DeSepiero:
Let's hear your views.

alBHAGDADI, superhumanist, YoungDaNaval, Uyi168, analice107, lalasticlala, Martinez, Akdegreat, Tosyne2much, Martinez19, Hahn, Jackbizzle, cloudgoddess, shadeyinka, asuustrike2009, shaybebaby, mrmrmister, AgentofAllah, Ifenes, AnonyNymous, sonofluc1fer, Butterflyl1on, AlBaqir, tintingz, DoctorAlien, winner01

Nothing wrong with secularism if prevention of a religious dominance over others is the objective.

However, there are two types of secularism
1. Theistic Secularism
Which respects all religions equally and does not seek the dominance of one over others while not allowing religion to dominate governance.
2. Atheistic Secularism
Which respects no religion and thus usually promote atheistic values in governance

You asked:

DeSepiero:

AgentOfAllah post=61444542:
adoption of governance by rational pragmatism.

Considering the bolded, how do you react to this

shaybebaby:

I'm going to say that legislating human rights and enforcing it will solve the problem.
Secularism suggests an ideological concept which for the religious masses may be seen as trying to deliberately water down their beliefs. I believe that may further fan the flames of resistance as it would be perceived as a threat.

I would say that the adoption and enforcement of human rights laws is pragmatic! And yes, there would certainly be resistance from those who are ideologically opposed to the concept of secularism. But that's the point, isn't it? It's ultimately a war of principles and one is bound to win eventually; that is, the one with the numbers. If I were to wager on which principle that would be, I would put all my money and chips on secularism. My reason being that while other ideologies are usually exclusive and have a tendency to obliterate competitors, secularism is mostly inclusive, so it will always accommodate the most the number of ideologies; thus the most number of supporters. Departing from abstraction, we may examine the trends in some of the world's strictest 'ideolocracies', such as Saudi Arabia and and Iran, and we will see a clear proclivity towards secularism. The persuasive power of this principle, while painfully gradual, shouldn't be underestimated.

shadeyinka:


Nothing wrong with secularism if prevention of a religious dominance over others is the objective.

However, there are two types of secularism
1. Theistic Secularism
Which respects all religions equally and does not seeking the dominance of one over others while not allowing religion to dominate governance.
2. Atheistic Secularism
Which respects no religion and thus usually promote atheistic values in governance

yeah e. g France and china

shadeyinka:


Nothing wrong with secularism if prevention of a religious dominance over others is the objective.

However, there are two types of secularism
1. Theistic Secularism
Which respects all religions equally and does not seeking the dominance of one over others while not allowing religion to dominate governance.
2. Atheistic Secularism
Which respects no religion and thus usually promote atheistic values in governance

I'm not fully convinced on your classification of secularism. Especially, the atheistic secularism.

AgentOfAllah:
You asked:





I would say that the adoption and enforcement of human rights laws is pragmatic! And yes, there would certainly be resistance from those who are ideologically opposed to the concept of secularism. But that's the point, isn't it? It's ultimately a war of principles and one is bound to win eventually; that is, the one with the numbers. If I were to wager on which principle that would be, I would put all my money and chips on secularism. My reason being that while other ideologies are usually exclusive and have a tendency to obliterate competitors, secularism is mostly inclusive, so it will always accommodate the most the number of ideologies; thus the most number of supporters. Departing from abstraction, we may examine the trends in some of the world's strictest 'ideolocracies', such as Saudi Arabia and and Iran, and we will see a clear proclivity towards secularism. The persuasive power of this principle, while painfully gradual, shouldn't be underestimated.

Insightful.
Bringing the issue back home (the Nigerian scenario) and being realistic, the enforcement like you put it wouldn't really play out as you may expect. Would it?
Looking at the bolded up there where you mentioned 'the most number of ideologies', -note the superlative "most". The case here depicts two major ideologies (Christianity and Islam), unlike in some other countries where there's a diverse array of religions practiced.

Modified: I almost forgot - considering your initial personal definition of secularism, I have to agree with you

DeSepiero:


I'm not fully convinced on your classification of secularism. Especially, the atheistic secularism.

By definition,
Secularism is a belief system that rejects religion, or the belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education. The principles of separation of church and state and of keeping religion out of the public school system are an example ofsecularism.

Now, the extent of the rejection of religion could be
Total: in Atheistic Secularism (China, North Korea, Russia)
or
Partial: in Theistic Secularism (Nigeria)

This basic difference is the key in the classifications.

