That's Where the Truth is Found

[Leonardo]

Very deceptive, Leonardo. Your assertion is darkly deceiving.

You artfully avoided my closing point; "The "societies which embrace the most equality and protect the most freedoms" were not so due to the secular status but due to religious tradition and active practice among the citizens and leaders. Secular nations that abandoned religious tradition were the most brutal, intolerant, oppressive and environmentally destructive on the planet."

There was nothing 'deceptive' about my reply.

In making this claim you are probably referring to (among others) the USSR of Stalin, the China of Mao or maybe the Cambodia of Pol Pot?

In no instance were any of those societies truly secular (nor truly Communist). Yes, they eschewed (and persecuted) traditional religions, but they replaced those religions with a cult of personality, and the law-making process and governance of those societies hinged on this quasi-religious cult. You are assuming secularism is only about removing the influence of traditional (well-established) religions from the process of government, but that is a misunderstanding of what secularism is and so your claim is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Grandpa Greenman]

Read and learn, secular government is not about eradicating religion. It is about making it irrelevant in civil law and human rights.

The term secularism was created in 1846 by George Jacob Holyoake in order to describe "a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life" (English Secularism, 60). Holyoake was a leader of the English secularist and freethought movement who became famous to the wider public for his conviction under, and larger fight against, English blasphemy laws. His struggle made him a hero for English radicals of all types, even those who were not members of freethought organizations.

Holyoake was also a social reformer who believed that the government should work for the benefit of the working classes and poor based upon their needs in the here and now rather than any needs they might have for a future life or for their souls. As we can see from the quote above, his early usage of the term "secularism" did not explicitly portray the concept in opposition to religion; rather, it only refers in passing to the idea of focusing upon this life rather than speculation about any other life. That certainly excludes many religious belief systems, most importantly the Christian religion of Holyoake's day, but it doesn't necessarily exclude all possible religious beliefs.

http://atheism.about.com/od/secularismseparation/a/HolyoakeSecular.htm

Secularism is one of the most important movements in the history of the modern West, helping differentiate the West not only from the Middle Ages and more ancient eras, but also from other cultural regions around the world. The modern West is what it is largely because of secularism; for some, that is a reason to cheer, but for others it is a reason to mourn. A better understanding of the history and nature of secularism will help people understand its role and influence in society today. Why did a secular vision of society develop in Western culture but not so much elsewhere in the world?

Secularism is Not a Religion

Calling secularism (the insistence on separation of church and state) a religion should be instantly recognized as an oxymoron, analogous to claiming that bachelors can be married. Sadly this is not the case, and it has become far too common for critics of secularism to claim that it's a religion which is being improperly supported by the government. Examining the characteristics which define religions as distinct from other types of belief systems reveals just how wrong such claims are.

http://atheism.about.com/od/secularismseparation/tp/SecularismHistoryPhilosophy.htm

[Labyrinthus]

Read and learn, secular government is not about eradicating religion. It is about making it irrelevant in civil law and human rights.

Okay then. Now we are left to recognize that this makes secularism itself all but completely irrelevant vis a vis the original claim about secular vs non-secular societies and persecution, freedom, environmental abuse, etc.

In no instance were any of those societies truly secular (nor truly Communist). Yes, they eschewed (and persecuted) traditional religions, but they replaced those religions with a cult of personality...

Fine then... and now your original premise is no longer truly meaningful, Leonardo.

I mean... if we can't include Russia as secular society what can we include? "Oh, that isn't really secularism... that's more of a personality cult..." What?! (So then ... is worship of the Obamassiah a personality cult?) This now descends into absurdity. Mr. Walker's recent post on this thread now becomes a completely viable position on the matter. Thus, secularism as a point of distinction now becomes a misrepresentation. Treatment of people or the environment is not related to secularism per se but more to religious ideology and influence.

The more obvious point of distinction between societies that engender a free people who respect the environment and those that don't is that societies that are most abusive have abandoned their religious traditions and those that are most free, prosperous and respect the environment are the more religious societies (and, dare I say... mostly Christian).

Secularism has nothing to do with it.

