BS: secular vs. non-secular

Subject: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: GUEST,samsonite
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 12:31 AM

I am a student, writing a report and someone I know said that I might be able to get an answer to a question from the good folks at Mudcat. I have to analyze the difference between a secular and non secular society and am having trouble finding information. I have to use real examples in the world today. Can anyone shed some light?

Thank You,

Samsonite

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 04:36 AM

Hi, Sam -
It's hard to discuss the matter too deeply until we agree on a definition of "secular society" and non-secular society."

I guess you could say that a non-secular or religious society is one where the primary authority is religious. Now that the Taliban no longer rule in Afghanistan, I suppose the best-known non-secular nation is Iran, where religious leaders have authority over the government. Other Islamic nations are also non-secular, but perhaps to a lesser degree. In Saudi Arabia and some other Arab countries, criminal law and punishment is dictated by religious belief. For example, thieves are sometimes punished by amputation of a hand. In other nations, Ireland and Israel for example, there is a primary religion that exercises strong influence on goverment at times - but the goverment is not actually directed by the religious groups. Other countries have official religions - Orthodox Christians in Greece and Russia, for example - but the religions and the governments don't always control one another.

The U.S., Canada, Western Europe, and most other nations are secular societies. Most tolerate religion and may have one religious group that is predominant, but there are no official ties between religion and government.

I hope that gives you a start - but you need to get a firm definition of terms or you might end up barking up the wrong tree.

Good luck.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 07:58 AM

Woof.

Good answer, Joe.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 09:07 AM

How about Vatican City? It's a non-secular state existing within the boundaries of Italy and ruled by the Pope. A large number of the inhabitants are priests, nuns, and other religious folks.

OFFICIALLY, England is ruled by the head of the Anglican Church, the Queen (or King). But I wouldn't classify it as non-secular.

Japan, likewise, is ruled by the Emperor, who is the head of the church and is traditionaly considered divine. Again, I wouldn't say it's not a secular society.

Traditional Tibet? The Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, like the Roman Emperors, were considered gods, but were they secular societies or not?

China today is officially atheist, as was the old Soviet Union. Can a society be so militantly atheistic that it moves from secular to non-secular -- that it makes atheism its religion, so to speak?

The US is officially secular, except for the current president....

I don't think that your answer can be as clear-cut as you'd like it to be.

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 09:08 AM

An interesting study can be made of this in Thailand which is unusual among nations in that it has not had a religion forced down its throat through conquest, and has always been Buddhist. Although it is certainly non-secular, in the sense that the government is not based on religious doctrine, it is a nation where an air of spirituality, not religiosity, permeates the daily existence, and informs ordinary behavior to a much higher degree than in the U.S. IMHO.

Another interesting example of study is Malaysia, which is rich with secular trappings but from a number of different religions simultaneously -- Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc. -- all practiced with energy and tolerance.

I don't know of any problems wither of these countries have with religious extremism. They are both highly tolerant environments.

Neither one is officially non-secular, but both are better balanced than AFganistan or Iran on what is actually a spectrum, I suppose.

A

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Pied Piper
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 09:10 AM

"In God we trust"
No connection to religion?
PP

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 09:13 AM

come to Australia, a secular state, or time travel to Iraq, previously run as a relatively secular state prior to the invasion (wars make people find religion).

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Pied Piper
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 09:20 AM

http://www.derechos.org/news/archives/cat_thailand.html
it is a nation where an air of spirituality, not religiosity, permeates the daily existence

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Bert
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 09:22 AM

You're right PP.

And what about a country that is so dominated by one religion that one can't buy a bottle of wine on a Sunday?

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 09:38 AM

Hey, you badmouthin' Utah?

Oh, wait, that's not a nation....

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 09:46 AM

living in a secular country..

politicians don't go on about God in their attempt to win votes.

people have a naturally sceptical approach to authority of any sort.

there's not a huge lot of hue n cry about public standards of morality.

the press generally respect public figures'rights to privacy regarding their "private" lives.

the population is not particularly sentimental.

and religion is regarded as a personal matter.

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Bert
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 09:59 AM

This is Pennsylvania Rapaire, which is in that great country The United States of America.

I'll be glad when religious busy bodies keep their ideas from interfering with my freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 10:39 AM

Joe, defining 'society' is also needed...or not. Never ask for a definition when a chance to be creative might get squished. There are also societies within countries. The Amish are non-secular. We have some around this place who might answer questions on specifics. Native American (Indian) reservations withing the US have their own system of government. I don't know how much religion is involved in that government, but I know that Shamans, medicine men, etc, are respected and consulted by leaders. Other self-governed indiginous peoples may qualify. They may provide a kinder, gentler type of secularism (if they actually fit the definition of 'secularism', and I'm not sure about that) compared to Iranian fundamentalists.