In Nigeria for instance we pray even in government functions and we teach CRK/IRK in schools without according religion a say in governance.

Humanistme:


yeah e. g France and china

Plus North Korea.
All atheistic nations are first secular

shadeyinka:

Plus North Korea.
All atheistic nations are first secular

we are not saying the same thing.

I gave you the example of France and China because in France religious freedom is guaranteed under the constitution as long as it does not infringe on another person's religious right while in China religion allowed but closely monitored by the state.

North Korea is a communist dictatorship.

we are talking about secularism in the context of secular democracy not dictatorship or communism.

Btw what do you mean by atheistic nations?
And how many are there in the world.

shadeyinka:

By definition,
Secularism is a belief system that rejects religion, or the belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education. The principles of separation of church and state and of keeping religion out of the public school system are an example ofsecularism.

Now, the extent of the rejection of religion could be
Total: in Atheistic Secularism (China, North Korea, Russia)
or
Partial: in Theistic Secularism (Nigeria)

This basic difference is the key in the classifications.

In Nigeria for instance we pray even in government functions and we teach CRK/IRK in schools without according religion a say in governance.

Total restriction of religion does not happen in China and Russia. Say what you know.

Humanistme:


we are not saying the same thing.

I gave you the example of France and China because in France religious freedom is guaranteed under the constitution as long as it does not infringe on another person's religious right while in China religion allowed but closely monitored by the state.

North Korea is a communist dictatorship.

we are talking about secularism in the context of secular democracy not dictatorship or communism.

Btw what do you mean by atheistic nations?
And how many are there in the world.

All communist countries are first secular so that such countries eg China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba all practice atheistic secularism.

shadeyinka:

By definition,
Secularism is a belief system that rejects religion, or the belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education. The principles of separation of church and state and of keeping religion out of the public school system are an example ofsecularism.

Now, the extent of the rejection of religion could be
Total: in Atheistic Secularism (China, North Korea, Russia)
or
Partial: in Theistic Secularism (Nigeria)

This basic difference is the key in the classifications.

In Nigeria for instance we pray even in government functions and we teach CRK/IRK in schools without according religion a say in governance.

Humanistme:


Total restriction of religion does not happen in China and Russia. Say what you know.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/china-bans-religion-for-communists-bqd80zhn9

And I did not mean say TOTAL restriction as in TOTAL (its a relative comparism) as how religion is practiced in the governance of Russia nor China. The only country I know where there is total restriction on religion is North Korea.

shadeyinka:

By definition,
Secularism is a belief system that rejects religion, or the belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education. The principles of separation of church and state and of keeping religion out of the public school system are an example ofsecularism.

Now, the extent of the rejection of religion could be
Total: in Atheistic Secularism (China, North Korea, Russia)
or
Partial: in Theistic Secularism (Nigeria)

This basic difference is the key in the classifications.

In Nigeria for instance we pray even in government functions and we teach CRK/IRK in schools without according religion a say in governance.

It's biased and practically unrealistic to classify secularism in 2 and place Nigeria under theistic secularism. How would a heavily religious Nigeria compare to secular states like the Denmark, Netherlands and UK in terms of religiosity?

shadeyinka:


All communist countries are first secular so that such countries eg China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba all practice atheistic secularism.

Again the Op is talking not about communism which is a totally different political ideology.A capitalist state can be secular yet practice democracy and respect religious rights. Religion is only removed from government and public institutions to avoid promoting one religion over another and protect minority religions .

Australia, France, USA and turkey until recently are secular yet they are not communist.

Communist states ban religion because it is a strong ideology as strong as religion and just like religion it doesnt want competitions.
It wants the people to be loyal to the State. The state becomes 'god'. e. g kim jun uyn
is worshipped as god.
There is nothing like "atheistic secularism" secularism is secularism.


You can be a theist and secular

you can be an atheist and non secular.

You can be a theist and be irreligious

you can be an atheist and be religious.

secularism is separating of religious beliefs and from public institutions and State
.

atheism is lack of belief in the existence of deities.

Humanistme:


Again the Op is talking not about communism which is a totally different political ideology.A capitalist state can be secular yet practice democracy and respect religious rights. Religion is only removed from government and public institutions to avoid promoting one religion over another and protect minority religions .

Australia, France, USA and turkey until recently are secular yet they are not communist.

Communist states ban religion because it is a strong ideology as strong as religion and just like religion it doesnt want competitions.
It wants the people to be loyal to the State. The state becomes 'god'. e. g kim jun uyn
is worshipped as god.
There is nothing like "atheistic secularism" secularism is secularism.