[Leonardo]

Okay then. Now we are left to recognize that this makes secularism itself all but completely irrelevant vis a vis the original claim about secular vs non-secular societies and persecution, freedom, environmental abuse, etc.

Fine then... and now your original premise is no longer truly meaningful, Leonardo.

Of course it is. I referred to secular vs non-secular societies, and that claim is still relevant and, so far, unrebutted. That the definition of 'secular' does not meet your personal approval is quite immaterial to how valid my cliam still is.

I mean... if we can't include Russia as secular society what can we include? "Oh, that isn't really secularism... that's more of a personality cult..." What?! (So then ... is worship of the Obamassiah a personality cult?) This now descends into absurdity. Mr. Walker's recent post on this thread now becomes a completely viable position on the matter. Thus, secularism as a point of distinction now becomes a misrepresentation. Treatment of people or the environment is not related to secularism per se but more to religious ideology and influence.

Russia as it is today is not more abusive than some non-secular societies. You specifically referred to totalitarian societies such as the Stalinist USSR, and Maoist China in your argument, however. In the modern iteration of those nations, religious freedom is more tolerated (but there is still no State religion) than under the previous totalitarian regimes. As I was careful to point out, not all secular nations are equal in their granting of rights and freedoms. Of course, the same could be said of non-secular nations, but looking at them each as a whole the secular nations are consistently better at protecting their citizens rights and freedoms.

The position that it is secularism vs non-secualrism that makes a significant difference to this protection of rights and freedoms is certainly not a misrepresentation, and remains as valid as when I mooted the claim. I take it you did read the information at the links I provided earlier?

The more obvious point of distinction between societies that engender a free people who respect the environment and those that don't is that societies that are most abusive have abandoned their religious traditions...

No, they haven't. Perhaps they 'abandoned' the traditional religions, but that is very different to 'abandoning religious tradition'. As I pointed out, the cult of personality is at the very least a quasi-religious state. It could be argued many of the large, 'tradtional' religions around today all had their basis in a cult of personality; Christianity (various denominations) with Jesus/Paul; Islam with Mohammed; Judaism with Abraham/Moses (if we consider them as 'real' persons); Buddhism with Gautama; Mormonism with Joseph Smith; Protestantism with Martin Luther - and more. All of these people were charismatic leaders, able to impress upon others their belief through force of personality and via the workings of other devotees via oral or written testimony attributed to those charismatic leaders. Cult of personality is essentially an embryonic religion.

Anyway, secularism is nothing to do with "abandoning religious tradition". In a secular society, the citizen is free to continue/practice their "religious tradition" - it is simply that this tradition is removed from the process of government.

...and those that are most free, prosperous and respect the environment are the more religious societies (and, dare I say... mostly Christian).

Secularism has nothing to do with it.

Very well, I provided the data to back up my claim - you provide the data to back up yours. Where are the studies/figures showing those societies which are "most free, prosperous and respect the environment" are non-secular?

Edited October 28, 2013 by Leonardo

[Labyrinthus]

Of course it is. I referred to secular vs non-secular societies, and that claim is still relevant and, so far, unrebutted. That the definition of 'secular' does not meet your personal approval is quite immaterial to how valid my cliam still is.

Your claim has not just been shown to be invalid -- it has been obliterated.

If your defense requires that anyone accept that Russia and China are not secular then we are at loggerheads and cannot proceed. I say you must be in ridiculously deep denial if you can't accept that USSR/Russia and China are secular nations.They are not just sufficient evidence to dismiss your original claim but also that in comparison to Western Europe and the USA we can see that secularism has nothing to do with it and that, as I said, "The more obvious point of distinction between societies that engender a free people who respect the environment and those that don't is that societies that are most abusive have abandoned their religious traditions and those that are most free, prosperous and respect the environment are the more religious societies (and, dare I say... mostly Christian).

Secularism has nothing to do with it."

So we are done.

I say Russia and China are secular nations and you reject that and obfuscate with some dubious "personality cult quasi-religious status" idea that I reject categorically.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Labyrinthus

[+Liquid Gardens]

If your defense requires that anyone accept that Russia and China are not secular then we are at loggerheads and cannot proceed. I say you must be in ridiculously deep denial if you can't accept that USSR/Russia and China are secular nations.

