Just wondering and all, but who exactly does a secular state harm? As long is it protects freedom of religion and allows people to worship/live as they will, well, I don't see the problem or why "secularism" is one step below "fuck" on the dirty words list here.

If you believe that your religion is the only path to salvation and that everyone else is going to hell, fine, do that, but why not practice that yourself and leave it out of a government that imposes it's will upon others.

Conversely, I can see a huge problem with a theocratic state, Iran and Afghanistan coming readily to mind, also mid-evil European countries making a point as well. It just doesn't work, its imposing a will of someone on a group that might not agree. A proper secular state isn't imposing any religious view on anyone.

So, whats the deal?

It's odd because it britain our politics and the beleifs of the people are very secular. yet we still have a state religion (church of england) and people won't get rid of it because they say it goes agaisnt are tradition and heritage.

I for one would love Britain to become a secular state

Hmmm, could it be the word "secular"? It brings to mind a cold and calculating image, i.e. the government is not doing what is right? Just a stab at it.

Probably, most people do have a love (or hate) of words and phrases instead of what they really mean. But beyond that, when looking at what the actual state does do, who does it harm?

It hurts no one at all. Even if you're religious, you can't really argue this point.

Except in the case of Iran or some other all-one-religion country, in which the case can be that a religious state would best represent the interests of the population, or could provide religious services from public monies. That's a dubious argument at best, though.

Because religion is such a part of deciding what is right and wrong that it is impossible to separate it from the sphere of the civil government. All a secular government is is a government which supports the religious belief that Man can determine what is right or wrong without considering God.

I'd define it differently - as a government in which religion plays no official role. Religion of lawmakers usually plays a part in how they vote on certain issues. A secular government would encourage lawmakers and members of government to take their religion into account when making policy - but it would by no means allow any religion whatsoever to play a part in state policy. (i.e., no official mention of religion in laws, etc.)

Not true. I can find tons of secular philosophies (note: Not philosophers, but philosophies) that can justify the laws of many societies. Heck, going down to Kant Universal Imperative we can see a huge basis of the reasoning behind laws. As an atheist, I find myself able to rectify all my morals without the need of "God" or supernatural/metaphysical being. But as Morph said, secular government doesn't mean that lawmakers are stripped of all religious ideals, just means they don't force that faith on others when making rules.

Thats not a "religious belief." Its a faith that man can make choices without making up a God then applying those ethics as coming from a God, but thats not a religion.

And now back to the subject at hand: Who does the secular state harm?

No, and that's where the harm comes in. All legislation is harming someone or going against someone's moral convictions. Everyone disagrees (to some degree) on what is right and that's why we need legislation to keep chaos from ensuing.

It is because the majority of people think that pedophilia is wrong that it is legislated against. But, we are forcing the majority's opinion on the minority: there is harm being done to their moral circle, they are being persecuted (though not in the way usually thought).

I have no problem with this persecution: I'm not torturing, killing, or anything else for ideas, but for actions. However, it is dangerous to deny that it exists and that is what a secular government is trying to do: pretend that the morality of the majority (which is a whole other debate) is not overruling the morality of the minority.

And where does that morality come from? From faith, whether that faith is Christianity, Hinduism, Atheism, Idon'tcareism, or whatever, your morals are based on your religion (which is in turn based on your theology, or notion about God) and so any attack (whether violent or not) on your morality is an attack on your religion, which is the very thing secular government claims to be against.

No, they are not being persecuted. Again, to persecute means to to "harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict. " Thats not what laws against things like pedophilia do, they prevent a direct and negitive action from comeing onto someone else, its not restricting or persecuting a right, the right isn't there to persecute.

Well, it doesn't, at least not always. Thats why we don't have a pure dominance of the majority, thats why we do have rights, thats why we do have governmental "stop-gaps" in our legal system. We don't have a tyranny by the majority, nor do we have one by the minority. Nor does every government have to inherently have such a thing, so yeah, no.

Well, you're wrong for classifying atheism as a religion. While it might be a faith, that does not make it a religion. It isn't.

But yeah, so about the topic at hand....
Who does a secular state harm?

It harms those who must live out their religious convictions in all aspects of their life by making it taboo to express your thoughts in a confident manner or to evangelize (for whatever religion).

Secularism supports the idea that everyone's opinion is equal, valid, and sound and that encourages the hate for the speaking out in support of a particular view or against another (unless of course, it is in support of secularism or against relgion in government). Unfortunately, most people transfer the hate to the person, instead of keeping it on the act or the idea.


Also, atheism is a religion. You have a theology, a notion about God (namely, that He isn't there). That theology is realized in your morality and your actions based on that morality, your religion. But, once again, I am not using the common definitions.

Only to the extent when you start to use the state to impose it on others. I'm not sure what religion teaches that the state must be harnessed to push your will on others. Probably because there is none.

Again, a secular state can defend the right of people to have freedom of religion, simple as that.

No, it doesn't. All it supports is the idea that government would not be used to further religious goals onto people.

No, you're wrong. You are making up definitions for words at your will, that makes it impossible to communicate at all. If I started making up definitions for already defined words, then arguing that I was right given the crap I just made up, it would be pretty stupid. Yup.

Atheism is nontheism, it isn't a theology, it simply isn't. Stop saying "I'm using uncommon definitions" you're wrong, your making shit up. Simple as that.