETA: maybe I shouldn't have brought this up because I certainly DON'T want this thread to derail into a discussion of homosexuality. We have enough of that already. So ignore me if you'd like :) 

Edited by MiserereNobis
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

What's your take on the county clerk, in Kentucky I think it was, who refused to sign same-sex marriage licenses based on personal religious belief? I personally think she was wrong and the proper action would be to resign rather than retain the post and not fulfill the duties. I say this based on what you say -- it is a secular government and those who work for it are duty bound to follow its laws and regulations.

I agree with you. 

I can cite another instance of misconduct on the part of one representing the government. You might recall the Masterpiece Cake Shop case. SCOTUS struck down the ruling against the bakery, because in handing down the ruling, someone on the administrative law panel in Colorado spoke disparagingly of religion. Under the secular state theory, a government representative must not do that. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I guess I’m not seeing a problem. 

In a secular state, one who works for or represents the government  in any capacity would be duty bound, in theory at least, to observe any regulations binding on the government, including strict neutrality in matters of religion. I think most people would understand that when they take on such a role. 

Said government officer, agent or employee, when “off-duty,” as it were, would of course be free to exercise any personal rights and liberties pertaining to religion that are granted under the First Amendment to citizens of the nation.  

i think I was seeing a problem because I was thinking about how an individual person might think about what they are doing while acting on behalf of their government if they didn't agree with those actions on a personal level.

MN helped to clarify the issue a little better for me and I think I understand a little better now about how a person working for the government would have to be able to separate their personal idea from their government duties, sometimes, but that would still be a problem even though the problem would be ignored temporarily.  When working for the government someone would need to be able to sometimes deny their personal convictions because their government duties would be in contradiction to those convictions.  What I would think of as being a double minded person, as James in James 1:8 says we should not be.  And the reason for the problem would be because a person wanted to keep their day job, even if it went against their personal convictions about how they should act. 

But even if a person quit that job because they didn't want to act in contradiction to their personal conviction, then someone else might take that job who didn't have a problem doing those duties even though in the minds of some those government duties were an affront to their personal convictions and against the free exercise of their religion.  Which would mean people would sometimes have to choose between working for money and working for God.  And regardless of however any one person or group of people acted there would be some in favor and some opposed to those actions, because there is no religion or way to live that would be pleasing to everybody at the same time.  What one would do someone else would not do.

And that's the problem with the way the world is right now.  Everyone does something that some other people are opposed to, with no way at all to please everybody all of the time.

I suppose there is no way to avoid the problem, though, because there is no way for everybody to be in agreement about everything all of the time.  It might happen eventually, someday, but as long as people are at different levels of development, with some who haven't learned some lessons that other people have learned there are always going to be some problems that some people cause that eventually, someday, maybe, they will learn to overcome.

Link to comment
On 9/7/2019 at 5:42 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

On another thread, the declaration was made that “we are a secular nation.” I pose the question of what is meant by “secular nation.” After others have weighed in, I’ll give my view. It may be surprising to some. 

I believe that a "secular nation" is one which respects freedom of religion.  Indeed, I would consider the UK a secular nation even with the existence of the Anglican Church.

A secular nation is invites all citizens to the public square for a fair-minded discussion. It respects the individual liberty of the people.

Link to comment
On 9/7/2019 at 11:08 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Furthermore, forbidding people of faith to unitedly engage in public dialogue regarding affairs of government, be they members of a political action group or of a church, while irreligious people and groups are permitted to do so, is hostile to religion and favors irreligion, contrary to the theoretical definition of a secular state or a secular nation.

Are there government agencies doing this?

I know the broader culture is very hostile to the faithful, but I was unaware that the government was actively forbidding political activity by religious individuals and groups.  This is horrible.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I believe that a "secular nation" is one which respects freedom of religion.  Indeed, I would consider the UK a secular nation even with the existence of the Anglican Church.

A secular nation is invites all citizens to the public square for a fair-minded discussion. It respects the individual liberty of the people.

Individual liberty results in people who do not agree with each other, unless everybody chooses to agree, which we haven't seen happen, yet. 

Maybe all we need is just some more fair-minded discussion, but with individual liberty people can choose to not be fair-minded in their discussions, too, if they don't want to be fair-minded.

And some people may think they are fair minded while some other people would not agree that they are.