You gotta figure that if everyone in your class has the same assignment, most of them will talk about Muslim fundamentalists vs. western democracy. As a result, the differences may be a lot more extreme than they would be with less extreme secularism. It's easy to find differences, everybody can do it (and will), and they'll be fairly general and impersonal. If you dig deeper, you may wind up with a far more interesting report, both for you and for your teacher. Good luck, and enjoy!

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 11:03 AM

Much of that "under god" stuff was pushed through at various times in the twentieth century by zealots in the house and senate. The Pledge of Allegiance is a good example. It was written something over 100 years ago as a publicity stunt and the words "under god" weren't there until 50 years ago. There was an anniversary lately. It has never been put to any meaningful vote or referendum before it was adopted or edited. I am always careful to omit "under god" on the few occasions I can actually be persuaded to stand up with a group of people and have to appear to mouth the thing. I consider the whole pledge an imposition, frankly, and the references to the god of the dominant political parties an affront.

Here and here are a couple of links to some history of it.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 11:31 AM

My take on the "In God We Trust" business on the money... Capitalism is our civil religion (here in the US), and Money, our God. So it doesn't surprise me that we put religious symbolism on our money.

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Bert
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 11:50 AM

The question is "Is it OK when we do it, but wrong when someone else does?".

'It' being the government forcing their particular religious beliefs on others.

I don't see a great deal of difference in principle of forcing liquor stores in Pennsylvania to close on Sunday or forcing women in Teheran to wear a chadur. Of course we are civilized and they are just Camel Herders.

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 12:25 PM

Ha! I agree with SRS. What bugs me about the pledge of allegiance is not so much the "Under God" as the fact that I am pledging allegiance to a flag, which in MY religion comes close to idolatry.

I don't think you'll find a purely secular society. Possibly the closest are the communist countries. I don't think they replace their religions with atheism so much as they replace them with internationalist communism itself.

States like the United States are not secular per se. They are carefully non-denominational. It is the non-denominational aspect that I think is being threatened now by the "religious right" (if you want to call it that). We are a country that tries to respect freedom of religion, which means we ideally keep religion out of government. But we are also a "society" more broadly speaking, that is predominantly of one religous group (Christian and within that, Protestant), with minorities of other religious groups. Self-described atheists are a rarity.

In practice, this means ridiculous blue laws like Bert describes here in Pennsylvania, where you can't buy wine or liquor on a Sunday. This discriminates, for exaple, against observant Jews, for the following reason: if a practicing Christian wine merchant wants to observe the sabbath, he can do so with no penalty--his customers couldn't buy booze then anyway. But if a Jewish merchant wants to observe the Sabbath, he must close on Saturday, and his customers then can go to other stores. He ALSO has to close on Sunday, by law.

Why Sunday? This law can only be interpreted as religiously motivated. And we mention God on our money. And our attorney general prays in his office and anoints himself with oil. So we're not as secular as we might look.

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 12:51 PM

Of course we are civilized and they are just Camel Herders.

Well, we herd SUVs and Geos and such...

A

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 01:05 PM

During the 1950's as McCarthyism was burning its evil path across this country, our leaders, in a misguided attempt to declare their "anti-communist" nature, amended the pledge of allegiance to add "under God" after "indivisible". In doing so, they succeeded in finding the one thing guarenteed to divide the nation. I wish they would change it back.

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 01:09 PM

Isn't Under God BEFORE Indivisible? They didn't make us recite that thing in my school, thank Goodness ("Goodness" in this case is of course just a secularist euphemism for God--how could one thank an abstract concept?)

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Bert
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 01:15 PM

Amos, in our SUVs and Geos we ARE the herd.

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 01:41 PM

secular: of or concerned with temporal worldly matters rather than religion; not belonging to a religious order; not under the control of a religious body.

secularism: the belief that religious influence should be restricted, and in particular that education, morality, the state, etc. should be independent of religion.

Those definitions were taken from Webster's Dictionary.

What is religious and what isn't, however, is a matter of opinion. I think CarolC's statement about Capitalism and Money was very apt. They are in truth the dominating religion and religious objects of present day American society (and much of the rest of the World). They are not normally thought of as a religion, but they command the sort of power, blind allegiance, and total faith that most religions only WISH they had! :-)

The main reason we have had a lot of historical attention on the secular/non-secular issue is that we have fairly recently emerged from a church-dominated society in Europe. The first cracks in that church-dominated society occured with the Protestant Reformation and the terrible religious wars that followed. Then the divine right of kings was challenged by republicanism in the form of the French Revolution and the American Revolutionary War and other such movements. Then the traditional churches themselves were challenged by the rise of communist and socialist movements (although all socialists are not necessarily anti-church). And so it goes.

