Atheism isn't cause - secularism is! Discuss!

[Rum]

Reading up about Madalyn O'Hair led me to looking at the 'formal' atheist movement a bit earlier on. Her successor talks about 'organising' atheists as a force etc.

I think this is misguided. As we have often discussed here, atheism is the absence of something and does not therefore make a natural rallying point for ideology or even values as such.

Secularism on the other hand is about making sure church and state (or religion and state) are kept separate as a general rule. This *is* a 'cause and does provide a rallying call. What is more it is actually possible to be religious and take a secularist viewpoint.

What do you think?

[Cormac]

Secularism is the cause, as far as I am concerned. This is because atheism itself has nothing to say about how society should best be organised. Secularism, on the other hand, has a lot to say. It is also something open to a much wider section of society than atheism is - so it has a better chance of becoming a mainstream political agenda. (Which is has in most Western democracies).

So - secularism for the politics,
Atheism for the peace of mind and the lulz.

[JimC]

Secularism is our Poland...

Eliminating religion is our remainder of Europe...

[Cormac]

Secularism is our Poland...

Eliminating religion is our remainder of Europe...

Hmmm. Not sure we should include that as part of our promotional material...

I can here the "I told you so" chorus already.



(But everyone needs some living room).

[JimC]

Secularism is our Poland...

Eliminating religion is our remainder of Europe...

Hmmm. Not sure we should include that as part of our promotional material...

I can here the "I told you so" chorus already.



(But everyone needs some living room).

The Vatican will be our last territorial demand in Europe...

Cameron can be the new Chamberlain...

But seriously, yes, secularism is a vital principle, one that many sensible religious people will agree with...

(mind you, I am a fucking hypocrite, teaching as I do at a catholic school in Oz that receives a certain anmount of government money... Mea culpa...)

[Cormac]

Secularism is our Poland...

Eliminating religion is our remainder of Europe...

Hmmm. Not sure we should include that as part of our promotional material...

I can here the "I told you so" chorus already.



(But everyone needs some living room).

The Vatican will be our last territorial demand in Europe...

Cameron can be the new Chamberlain...

But seriously, yes, secularism is a vital principle, one that many sensible religious people will agree with...

(mind you, I am a fucking hypocrite, teaching as I do at a catholic school in Oz that receives a certain anmount of government money... Mea culpa...)

6 Hail Marys, 10 Glory Bes, and 5 Our Fathers for you, my penitent son.

Also - see you in the vestry after, so you can suck me off help me prepare for this evening's novena...

[Atheist-Lite]

Secularism is weak. It relies upon economic propserity to succeed. Prosperity isn't always sustainable given the fluctuating realities of this physical world we inhabit. A stronger idealism is required which like a successful religion is robust over historic time. Otherwise the good idea behind this idea will vanish as soon as Rum stops plugging it.

[Feck]

It's hard enough explaining to christians that atheism is not Atheism nor is it a belief or religion without making out it is a unified Cause .

And let's face it We on rationalia have been told before were are letting the cause down and we are not 'on mission' so we would probably not be invited to the conference at all never mind into any of the meetings that decide what the manifesto should say .

[Rum]

There should be no 'manifesto' for atheism, no collective noun, no 'special' grouping or recognition of atheists as having a common identity in my view. Such an approach shuns groups who create identities around belief systems - which atheism is not.

Secularism on the other hand is inclusive and suggests that all are welcome to participate in what we need to do collectively, but that people should not insist on bringing their religious baggage with them.

[Tero]

Semantics. Atheists, secularists. We are all going to hell. Just whose hell? Time will show, Christian or Muslim.

[Feck]

Speak for yourself Tero I'm coming back as a dog if i've been good and as a mouse or a pigeon if I've been bad .

[Atheist-Lite]

The danger with secularism is that it doesn't have a inherent answer to the ideological extremes which happen whenever times get tough. Rather than ignoring religion we should be examining how it emerged from Fascist Europe virtually unscathed and adopt/adapt the strategies which worked...?

[Cormac]

Secularism is weak. It relies upon economic propserity to succeed. Prosperity isn't always sustainable given the fluctuating realities of this physical world we inhabit. A stronger idealism is required which like a successful religion is robust over historic time. Otherwise the good idea behind this idea will vanish as soon as Rum stops plugging it.

I don't think so. If well articulated, it could be MORE unifying than a religion. On the basis of "This is all there is, and we're all in it together".

[Cormac]

Speak for yourself Tero I'm coming back as a dog if i've been good and as a mouse or a pigeon if I've been bad .

So if you ever enter my garden, you'll either be eaten by the feral cat who hangs around, or by me. (I won't reveal which of us would each which of your possible familiars).

[Atheist-Lite]

Secularism is weak. It relies upon economic propserity to succeed. Prosperity isn't always sustainable given the fluctuating realities of this physical world we inhabit. A stronger idealism is required which like a successful religion is robust over historic time. Otherwise the good idea behind this idea will vanish as soon as Rum stops plugging it.

I don't think so. If well articulated, it could be MORE unifying than a religion. On the basis of "This is all there is, and we're all in it together".

In times of austerity when there's only so much to go around, would that work as well as a 'us & them' policy?