The Religion of Secularism

[kugga]

By Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok

Well, it has happened, just as it has so many times in the past. Another worldwide religion has swept over humanity bringing to itself countless followers. This new world religion, like those before it, is just as fanatical, just as convinced that its way is the only way, and that its outlook is the only one that makes sense and thus the ideal and exclusive path that everyone should follow. We have heard these claims before, whether from medieval
Christianity of old (and new) Islam, and now we are hearing them again, this time in a new package, under a different slogan, waving a new flag. Yes, indeed, the new world religion, the one that has its own unique view of G-d, other religions and how life should be lived is today what we honestly must call the “religion” of Secularism.
Secularism is the way most people live today. Its aim is to place traditional religion on the “back burner” of life and to instill a completely new way and outlook on life. Traditional
religion taught that man lives for G-d and is here on earth to serve Him. The secular religion teaches a different credo. Man is here on earth to live for himself, man created G-d in his
own image, not the other way around. G-d (and thus traditional religion) is here to serve the needs of man. The individual is paramount and his desires are sacred.
While many might not desire or be willing to view secularism as a religion, the philosophy underlying it definitely fits the dictionary definition of what is a religion. One just need do a
standard web search of online information and the official and accepted definitions of both religion and secularism become clear. Looking at them side by side one should be able to
draw one’s own conclusions. The Wikipedia, free online Encyclopedia has provided these
statements.
Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Religion—sometimes used inter-changeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or
divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain
humankind's relationship with the universe
Secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Secularism means: in philosophy, the belief that life can be best lived by applying ethics, and the universe best understood, by processes of
reasoning, without reference to a god or gods or other supernatural concepts. A religion is a “belief concerning… the… divine.” Secularism is “the belief... without reference to a god.” Reference specifically not to mention a god is as much a statement of religion as is the mention a god. One way or the other a relationship between man and god is established, one in favor, and one against. Nonetheless, both fit the dictionary definition of a religion.
Whether or not one wishes to accept or reject this definition of secularism as a religion is not what is important. Essentially such an argument is only semantics. Names and descriptions
are often subjective and subject to the eye of the beholder. Arguments over words are superfluous. Instead of discussing words, we must discuss deeds and attitudes. Religion and secularism are mere words to describe how people think and what people do.
What others do is influenced by what they believe. We are all subject to the thoughts and deeds of others. Therefore, it is important for us to understand what it is that motivates others who desire to influence us.
Those who wish to “apply ethics” have first to explain what is the source of the ethics they wish others to adopt. When we define something as right or wrong, by what criteria do we make such a definition. Who says this is right or this is wrong. Who decides? Who is to judge? Herein lies a serious problem. All societies are defined by a common set of laws and values. All societies have as their common denominator a core set of beliefs that defines
what it is, what its purpose is and what its course of manifest destiny is. Without such a foundation then a society is essentially baseless, without any adhesive to bond the people to a social contract of mutually agreed acceptable behavior. Without such a
common language of ethics, everyone does what is right in his own eyes. Some might not think this a bad thing, until someone does something to oneself that one objects to, and then
demands retribution, only to find out there is no law against said behavior and what happened to one is deemed socially acceptable, regardless of how much pain was inflicted thereby.
When social ethics are defined at the individual level, then one man’s good is another man’s bad, and who is to judge between them. By what criteria of judgment does one decide what is and what is not right and wrong? Herein lies the dilemma of secularism. To address this serious issue, secularism has embraced democracy as its chosen sword of conquest.
Secularism has deified the concept of democracy and proclaims it the highest and finest form of government. Majority rule is the law, regardless of the will of the minority. Therefore, public ethics and values are decided in the ballot box on Election Day and are subject to
change with each and every election. This fluid type of ethics definition is a sure way to undermine the long-term value of ethics in general and the short-term observance of the law
in particular. For if a law passes that one group finds objectionable, they simply protest and make enough noise about it until the wheel of democracy turn their way. In essence, it is the law of the jungle, the mightiest rules, and the defeated are conquered and vanquished. One simply need look at political job placements after an election votes in a different party than before. Once a new political party is installed in a political office, all previous employees, regardless of their value, are dismissed simply because of their party loyalty and replaced by others who may or may not be equally qualified to fulfill such posts. With the new people come new rules, the new rules are based upon a new philosophy. The new philosophy will remain dominant until the next election, the next party change and the
coming of the next philosophy. In essence, democracy by definition creates instability in political office, as it does in society in general. Democracy does have its good points, however, those points are all too often buried under a heap of rubble and garbage piled upon top of democracy’s good name.

Every form of government has their good points and bad points, this includes democracy. The problems inherent within a democratic system have long been abused by extremists of one sort or another to further their individual agendas. The secularist here is no different.
The secularist will use wave the banner of democracy to attack the very foundations upon which the democracy was established.