Uh, considering that you were trying to make the laughable claim that the US isn't really based on 'secular philosophy' a couple posts ago, you may want to examine your own denial on this subject.

And speaking of 'tall orders':

The "societies which embrace the most equality and protect the most freedoms" were not so due to the secular status but due to religious tradition and active practice among the citizens and leaders.

Since you were just admonishing Leo because you thought he hadn't supported his claim, when were you going to get around to backing up this claim of yours?

[Labyrinthus]

Uh, considering that you were trying to make the laughable claim that the US isn't really based on 'secular philosophy' a couple posts ago, you may want to examine your own denial on this subject.

No denial on my part -- I conceded that point upon Leonardo's clarification and stated outright that "I stand corrected".

And speaking of 'tall orders':

Since you were just admonishing Leo because you thought he hadn't supported his claim, when were you going to get around to backing up this claim of yours?

I *did* back up mine. I explained this. Since he rejected my position on the grounds that Russia and China weren't really secular but "some dubious "personality cult quasi-religious status" idea that I reject categorically".

Thus we could proceed no further.

[And I didn't really 'admonish' him -- I merely clarified the proper protocol]

Edited October 28, 2013 by Labyrinthus

[+Liquid Gardens]

No denial on my part -- I conceded that point upon Leonardo's clarification and stated outright that "I stand corrected".

Not quite. You stood corrected on the point that secularism doesn't rely on, require, or entail atheism. In that same post #122, you stated your thoughts that the US is not based on secular philosophy and that it would be a 'tall order' to show as much, and I didn't see where you conceded that you were incorrect on that. If you have, good on you.

I *did* back up mine. I explained this. Since he rejected my position on the grounds that Russia and China weren't really secular but "some dubious "personality cult quasi-religious status" idea that I reject categorically".

Thus we could proceed no further.

There still has been no support offered for your idea that the societies that protect the most freedoms and have the most equality was not due to secular status but due to religious tradition. Speaking of tall orders.

Also, since you are/were trying to disqualify the US as not being sufficiently based on secular philosophy, can you then likewise point out the secular philosophies that justify the offenses of Stalinism and Maoism? If you can't, and I don't think you can, do we get to then disqualify the bad actions of these regimes as being representative of secularism for the same reason (lack of supporting 'secular philosophy') you appeared to want to discount the good of the US as being representative of secularism?

[White Crane Feather]

Does creating a constitutional law of freedom of religion because a group wants to practice their own religion with out interference constitute secularism? Religious people securing their own rights to practice without interference doesn't seem secular to me. It would seem that religious freedom was secured in America precisely for religion. Not as a secular rule.

Secular

"denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis."

https://www.google.com/search?q=secular&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari&norc=1

Indeed there was a spiritual basis for guaranteeing freedom of religion.

Edited October 28, 2013 by White Crane Feather

[Almagest]

Does creating a constitutional law of freedom of religion because a group wants to practice their own religion with out interference constitute secularism? Religious people securing their own rights to practice without interference doesn't seem secular to me. It would seem that religious freedom was secured in America precisely for religion. Not as a secular rule.

Secular

"denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis."

https://www.google.c...t=safari&norc=1

Indeed there was a spiritual basis for guaranteeing freedom of religion.

You're right that the term secular has that meaning, but it has others. Secularism simply means that state and church affairs are separate. The founding fathers didn't use the term because it didn't exist at the time. When the Ottoman Empire dissolved and Ataturk began his reforms the term secular was used, and it never meant state atheism.

Frankly I think regardless of your religious inclination, stripping power from the corrupt clergy should be viewed as a good idea.

[Labyrinthus]

Not quite. You stood corrected on the point that secularism doesn't rely on, require, or entail atheism. In that same post #122, you stated your thoughts that the US is not based on secular philosophy and that it would be a 'tall order' to show as much, and I didn't see where you conceded that you were incorrect on that. If you have, good on you.