You can be a theist and secular

you can be an atheist and non secular.

You can be a theist and be irreligious

you can be an atheist and be religious.

secularism is separating of religious beliefs and from public institutions and State
.

atheism is lack of belief in the existence of deities.

I think we say the same thing.
As human beings however, we do not live in a digital world where everything is clearly defined as in Yes and No!

100% Secularism is almost synonymous with atheistic/Communist governance
0% Secularism is almost synonymous with theistic governance

About your definition of atheism, its your definition.
Some atheists are spiritual atheist (the core of their believe is satanism- anti God). I do not dispute your definition of atheism but as you know, their are various shades

DeSepiero:


It's biased and practically unrealistic to classify secularism in 2 and place Nigeria under theistic secularism. How would a heavily religious Nigeria compare to secular states like the Denmark, Netherlands and UK in terms of religiosity?

I am not biased.
You very well know that Nigeria is a very good example of Theistic Secularism.

There are extreme cases though
Saudi Arabia- 0% Secularism
North Korea -100% Secularism

Most other countries fall in between.

A country which practice 10% secularism will still call itself secular.

shadeyinka:

I think we say the same thing.
As human beings however, we do not live in a digital world where everything is clearly defined as in Yes and No!

100% Secularism is almost synonymous with atheistic/Communist governance
0% Secularism is almost synonymous with theistic governance

About your definition of atheism, its your definition.
Some atheists are spiritual atheist (the core of their believe is satanism- anti God). I do not dispute your definition of atheism but as you know, their are various shades

We are not saying the same thing

secularism =/= atheism.

non secularism =/= Theocracy.

satanism is not atheism

Satanists believe in and worship Satan
Satan is their God.

atheists don't believe in Satan or God.

again let me repeat my self

secularism means governments being neutral in matter of religion not anti religion.

communism is anti religion.

Nigeria is not secular yet we are nt a theocracy.

France is 100% secular and they are not communist.

The Vatican and Saudi Arabia is theocratic.
communism is a totally different political ideology that promote atheism not secularism.

communism is anti theistic

secularism is not anti theistic

Humanistme:



We are not saying the same thing

secularism =/= atheism.

non secularism =/= Theocracy.

satanism is not atheism

Satanists believe in and worship Satan
Satan is their God.

atheists don't believe in Satan or God.

again let me repeat my self

secularism means governments being neutral in matter of religion not anti religion.

communism is anti religion.

Nigeria is not secular yet we are nt a theocracy.

France is 100% secular and they are not communist.

The Vatican and Saudi Arabia is theocratic.
communism is a totally different political ideology that promote atheism not secularism.

communism is anti theistic

secularism is not anti theistic

100% Secularism is almost synonymous with atheistic/Communist governance
0% Secularism is almost synonymous with theistic governance

Are Agnostics atheists?

shadeyinka:

100% Secularism is almost synonymous with atheistic/Communist governance
0% Secularism is almost synonymous with theistic governance

Are Agnostics atheists?

you said almost * my point still stands.



again
Communism=/=atheism


communism:
 1. (plural communisms)Any political philosophy or ideology advocating holding the production of resources collectively.

2. Any political social system that implements a communist political philosophy.

3. The international socialist society where classes and the state no longer exist.



yes Agnostics are atheists.

if you ask me now

you:
do you believe in god?

my answer :

no
You: why

me: I'm not sure whether god exists or not so I'd rather not believe till Im sure..

Humanistme:



We are not saying the same thing

secularism =/= atheism.

non secularism =/= Theocracy.

satanism is not atheism

Satanists believe in and worship Satan
Satan is their God.

atheists don't believe in Satan or God.

again let me repeat my self

secularism means governments being neutral in matter of religion not anti religion.

communism is anti religion.

Nigeria is not secular yet we are nt a theocracy.

France is 100% secular and they are not communist.

The Vatican and Saudi Arabia is theocratic.
communism is a totally different political ideology that promote atheism not secularism.

communism is anti theistic

secularism is not anti theistic

My thoughts concisely!

Humanistme:



you said almost * my point still stands.



again
Communism=/=atheism


communism:
 1. (plural communisms)Any political philosophy or ideology advocating holding the production of resources collectively.

2. Any political social system that implements a communist political philosophy.

3. The international socialist society where classes and the state no longer exist.



yes Agnostics are atheists.

if you ask me now

you:
do you believe in god?

my answer :

no
You: why

me: I'm not sure whether god exists or not so I'd rather not believe till Im sure..