All of this is probably better than being forced to agree on something, though.  Maybe we will all agree about that, but I kinda doubt it.

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Individual liberty results in people who do not agree with each other, unless everybody chooses to agree, which we haven't seen happen, yet. 

Maybe all we need is just some more fair-minded discussion, but with individual liberty people can choose to not be fair-minded in their discussions, too, if they don't want to be fair-minded.

And some people may think they are fair minded while some other people would not agree that they are.

All of this is probably better than being forced to agree on something, though.  Maybe we will all agree about that, but I kinda doubt it.

I do not understand your response.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I do not understand your response.

I do not understand what it is about my response that you do not understand.

You said, among other things, that a secular nation invites all citizens to the public square for a fair-minded discussion. It respects the individual liberty of the people.

I was pointing out how a secular nation doesn't necessarily lead people one way or the other since the citizens of a secular nation can choose to disagree with each other, as well as to agree with each other. 

I one for prefer that people agree with God and live how he would like us to live, because I know that is the best way for all of us to live, but in a secular nation everyone is free to live in any way they want to live.

In my mind that equates to living in Babylon, and Rome, and Sodom, and Gomorrah, as they were before they were destroyed by God for not living righteously.

I know we need freedom to be able to choose how we want to live our lives but along with freedom we also need to choose wisely how we want to live.

Or at least that is what I think.  You are free to either agree or disagree.  Whatever you want.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well, ya know, that's because it was. It was a land of freedom... a great social experiment which threw off the chains of European monarchism. I pose it is because of the United States, that European countries have similarly pursued more democratic forms of government. They are copying our success. I also believe the United States was planned - it played a major part in fulfilling prophecy concerning the restoration of Israel. But, there has been a concerted effort for several decades to undermine true liberalism and conservatism, which is what I believe has made this country special - if one can claim that. If there was no United States, the world might be Nazi or Communist, or Ottoman... Maybe you think that is OK, but I prefer American freedom. And it is the home for a future New Jerusalem which God will protect. I am not preaching American exceptionalism ideology, but for all its faults, I kinda like the United States, which has birthed a lot of good in the world. Don't knock it til you think about it.

pffffff.... wa, waaaa, waaaaaaa..........😭

America wasn't foreordained to to replace the Holy Land no matter how much Adam Ondi Ahman or Jackson County koolaid one chooses to choke down. If only the Second Great Awakening, let alone the first, had never plagued such a wonderful coountry.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Michael Sudworth said:
On 9/8/2019 at 12:08 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Furthermore, forbidding people of faith to unitedly engage in public dialogue regarding affairs of government, be they members of a political action group or of a church, while irreligious people and groups are permitted to do so, is hostile to religion and favors irreligion, contrary to the theoretical definition of a secular state or a secular nation.

Are there government agencies doing this?

I know the broader culture is very hostile to the faithful, but I was unaware that the government was actively forbidding political activity by religious individuals and groups.  This is horrible.

Lois Lerner set policies for the IRS to discriminate against conservative and religious foundations from obtaining tax exempt status while favoring liberal and radical groups.  This happened within the Obama administration.  This is corruption pure and simple.

Eric Holder of the Obama Justice Department contrived the sale of machine guns to Mexican drug gangs (have you heard of Operation Fast and Furious?).  But this blew back in Eric's face when American law enforcement personnel were killed with the same weapons used by the criminals.  This was done to create a propaganda assault on the peoples 2nd Amendment rights.

Peter Strzok (FBI), Lisa Page (FBI lawyer), John Brennan (CIA) and officials of other intelligence agencies worked energetically to move the fake Russian dossier into the hands of DC representatives and selected news outlets.  The dossier was made up by Christopher Steele (a former British spy) paid by the Hillary campaign.  All done to subvert the Republican candidate for president.

Sadly these are manifestations of the DEEP STATE.  A law unto themselves.  Nehor will mock us for asserting its existence.  But the evidences are many and pretty damning.

Edited by longview
Link to comment
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

- - - I put him in the same rank as Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Washington. - - -

Roosevelt's New Deal was considered very socialistic, both then and now.  I am convinced George Washington would have been fiercely opposed to the massive government FDR was pushing.  Lincoln was a great proponent of America's Destiny and Unity though some might think twice about some of his severe measures he had to take during the Civil War.  I am surprised at your fondness for LBJ.  I think he was a scalawag.

Edited by longview
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...