I really did say that. "Okay, I will accept that outright and thus stand corrected." in post #122

Now if I am being held to the textbook definition of secularism as Leonardo was holding me to, shouldn't he be as well? What's good for the goose is good for the gander? But then he rejected my own support for the position I took about how;

"The more obvious point of distinction between societies that engender a free people who respect the environment and those that don't is that societies that are most abusive have abandoned their religious traditions and those that are most free, prosperous and respect the environment are the more religious societies (and, dare I say... mostly Christian).

Secularism has nothing to do with it."

... which I supported with the examples of secular USSR/Russia and China and their horrendous record of abuse concerning human rights and the environment as compared to the USA, Canada and other Western European nations (so I did support my claim). Secular - Atheists vs. Secular Christian/Religious --> Secular divides out of the equation and leaves Atheists vs Christian as a noteworthy difference between the Freedom and clean environment coalition vs. the Oppression and rampant pollution coalition.

But Leonardo rejected my claim on the basis of some "some dubious "personality cult quasi-religious status" idea" which is not just absurd but hypocritical -- only Leonardo gets to stretch the boundaries of what it means to be "secular" or not?

There still has been no support offered for your idea that the societies that protect the most freedoms and have the most equality was not due to secular status but due to religious tradition. Speaking of tall orders.

Yes there was. i just rephrased it above... a little disjointed but I hope it was clear enough.

Also, since you are/were trying to disqualify the US as not being sufficiently based on secular philosophy, can you then likewise point out the secular philosophies that justify the offenses of Stalinism and Maoism? If you can't, and I don't think you can, do we get to then disqualify the bad actions of these regimes as being representative of secularism for the same reason (lack of supporting 'secular philosophy') you appeared to want to discount the good of the US as being representative of secularism?

I think I have already addressed this. Secularism is irrelevant. The original assertion by Leonardo was off base. It has nothing to do with secularism

[Labyrinthus]

Frankly I think regardless of your religious inclination, stripping power from the corrupt clergy should be viewed as a good idea.

Is stripping power from the corrupt politicians also to be viewed as a good idea?

[Leonardo]

I say Russia and China are secular nations and you reject that and obfuscate with some dubious "personality cult quasi-religious status" idea that I reject categorically.

And where did I claim they weren't secular?

I did claim that Stalinist USSR and Maoist China were not secular - as both were ruled by cult of personality (totalitarianism). In the post your quote above was a reply to, I stated that modern Russia is "not more abusive than some non-secular societies." That implies that I consider modern Russia a secular society - else why would I contrast it with non-secular ones? I did not mention modern China at all.

It seems, in your desire to traduce my statements you forego reading (and understanding) what I write - and misrepresent my position as a result.

Now, you can reject "Cult of Personality" from being a quasi-religious state of government, but your rejection is hardly hurtful to my argument because you back up that rejection with no evidence why a cult is not "quasi-religious" in nature, so your denial seems to be merely pique rather than fact. I would argue most reasonable folk would agree that cults are indeed quasi-religious, if not full blown religious, entities. So it is, again, down to you to provide the evidence to back up your claim - and you don't exactly have a good track record of providing evidence for your claims.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Leonardo

[Mr Walker]

Read and learn, secular government is not about eradicating religion. It is about making it irrelevant in civil law and human rights.

Inherent in this definition is the belief and practice that individual or social beliefs cannot be accorded rights in law, BECAUSE they are beliefs with which non believes do not agree. Hhence a secularist government is mandated to stop people from worshipping or practising religious beliefs in many forms through the control of schools, publishing, basic social laws, economic reforms, and other means.

Secularism DOES, in practice, entail atheism because its basis is that all religious/deist beliefs are wrong, and thus must not be embedded in any government practice or instrumentality. We have an inclusive pluralist religious tolerance in Australia which secularists including the secularist party, wish to deconstruct/dismantle BECAUSE it recognises religious beliefs Secularism is NOT just a separation of state and religion, but the formation of governance based on atheist beliefs and principles such as; that only logic and reason are the basis for good governance and that religious beliefs detract from the progress of society and government it could for example ban religious ceremonies at weddings an d funerals if taken to its logical conclusion its laws certainly would intrude heavily ointo the practices of believers form any religion For example no one could claim exemption from conscription on religious grounds. Nor could any church institution claim exemption from govt laws on the grounds of moral conscience.