I guess you are trying to create another form of Government by trying to exclude communism from secularism.

If a Democratic/Capitalist/Socialist government can at the same time be Secular, why not Communistic Communities?

Communists (eg. North Korea) to my view polarise to an extreme case of secularism while Theocratic Government as in Saudi Arabia and Vatican City polarise to the other extreme.

Even in cases of Communism, I don't know any other communist country as extreme as North Korea.
And in Theocratic Governments like Saudi Arabia a person can be executed as commiting a state offence by speaking against Mohammed or the Qur'an. The same offence in the Vatican may warrant just a deportation.

Don't you think that
Atheism is a gnostic position of
lack of belief in the existence of deities.
Agnostics are NOT SURE based on evidences available to them. Even, the degree of not being sure varies by individual.

The point is, you are also correct even though not by a strict definition (things are not always black or white). That is, the definition of atheism may not be that statically precise.

shadeyinka:


I guess you are trying to create another form of Government by trying to exclude communism from secularism.

If a Democratic/Capitalist/Socialist government can at the same time be Secular, why not Communistic Communities?

Communists (eg. North Korea) to my view polarise to an extreme case of secularism while Theocratic Government as in Saudi Arabia and Vatican City polarise to the other extreme.

Even in cases of Communism, I don't know any other communist country as extreme as North Korea.
And in Theocratic Governments like Saudi Arabia a person can be executed as commiting a state offence by speaking against Mohammed or the Qur'an. The same offence in the Vatican may warrant just a deportation.

Don't you think that
Atheism is a gnostic position of
lack of belief in the existence of deities.
Agnostics are NOT SURE based on evidences available to them. Even, the degree of not being sure varies by individual.

The point is, you are also correct even though not by a strict definition (things are not always black or white). That is, the definition of atheism may not be that statically precise.

you are repeating yourself and taking me on a merry go round. That definition of communism from dictionary . communism is a broad political ideology and identity.

It is not secular it is anti religion.

secularism is a more narrow philosophy it is neutral to religion.

communism is incompatible with democracy
secularism is compatible with democracy in fact it is good for democracy.

communists do not promote secularism, they promote atheism.

May be you should go and read about communism (Marxism and lenism) as a political ideology so you stop confusing yourself.

As for whether agnostics are atheists this thread below explains better
https://www.nairaland.com/4115987/agnostics-also-atheists-interesting-discussion

DeSepiero:


Insightful.
Bringing the issue back home (the Nigerian scenario) and being realistic, the enforcement like you put it wouldn't really play out as you may expect. Would it?
Looking at the bolded up there where you mentioned 'the most number of ideologies', -note the superlative "most". The case here depicts two major ideologies (Christianity and Islam), unlike in some other countries where there's a diverse array of religions practiced.

Modified: I almost forgot - considering your initial personal definition of secularism, I have to agree with you

Apologies for the super late reply bro...got extremely preoccupied, sotey my life dey run ahead of me.

To your question, you're correct that enforcement may not play out as expected! But recall that I emphasised that this process is painfully gradual. Even if we took Nigeria as an example, you'll see that its constitution is secular precisely because of the multiple religious and ethnic interests represented in this geographic space. However, the parts of our secular laws that are enforced are heavily skewed in favour of the major religious interests like you mentioned. I pin this on the fact that the economy of the country is fuelled by people affiliated, at least publicly, with one religious interest or the other. When other groups such as atheists, traditional diviners, animists and so on start making significant contributions to the economy, the enforcement of the law will also start to favour these groups too.

What is important to note, however, is that there's nothing presently stopping other groups from becoming major players in the economic fate of the country at any given point. Compare this to a theocracy where certain groups are actively disenfranchised so that there's no chance they'll ever be about to thrive, let alone influence policy.

In summary, the present disenfranchisement that minor religious groups feel in Nigeria is more connected to poor economic representation than to any deliberate ideological exclusion. And this will surely change as we get richer and more influential. Sadly, the attraction of government policies to economic factors is prolific. This is true anywhere in the world!

shadeyinka:

100% Secularism is almost synonymous with atheistic/Communist governance
0% Secularism is almost synonymous with theistic governance

Are Agnostics atheists?

I don't quite think that's true. It surely simply means the gods cannot be the authority for policy. It does not mean I can't worship a teapot if I wished to.

budaatum:

I don't quite think that's true. It surely simply means the gods cannot be the authority for policy. It does not mean I can't worship a teapot if I wished to.