 

[kugga]

This is a part from the article

The Myth of Secularism:
Religion and Politics are Mutually Constitutive
by
M. A. Muqtedar Khan

The reason why the myth of secularism is so precious to modernity is not its potential to separate religion and politics but its potential to advance a framework for dealing with religious diversity under conditions of unequal power. In perfectly homogenous societies, it does not matter if the state is influenced by religion or not. It is only when there are other faith communities, or other interpretations of the same faith that the state can become an instrument of religious oppression in the hands of the majority. But religion disguised as national interest or secular reason can play havoc with minority rights.

As religion becomes more assertive, and religious zealots become more adept at “playing the system” then constitutional guarantees become meaningless if even the constitution of the Supreme Court can be rigged. In the modern West, the best examples of freedom and protection of religious minorities has come under the reign of secular democracies, in the Muslim experience the same has happened under the reign of Islam. Today as all religions experience revivals we must find a ways to guarantee religious freedom without proscribing the scope of religion. Ultimately the plight of the minorities is at the mercy of those who are enlightened among the majority and are willing to break ranks with their kind to stand up for equality and justice for all. Systems are safe only as long as we strive everyday to keep them safe.

 

[greatsequence]

This is exactly what I here say to my atheist and secular friends. Atheism and secularism are not new in this world but certainly they have become more popular recently.

 

[LaBong]

Western version of Secularism is different than what we follow in India.

Anyway Even if Secularism/Atheism is another belief system just like other organized religions are, it still makes more sense to follow it as it conforms to today's world, not what world was thousands years ago. Yeah, there are some universal values and ethics which are time independent, like you shouldn't steal or kill etc, all major religions say you to be good Samaritan anyway.

Also secularists till today CAN live without any problem with people who subscribe to different belief systems.

 

[LaBong]

There is an interesting article I read about it, let me share.

Pete Enns, Ph.D.: Atheists Are Believers, Too


Atheists Are Believers, Too

Christians sometimes claim to be certain about spiritual matters. This can be everyday things like, "I know this new job is right where God wants me," or more important issues like, "I know the Bible is the word of God," or, "I know Jesus is the Son of God."

But Christians do not have sure knowledge of these things. They believe them -- deeply and sincerely, and for all sorts of reasons -- but they do not know them in the same way that we know that fire will reduce a book to ashes, that there are billions of galaxies in the universe, or that gravity works. Some Christians claim this kind of knowledge, but they are wrong.

The same goes for Christians -- and any religious person -- who would say, "I know God exists." No one can know that God exists in the sense of proof or logical demonstration. Rather, people of faith believe God exists for all sorts of reasons that can't be laid out in a spreadsheet or observed through a telescope.

Atheists are in exactly the same boat.

What holds true for religious people when they talk about God holds for atheists when they talk about not-God.

Some atheists claim to have a sure and certain knowledge about spiritual things. "I know -- through reason, logic, and evidence -- that God does not exist." These atheists feel that their position is intellectually superior to a belief in God. God does not exist because what cannot be established through "reason, logic, or evidence" is not real.

This sounds rational and objective, but there is a lot of belief tucked away in this assertion. Atheists do not know God does not exist; they believe it.

To say that God's existence is detectable with certainty through reason, logic, and evidence is a belief because it makes some crucial assumptions. For one thing, it assumes that our intellectual faculties are the best, or only, ways of accessing God. This is an assumption that privileges Western ways of knowing and excludes other wholly human qualities like emotion and intuition.

It also reduces God to an object, a thing, a being among all other beings, whose existence is as open to rational inquiry as anything else. It is an old argument but a good one: any god worthy of the name is the source of all being, and therefore not one more being alongside all others subject to rational control. Any god like that isn't God at all.

People can think what they want about God. My point here is simply this: no one knows whether our intellectual faculties can determine with certainty whether there is a higher power, prime mover, or whatever you want to call god. That is a belief.

Also, all people, atheists included, believe worthwhile things for which there is no compelling evidence whatsoever. For example, many people -- scientists, philosophers -- believe in the principle of uniformity: what we observe now of the laws of nature happens everywhere in the universe, always has and always will.

I happen to believe this is true, but what I believe isn't the point here. The point is that there is no empirical evidence for this principle, nor can it be logically proven. In fact, there is no evidence for the principle at all unless we assume it to begin with.

Why do people accept the principle of uniformity? Because it can be used to construct coherent scientific explanations of the universe, and that is a good reason to accept it. But this is not too far from what religious people say about their faith. Religious beliefs can be used to construct coherent explanations for things like why there is something rather than nothing.

All of us accept as true ideas that seem to work well, that make sense of our reality. We do not know with certainty that they are true because of reason, logic, or evidence; we believe they are true because they work.

I know some real live atheists, and they do not claim to know as much as some others do. The reason that they are atheists is that "God is" is a less compelling proposition to explain their reality than "God is not."

They did not come to this sure and certain conclusion by a calm and logical assessment of the evidence (as opposed to the unreasonable and illogical faith of religious types). Rather, they came to their atheism for many different types of reasons, some of which are too subtle to quantify.

