I said:
I was under the impression that an originating ideal of secularism was freedom from oppression by religion - which, if construed rightly to any degree, implies an ethical dimension to the concept of secularism itself.
My question, I guess, is asking what secularism delivers that is ethically superior to religion - especially as religions usually have an in-built ethical model (whether agreed with or not), whereas secularism seems to struggle to deal with ethics, especially with regards to individual rights over the rights of society.
I guess I never got that myself, Brian. I always just assumed that a secular society just stood back and trusted that each individual's ethical standards from their personal belief system would blend enough that the society as a whole would be an ethical one. The assumption was there, I suppose, that most systems of religion - or at least the stereotypical Judeo-Christian tradition, which was all that were acknowledged officially for a very long time in the US - have similar enough ethical systems that there would be no serious conflicts. You know...murder isn't good, stealing isn't good, fooling around with one's neighbor's spouse isn't good...the usual list.
I suppose that if I had to assign an ethical stand to a secular society that I would consider superior to a religiously determined ethic, it is that a secular society does not force a particular religion, or any religion at all, on its citizens. My own personal feeling is that this is superior because religion is a matter of conscience and I believe it is wrong to force someone to profess a religious belief or set of beliefs that they do not, in good conscience, hold. This, of course, has been the rule in many times and places in world history, and still is the way it is today in some places. The populace is expected as a matter of course to adopt the beliefs of the leaders.
The truth is, we haven't actually reached the secular ideal in US society yet. It is a fact of political life that it is almost impossible for someone not professiong to follow a religion to be elected to office here, especially at the state or national level. It isn't that anyone goes around checking to make sure all the politicians go to church, or synagogue, or mosque, or wherever on their traditional day of worship. But if there is no profession of some kind of faith in God, they are not very likely to be elected.
As an illustration of that principle and its nearly universal acceptance, after former President Reagan died a number of people in the media noted that his younger son, Ron, Jr., was as articulate as his father and that he conducted himself with a great deal of grace and dignity during the period after his father's death, including when he spoke at the funeral. Some suggested to him that he should think about running for office himself. In at least one interview I saw, he just laughed at the suggestion and said something to the effect that, "I'd never be elected. I'm an atheist." And the fact is, he is right.
The thing that has to be said, too, is that there is a funny thing about that "freedom of worship" thing in relation to the founding of the colonies in what is now the United States. Lunamoth said:
Lunamoth said:
I'm under the impression that the secular government here in the US was founded with the idea of freedom of worship, which in a way is related to freedom from oppression by religion. Many fled to America from Europe to escape oppression by the dominant religion so they would be able to worship in their own way, not necessarily so that they could be free of all religion.
A good number of those folks who fled Europe so that they could have the freedom to worship as they chose proceeded to establish their own way of worship once they got here (different rules in different colonies, but the effect was the same in most of them), and there was a considerable amount of persecution of those who wished to worship differently from what they had established. On occasion, dissenters were banished from these colonies, not an inconsiderable hardship in what was mostly wilderness at the time and where the native inhabitants were not necessarily always friendly to the colonists (for understandable reasons, I might add).
Massachusetts was especially active in kicking out dissenters, including a man named Roger Williams, who was banished for -among other things - advocating the separation of church and state, and Anne Hutchinson, who just didn't interpret the Bible in the same way as the religious leaders of the colony and wasn't shy in saying so. Roger Williams went on to found Rhode Island. Anne Hutchinson came to a rather more violent end. And it wasn't just a colonial thing. One state - I think it was Connecticut, but I'm not sure, as it has been a long time since I took US history - still had an established church well after the founding of the United States.
Anyway, after this whole long ramble, Brian, I'm not sure if I answered your question or addressed your concerns about what I said about secular versus religious cultures and ethics. Sorry. This is all I have right now.
![Smile :) :)]()