Quite likely religious schools would be forced to close (closing about 25% of australia's schools for example) Schools, hospitals, and other departments would not be financed to, or allowed to provide chaplains or other religious counsellors for people. because a secular govt would see this as illogical and impractical. Believers would not be allowed an expression of their faith in any government bureaucracy or potentially even in the private realm. The wearing of religious based clothing and jewellery might be banned by law, again persecuting believers.

[Labyrinthus]

And where did I claim they weren't secular?

I did claim that Stalinist USSR and Maoist China were not secular - as both were ruled by cult of personality (totalitarianism). In the post your quote above was a reply to, I stated that modern Russia is "not more abusive than some non-secular societies." That implies that I consider modern Russia a secular society - else why would I contrast it with non-secular ones? I did not mention modern China at all.

It seems, in your desire to traduce my statements you forego reading (and understanding) what I write - and misrepresent my position as a result.

Now, you can reject "Cult of Personality" from being a quasi-religious state of government, but your rejection is hardly hurtful to my argument because you back up that rejection with no evidence why a cult is not "quasi-religious" in nature, so your denial seems to be merely pique rather than fact. I would argue most reasonable folk would agree that cults are indeed quasi-religious, if not full blown religious, entities. So it is, again, down to you to provide the evidence to back up your claim - and you don't exactly have a good track record of providing evidence for your claims.

Once again, Leonardo -- your quasi-argument is quasi-Baloney. So you are trying to weasel out with some phoney claim about how Stalinist and Maoist regimes were not secular but modern Russia is and you will not actually reply specifically concerning China?

??

You say, "but your rejection is hardly hurtful to my argument because you back up that rejection with no evidence" -- sorry Leonardo, that is not how it works. I do not have to back up my rejection of false evidence with any kind of evidence. *You* have to back up your claim with *valid* evidence. If your supporting 'evidence' is nothing more than 2+2=5 all I have to do is point out that it is false evidence. I do not have to provide evidence showing how it is false when all can see that it is false on the face of it.

Then you make another false accusation, "and you don't exactly have a good track record of providing evidence for your claims." ... false... quote the claim I made and did not back up.

You asked, "And where did I claim they weren't secular? But then you immediately admitted that "I did claim that Stalinist USSR and Maoist China were not secular" Q.E.D.

My claim is based on the understanding that Stalinist Russia, modern Russia, Maoist China and modern China were all secular. If you reject any of that we can all see that you are full of stuff and nonsense.

The fact that you can claim Baloneystan is more oppressive than modern Russia is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that secular modern Russia is hugely intolerant, oppressive and environmentally abusive and you admit that you have not replied to the China point. Case closed.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Labyrinthus

[Leonardo]

You say, "but your rejection is hardly hurtful to my argument because you back up that rejection with no evidence" -- sorry Leonardo, that is not how it works. I do not have to back up my rejection of false evidence with any kind of evidence. *You* have to back up your claim with *valid* evidence.

I supplied evidence in post #124, or didn't you read that?

The evidence you asked for was whether secular nations/societies "granted greater degrees of freedoms and protected rights better than non-secular nations/societies". So I evidenced my claim. I don't deny some individual secular nations might have worse rights/freedoms records than some non-secular nations - but the worst secular nations still have better rights/freedom records than the worst non-secular nations. And this is the crux of the point I made, secularism drives towards greater freedoms, protecting of rights and equality.

Now, bluster all you want but unless you have evidence to rebut the evidence I supplied (again, see post #124) your argument is nothing more than histrionics and rhetoric.

Then you make another false accusation, "and you don't exactly have a good track record of providing evidence for your claims." ... false... quote the claim I made and did not back up.

The more obvious point of distinction between societies that engender a free people who respect the environment and those that don't is that societies that are most abusive have abandoned their religious traditions and those that are most free, prosperous and respect the environment are the more religious societies (and, dare I say... mostly Christian).

My emphasis in italics and underlined. You made this claim. Where is the evidence for it?

Edited October 29, 2013 by Leonardo

[Almagest]

Is stripping power from the corrupt politicians also to be viewed as a good idea?