They do not claim to know that God does not exist; they believe it to be so because it makes most sense of their own lives and the world around them. This is not sure and certain knowledge; it is a belief.

Oddly, some Christian fundamentalists and some atheist fundamentalists suffer under the same delusion, that their view on ultimate reality is fully supported by reason, logic, and evidence.

Both are wrong.

For both the religious and atheists, there is mystery. Atheists are free to be atheists, but they don't know any more than anyone else.

 

[kugga]

So the Idea of state without a religion is just a myth...

 

[Tuahaa]

I think the main thing is that sometimes we are bound by moral laws of religion.

For example, many non-religious persons are not bound by religion to give 2.5% percent of their money to charity (zakaat). Though some may do it anyway, let's admit that humans aren't saints- sometimes, nobody gives a damn.

If it were not for religion, I could guarantee that the middle east (and the Muslim world) would not have donated 1b during floods.

Same goes for other religions other than Islam.

 

[LaBong]

So the Idea of state without a religion is just a myth...

No it's not a myth, as the article you quoted points out -- seculars believe in individualism, individual freedom gets the highest esteem! So it has very little to do with state, rather it clearly calls for segregation of state's activity and personal freedom(if you take personal freedom as the main pillar of 'secular/atheistic religion'.

By the way, Atheistic religion isn't something alien or invented by consumer world. Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

 

[Speaker]

Atheists Are Believers, Too

Atheists believe in the concept of "god", or the power of nature, or a higher being. But they don't believe it is as synchronized and controlled as religious people do. They also scoff at the idea of the importance of earth and human life - we are just a speck of dust in this enormous universe.

So the Idea of state without a religion is just a myth...

All humans believe in some kind of higher power. It is just that some choose to not let that overcome logical and rational thinking. Nothing wrong in citizens having "faith", but when states distinguish and discriminate on the basis of religion, you can have a serious problem.

 

[LaBong]

I think the main thing is that sometimes we are bound by moral laws of religion.

For example, many non-religious persons are not bound by religion to give 2.5% percent of their money to charity (zakaat). Though some may do it anyway, let's admit that humans aren't saints- sometimes, nobody gives a damn.

If it were not for religion, I could guarantee that the middle east (and the Muslim world) would not have donated 1b during floods.

Same goes for other religions other than Islam.

That's true, and that's true for any major organized society. Religion has it compassionate faced as well.

 

[LaBong]

Atheists believe in the concept of "god", or the power of nature, or a higher being. But they don't believe it is as synchronized and controlled as religious people do. They also scoff at the idea of the importance of earth and human life - we are just a speck of dust in this enormous universe.

I guess definition of atheists say something else. Yea, you can say they are believers as well, but they believe in non-existence of God, they are the pessimist folks.

 

[gpit]

I think the main thing is that sometimes we are bound by moral laws of religion.

For example, many non-religious persons are not bound by religion to give 2.5% percent of their money to charity (zakaat). Though some may do it anyway, let's admit that humans aren't saints- sometimes, nobody gives a damn.

If it were not for religion, I could guarantee that the middle east (and the Muslim world) would not have donated 1b during floods.

Same goes for other religions other than Islam.

Hard to say that if you are religious you are automatically bound to higher morality.

In fact, in a controversial investigation, there is higher percentage of believers in US jails than those outside of jails. http://atheistlogic.com/publisher_articles/atheists_vs_believers_in_prision.html Not sure about in other countries.

...experts say more believers are being imprisoned and killed today than ever before.

http://www.believers.org/prayfor.htm

Somebody simply imagine God would be played into their hand, and if they believe their sins/crimes will be diminished... this makes them even more audacious in committing crimes.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

This is exactly what I here say to my atheist and secular friends. Atheism and secularismare not new in this world but certainly they have become more popular recently.

I hope it takes over the whole globe.

 

[Spring Onion]

Oh yar leave us alone whether they believe in god or not but atleast dont bother others.

 

[Tuahaa]

Hard to say that if you are religious you are automatically bound to higher morality.

In fact, in a controversial investigation, there is higher percentage of believers in US jails than those outside of jails. Atheists vs. Believers in Prison in the USA - Felons in Jail Not sure about in other countries.



Somebody simply imagines God would be played into their hand, and if they believe their sins/crimes will be diminished... this makes them even more audacious in committing crimes.

But we do it for God's pleasure... I'm not saying we're bound to 'higher morality', I'm saying we're bound to responsibility. Why does one go to a church/synagogue/mosque? Bound by responsibility. Why does one help his fellow human beings? bound by responsibility.

I have lived in Australia for 7 years. One time, some punks vandalized the whole mosque and painted very offensive slurs on the walls. It was one of the only mosques in Canberra. We didn't have the money to remove the paint. Who helped? The nearby church. It was their teachings that lead them to do it.

I'm not trying to alienate or anything, but after experience, I can assure you that nobody else would have helped us- we were in a country where Muslims were 'alien' (at best), so that help was very much appreciated.