My opinion is that all societies are deeply religious, but not necessarily in the sense that they are run by a "church" or an official religious order. Communists (like the Chinese) are religious about Communism...they imagine that their own set of rather bizarre ideas will in time result in the most perfectly organized and beneficent society. (Ha! I laugh.)

American capitalists are similarly deluded, but upon a somewhat different set of assumptions. Curiously enough, they and the Chinese are busy sharing the capitalist marketing pie with great gusto, despite the fact that the Chinese are supposedly Communist. (I laugh again.)

The real religion of both of them is Materialism. It is the pursuit of worldly wealth, power, and resources.

As such, it is essentially anti-spiritual in nature in both cases.

However, student, for the purposes of your essay you had best stick to the conventional definitions of secular and non-secular. For those, look to the Webster's definitions above and to Joe Offer's post.

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: GUEST,Samsonite
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 02:21 PM

Wow, Thank you all so very much for your responses!! My friend was right, there is incredible knowledge in the folks at Mud Cat. Thanks Again, I have some great ideas for my assignment now.

Samsonite

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 03:27 PM

Hey Samsonite, if you want to really bowl your teacher's over, tell them about this:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Christian Socialist

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 01:25 PM

"I think we've witnessed recently in the U.S. that a Secular Nation based on Captialism is fraught with corruption..."


                  It wasn't, so much, until Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and others brought religion into it!

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 01:36 PM

The problemis not secularity, but secularity without ethics.

Making ity an issue of religion is an exercise in futility--consider the ethical history of authoritarian religious groups over the years--Catholic priest scandals, devout preacher scandals, self-styled Christian poltiican scandals without number.

The optimum source of ethical thinking is the native intelligence and ability of the individual spirit, without authoritarian interference or arbitrary moralisms, to view consequences and balance the merits of courses of action across the many spheres of activity they impact. In other words, individual emnlightened thinking will go a whole lot further than any encysted moralistic code ruled by authoritarian interpreters. While this may ultimately be a "spiritual ability" it has nothing to do with non-secular versus secular concerns in the usual sense of the words.





A

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 01:40 PM

Ethicly both groups encounter the same ethical and historic problems.

The difference is in the huge pracical differences in the solutions they propose and on the lives of people living under the control of either group.

If a 14 year old gilr is raped by uncle Flem a secular society and government, they would impose a mandatory sacred birth of the child.

A secular society would consider the practical issues above the religious decrees and allow for the girl to have a choice.


The founding fathers of the US were hopeful they could avoid the religous based wars and Godly power struggles of Spain and England and France. George Washington wrote a famous letter where he voiced his disappointment that certain Christian groups could simply not leave the function of government alone and was creating more acrimony than was either rational or constructive in the day to day functioning of a new nation.


in short a nation is either for the people
or for the church to decide which people it is for.

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 04:14 PM

Turkey has tried to maintain a strong government, free of religion, but the strengthening of Islam means that there are demands for headscarf tolerance, and sharia law in family matters.
France is having problems satisfying an increasing Muslim minority, and there have been demands in UK and elsewhere for sharia law to be applied in Muslim family matters.
The trend, strengthened by political action, seems to be toward stronger religious influence in countries with one dominant religion, and in addition, allowance of religious practices that are variant to those of the majority.

Here in Canada, in Calgary at least, there is a division on vaccination between the public and separate (Catholic)schools, both taxpayer supported. Certain vaccination procedures will be followed by the public schools that will be forbidden in the separate schools. Depending on religion, one group has elected for protection, the other has gone against it.

In other words, religious groups try to push their beliefs, and secularists push back. These conflicts can lead to change in the nature of a society.

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 05:54 PM

?? Did something get deleted before Riggo's post? He's quoting something with no referent, 4 years later.

Subject: RE: BS: secular vs. non-secular
From: olddude
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 07:05 PM

Ok as a Pennsylvania boy originally myself lets get the closed on Sunday straight. It was not for religious purposes. It was the fact that most laborers worked 6 days a week and drank on Saturday when the law was passed more than a century ago. They wanted them to be home and sober ...with their kids and family for 1 day at least ... that was the initial argument at the time. Going to church is what people thought it was about ... and also fit into the thinking at the time. However it was to "sober up" from the Saturday night binge