Yup, but we supposedly have methods to do that already - elections and constitutions for example.

[Labyrinthus]

I supplied evidence in post #124, or didn't you read that?

That post was merely narrowing the definition of "secular. And I accepted that. Remember? It is not really evidence - just a narrowing of the definition that your evidence comports with.

The claim in dispute that you made was, "societies which embrace the most equality and protect the most freedoms are based on secular philosophies".

I read your replies and I noticed that you had left out the most egregiously oppressive and abusive nations in the world and then as I thought about it I noticed that there were secular nations on both sides of the equation and so secular-ness was not a meaningful, driving factor in the observed phenomenon of oppression and abuse. In fact, the MOST horrendously oppressive, murderous, abusive, etc. were notoriously intolerant atheists and were more recognizably set apart from the more Freedom and respect type arenas were nations that were either mostly Christian or at least founded on a cultural base of Christian practice. They are all secular so secularity is not the defining difference between the difference in behavior.

The most readily notable difference is the fact that the most egregiously abusive nations had abandoned their religious heritage while the most free nations still embraced Christian tradition and principles. I ought to expand that to Judeo-Christian since Israel is shining beacon of Freedom in an otherwise oppressive hell hole of abusive nations.

The evidence you asked for was whether secular nations/societies "granted greater degrees of freedoms and protected rights better than non-secular nations/societies". So I evidenced my claim. I don't deny some individual secular nations might have worse rights/freedoms records than some non-secular nations - but the worst secular nations still have better rights/freedom records than the worst non-secular nations. And this is the crux of the point I made, secularism drives towards greater freedoms, protecting of rights and equality.

I do not think your bolded claim is a given. Especially if you use the absurd quasi-religious personality cult smokescreen to erroneously eliminate the facts that make the error of your claim plainly obvious. Even in more modern times, look at what happened to Grozny when Russia wanted to "teach them a lesson". Putin moved in artillery and literally POUNDED an entire city to rubble. Just because the media failed to cover it and the UN ignored it does not mean it didn't happen.Satellite photos are readily available at last check. And China is a joke. They are now forcing millions of rural citizens to relocate against their will to giant prefab cities and they steamroll anyone who gets in the way (I mean that literally. They lay them down on the road and run over them with steamrollers - WARNING - very disturbing photos pop up if you google this).

My emphasis in italics and underlined. You made this claim. Where is the evidence for it?

I have stated the evidence on that from the beginning. I restated it upon request. This post here is at least the third time I have replied with the evidence. Enough already.

[+Sherapy]

That post was merely narrowing the definition of "secular. And I accepted that. Remember? It is not really evidence - just a narrowing of the definition that your evidence comports with.

The claim in dispute that you made was, "societies which embrace the most equality and protect the most freedoms are based on secular philosophies".

I read your replies and I noticed that you had left out the most egregiously oppressive and abusive nations in the world and then as I thought about it I noticed that there were secular nations on both sides of the equation and so secular-ness was not a meaningful, driving factor in the observed phenomenon of oppression and abuse. In fact, the MOST horrendously oppressive, murderous, abusive, etc. were notoriously intolerant atheists and were more recognizably set apart from the more Freedom and respect type arenas were nations that were either mostly Christian or at least founded on a cultural base of Christian practice. They are all secular so secularity is not the defining difference between the difference in behavior.

The most readily notable difference is the fact that the most egregiously abusive nations had abandoned their religious heritage while the most free nations still embraced Christian tradition and principles. I ought to expand that to Judeo-Christian since Israel is shining beacon of Freedom in an otherwise oppressive hell hole of abusive nations.

I do not think your bolded claim is a given. Especially if you use the absurd quasi-religious personality cult smokescreen to erroneously eliminate the facts that make the error of your claim plainly obvious. Even in more modern times, look at what happened to Grozny when Russia wanted to "teach them a lesson". Putin moved in artillery and literally POUNDED an entire city to rubble. Just because the media failed to cover it and the UN ignored it does not mean it didn't happen.Satellite photos are readily available at last check. And China is a joke. They are now forcing millions of rural citizens to relocate against their will to giant prefab cities and they steamroll anyone who gets in the way (I mean that literally. They lay them down on the road and run over them with steamrollers - WARNING - very disturbing photos pop up if you google this).