Can one divorce Governance from Policy?

shadeyinka:


Can one divorce Governance from Policy?

No, I don't suppose so. Can't say I get your point though.

budaatum:

No, I don't suppose so. Can't say I get your point though.

shadeyinka:

By definition,
Secularism is a belief system that rejects religion, or the belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education. The principles of separation of church and state and of keeping religion out of the public school system are an example of secularism.

Now, the extent of the rejection of religion could be
Total: in Atheistic Secularism (China, North Korea, Russia)
or
Partial: in Theistic Secularism (Nigeria)

This basic difference is the key in the classifications.

In Nigeria for instance we pray even in government functions and we teach CRK/IRK in schools without according religion a say in governance.

The above quote was the basis of my post which you commented on. Secularism could be total as in communism where you are not even allowed private worship of your "teacup" or partial as in Nigeria were we still pray before federal executive meetings

shadeyinka:



The above quote was the basis of my post which you commented on. Secularism could be total as in communism where you are not even allowed private worship of your "teacup" or partial as in Nigeria were we still pray before federal executive meetings

The error is in the first part of you given definition:

"Secularism is a belief system that rejects religion"

That's not quite so accurate, and is somewhat misleading. It kind of impies a state of atheists. But is it quite so? Even in Communist nations, where they might have tried to stop people practising religion, they failed. The churches are still standing! And America, which is supposed to be secular, you got to actually say "God bless America, if you wished to be elected into government?

Pointis, I may not be allowed to worship my teapot, but no one would actually be able to stop me from worshipping my teapot. In fact, my policy did come from my teapot, but I will pay some secular professor to write it up for me in secularly accepted language. And when I read it where policies are debated, I will say in my mind before I proceed, "Hail Teapot. To teapot is the glory. So may we tea". If I don't tell anyone my teapot said so, or that I read it in the Teable, or that I received it through the Holy Tearit who's to know?

If the state attempts to regulate what one worships, it would by default be promoting a goverment imposed ideology, or religion, thereby making it effectively not secular.

Please note, the other day when you visited. I was worshipping Teapot. You just drank the tea poured from my divine everlasting lord and master, Teapot.

budaatum:

The error is in the first part of you given definition:

"Secularism is a belief system that rejects religion"

That's not quite so accurate, and is somewhat misleading. It kind of impies a state of atheists. But is it quite so? Even in Communist nations, where they might have tried to stop people practising religion, they failed. The churches are still standing! And America, which is supposed to be secular, you got to actually say "God bless America, if you wished to be elected into government?

Pointis, I may not be allowed to worship my teapot, but no one would actually be able to stop me from worshipping my teapot. In fact, my policy did come from my teapot, but I will pay some secular professor to write it up for me in secularly accepted language. And when I read it where policies are debated, I will say in my mind before I proceed, "Hail Teapot. To teapot is the glory. So may we tea". If I don't tell anyone my teapot said so, or that I read it in the Teable, or that I received it through the Holy Tearit who's to know?

If the state attempts to regulate what one worships, it would by default be promoting a goverment imposed ideology, or religion, thereby making it effectively not secular.

Please note, the other day when you visited. I was worshipping Teapot. You just drank the tea poured from my divine everlasting lord and master, Teapot.

I think you got me wrong!
You quoted only the first phrase of my definition while totally ignoring the second phrase.

Secularism isn't defined as a personal decision it is a Government decision to operate governance through the principle of secularism. However, the government may impose secularism over the private lives of her citizens as in north Korea.

In north Korea, no one is allowed to worship even in private. They believe that you will corrupt the whole society with your baseless believes

AgentOfAllah:
Although, secularism is widely seen as separation of religion and state. However, I'd like to broaden the definition for my purpose to include separation of state and ideology in general. By so doing, my advocacy for secularism makes sense to me. Since it would necessitate the adoption of governance by rational pragmatism. I use a redefined "secularism" because I don't know of any coinage that satisfactorily describes my meaning presently. Maybe I will make one up, in order to avoid confounding the widely accepted meaning of secularism with mine. So yes, given my definition, I do think it will ultimately promote religious tolerance provided it is not just promoted, but enforced.

By the way, education is achieving this in some countries. It seems the more people learn about people of other religions, the less intolerant of those who practise them they become. It can't be said that everyone learns though, so laws still have to be enforced. An example of such a law is UK's Equality Act 2010. Children also have to learn about religions in school.

.