I have stated the evidence on that from the beginning. I restated it upon request. This post here is at least the third time I have replied with the evidence. Enough already.

I do think you make a point about Leo's claim democracy is one such exception where religion and non religion co -exist as one (successfully) and it is not clear as to how he is going to achieve stasis for the forward movement of this argument. Perhaps he is going to use democracy as his ace in the hole,(he certainly could) none the less, it is his responsibility to do so.

https://owl.english....resource/736/1/

I want to add for you your counter is not the strongest (IMO) simply because it can be argued that during Lenin's rise to power after the Great War, part of the inception of Communism it included the banning of all Religious expressions. So it can be argued (strongly) that the problem in these types of cases is communist rule, not religion.

With all that being said I think you are wise when you say 'enough already,' this debate has reached its end.

Welcome to UM.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Sherapy

[Leonardo]

That post was merely narrowing the definition of "secular. And I accepted that. Remember? It is not really evidence - just a narrowing of the definition that your evidence comports with.

I am referring to the links I provided to outside sources indicating which nations have the highest development, and human rights indexes. You are the only person arguing the definition of secular, no-one else is.

I have stated the evidence on that from the beginning. I restated it upon request. This post here is at least the third time I have replied with the evidence. Enough already.

Your opinion is not evidence. Facts (i.e statistics) supporting your claim would be. Where are those facts?

Edited October 29, 2013 by Leonardo

[Labyrinthus]

I am referring to the links I provided to outside sources indicating which nations have the highest development, and human rights indexes. You are the only person arguing the definition of secular, no-one else is.

Those facts are all well and good. They are also insufficient to justify your claim nor are they in any way compelling -- for the reasons that I laid out (three times or more already). A litany of secular nations that are also scoring high on human rights is noteworthy but not conclusive. As I said correlation does not imply causation. My observations about Russia and China are sufficient to demonstrate that. If your argument depends on your ridiculous claim that Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were not secular and that modern secular Russia is not oppressive and brutal and environmentally destructive, then the debate is over, by virtue of your total disconnect with reality.

(And I am NOT arguing the definition of secular -- I openly conceded your point on this quite a while ago... gahd! what is with that?! -- but for some reason you can't seem to follow the content and direction of the discussion in any kind of linear fashion and you and others here keep repeatedly bringing it up despite the facts - I am merely replying that it is history no longer a meaningful part of any reply to me... get a grip.... ).

Your opinion is not evidence. Facts (i.e statistics) supporting your claim would be. Where are those facts?

My facts are that the most oppressive, brutal and environmentally abusive nations in modern history are secular. Q.E.D.

I have now repeated this at least 4 times four you. If you think obstinacy constitutes valid argumentation you are loony toons.

[+Sherapy]

Those facts are all well and good. They are also insufficient to justify your claim nor are they in any way compelling -- for the reasons that I laid out (three times or more already). A litany of secular nations that are also scoring high on human rights is noteworthy but not conclusive. As I said correlation does not imply causation. My observations about Russia and China are sufficient to demonstrate that. If your argument depends on your ridiculous claim that Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were not secular and that modern secular Russia is not oppressive and brutal and environmentally destructive, then the debate is over, by virtue of your total disconnect with reality.

(And I am NOT arguing the definition of secular -- I openly conceded your point on this quite a while ago... gahd! what is with that?! -- but for some reason you can't seem to follow the content and direction of the discussion in any kind of linear fashion and you and others here keep repeatedly bringing it up despite the facts - I am merely replying that it is history no longer a meaningful part of any reply to me... get a grip.... ).

My facts are that the most oppressive, brutal and environmentally abusive nations in modern history are secular. Q.E.D.

I have now repeated this at least 4 times four you. If you think obstinacy constitutes valid argumentation you are loony toons.

I would counter that Communism, fascism, dictatorships are the crux of the problem, and play a large part in the abuse of nations. The type of rule a government espouses, not the religion. Germany,(Hitler/Dictatorship) Russia (Lenin/Communism) ruled with total control which included religious beliefs.

[Almagest]

My facts are that the most oppressive, brutal and environmentally abusive nations in modern history are secular. Q.E.D.

I have now repeated this at least 4 times four you. If you think obstinacy constitutes valid argumentation you are loony toons.

Modern history? Now now, are you sure you know when the modern era starts? What about the Ancien Regime? Oliver Cromwell? Trans-atlantic slave trade? European Genocide in the New World? European Wars of Religion? Napoleon? American Genocide of the Native Americans(and a little idea called Manifest Destiny)? Armenian Genocide? Imperial Japan(where the Emperor was seen as a God)? You've got quite a narrow view of history if you're only looking at Russia after the Communists, and not under the Tsars, who for centuries enforced a feudal system and ruled by Divine Right of Kings. All that really changed was the names of the organisations and titles. The Orthodox Church was replaced by the Communist Party, and the Tsar was replaced with the General Secretary, and the Okhrana became the NKVD.

Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were not secular in the same way that the UK and US are. They relied on a suppression of any ideas contrary to their leaders preferred strain of Communism. They had poorly thought out plans for industrialization and collectivization, and they had no one to tell them otherwise because they had wiped out the dissenting views in purges. I think the defining feature of both communism and fascism is a lack of democracy, accountability and freedom of expression. Any state with those elements will trend towards abuses of it's population.

[Leonardo]

Those facts are all well and good. They are also insufficient to justify your claim nor are they in any way compelling -- for the reasons that I laid out (three times or more already). A litany of secular nations that are also scoring high on human rights is noteworthy but not conclusive. As I said correlation does not imply causation. My observations about Russia and China are sufficient to demonstrate that. If your argument depends on your ridiculous claim that Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were not secular and that modern secular Russia is not oppressive and brutal and environmentally destructive, then the debate is over, by virtue of your total disconnect with reality.

(And I am NOT arguing the definition of secular -- I openly conceded your point on this quite a while ago... gahd! what is with that?! -- but for some reason you can't seem to follow the content and direction of the discussion in any kind of linear fashion and you and others here keep repeatedly bringing it up despite the facts - I am merely replying that it is history no longer a meaningful part of any reply to me... get a grip.... ).

My facts are that the most oppressive, brutal and environmentally abusive nations in modern history are secular. Q.E.D.

I have now repeated this at least 4 times four you. If you think obstinacy constitutes valid argumentation you are loony toons.

You argue correlation does not equal causation, and then you repeat your claim the "most oppressive, brutal and environmentally abusive nations in modern history are secular". If correlation does not equal causation with respect the statistics which show the most developed nations with the best human rights index scores are secular, how can any figures (which you have STILL not produced) showing the "most oppressive, brutal and environmentally abusive nations in modern history are secular" imply a causation?

If you think obstinacy constitutes valid argumentation you are loony toons.

The only reason this line of debate is repititious is because you have STILL not produced the evidence (figures) to show the "most oppressive, brutal and environmentally abusive nations in modern history are secular." Produce those figures - the evidence - and we can move on.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Leonardo

[Labyrinthus]

I would counter that Communism, fascism, dictatorships are the crux of the problem, and play a large part in the abuse of nations. The type of rule a government espouses, not the religion. Germany,(Hitler/Dictatorship) Russia (Lenin/Communism) ruled with total control which included religious beliefs.

This is a valid observation and consistent with reality.

Note that I did not mention just any religion. I narrowed it down to Christian and then adjusted to Judeo-Christian with further thought on the matter. I mean, just look at the freest most tolerant and environmentally respectful nations... essentially all stem from Judeo-Christian cultures. The absolutely worst, most horrendous were those that abandoned and even persecuted Judeo-Christian culture.

At any rate is is clear that any initial suggestion that secularism is correlated to freedom/tolerance, etc. is bogus. Facts and figures are unnecessary to refute this suggestion when we can readily recognize that some of the largest, most in your face, secular nations in the world are the worst offenders. Based on simple observation (by those well grounded in reality) this is sufficient to refute the initial claim.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Labyrinthus