Rocag said:

---

Statistically speaking, just about all of our elected officials have been Christians who thought they were legislating in line with Christian values. So that accusation rings hollow from my perspective. But you added in the part about "favoring Christianity" which is where we disagree.

Why should we grant special rights and privileges to Christians and Christianity while denying them to all others? How is that not, by definition, oppression?

---

Rocag said:

---

I'm not asking for special rights and privileges for secularists. Secularism is basically just the political stance that the government should not favor any religion over another. It is not a religion in of itself.

Again, you are stitching non-related beliefs onto what you think is secularism. Secularism has no stance on gay marriage or adoption by gay couples. Yes, support for secularism and support for LGBT rights are often correlated but they are still separate issues.

---

Rocag said:

---

I'm not asking for special rights and privileges for secularists. Secularism is basically just the political stance that the government should not favor any religion over another. It is not a religion in of itself.

Again, you are stitching non-related beliefs onto what you think is secularism. Secularism has no stance on gay marriage or adoption by gay couples. Yes, support for secularism and support for LGBT rights are often correlated but they are still separate issues.

---

Rocag said:

---

Secularism isn't a world-view or a religion. It is specifically concerned with the relationship between religion and government. You can support secularism and be a Christian. You can support secularism and be against gay rights. None of those things are contradictory. Secularism is not just shorthand for secular humanism either.

It's similar to the idea that theism isn't a religion or a worldview. A key component of many worldviews and religions, certainly. But in of itself saying someone is a theist tells you very little about what they actually believe.

My core assertion is that the state should attempt to treat all religious beliefs in as consistent and fair manner as possible, not favoring one over another. It may not be possible to perfectly adhere to this standard, but that doesn't mean it should be abandoned.

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I'm not asking for special rights and privileges for secularists. Secularism is basically just the political stance that the government should not favor any religion over another. It is not a religion in of itself.

Again, you are stitching non-related beliefs onto what you think is secularism. Secularism has no stance on gay marriage or adoption by gay couples. Yes, support for secularism and support for LGBT rights are often correlated but they are still separate issues.

---

Yes it does. It's stance is that they ought to be permitted. Christianity's stance is that it's harmful to society.

---

AGC said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Secularism isn't a world-view or a religion. It is specifically concerned with the relationship between religion and government. You can support secularism and be a Christian. You can support secularism and be against gay rights. None of those things are contradictory. Secularism is not just shorthand for secular humanism either.

It's similar to the idea that theism isn't a religion or a worldview. A key component of many worldviews and religions, certainly. But in of itself saying someone is a theist tells you very little about what they actually believe.

My core assertion is that the state should attempt to treat all religious beliefs in as consistent and fair manner as possible, not favoring one over another. It may not be possible to perfectly adhere to this standard, but that doesn't mean it should be abandoned.

---

It is 100% a worldview (worldview is not restricted to religion). Your beliefs are privileged, mine are not. Fair treatment means second class treatment as free exercise of belief is prohibited (outside select spaces and times) to all but those with your same worldview or no religion, in particular.

---

Quote:

---

From a civil perspective, stealing isn't illegal because it is a moral wrong. I do disagree with you on that. It's illegal because it violates another person's property rights which the state has decided is a principal worth defending. Not all laws are based on morality, I'd even argue most of them aren't. The purpose of government is not to enforce morality, that's just not why our societies create them. They exist to enforce order and create civil stability.

---

Rocag said:

---

So should I take that post to mean that you see no practical benefit to society in protecting property rights? No reason to do so other than the moral argument? Because I've got to say that I think the consequences of not doing so would be detrimental to the goal of producing a peaceful and stable society.

And why would I want a peaceful and stable society? Well I don't know about you but I personally like not being murdered or killed in a revolution and would like to continue with that. Maybe that's just me.

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I'm not asking for special rights and privileges for secularists. Secularism is basically just the political stance that the government should not favor any religion over another. It is not a religion in of itself.

Again, you are stitching non-related beliefs onto what you think is secularism. Secularism has no stance on gay marriage or adoption by gay couples. Yes, support for secularism and support for LGBT rights are often correlated but they are still separate issues.

---

Yes it does. It's stance is that they ought to be permitted. Christianity's stance is that it's harmful to society.

---

Secularism holds that Christianity (or any other religion) shouldn't be making those decisions for society. It doesn't say what the final decision will be.

---

Rocag said:

---

If you're going to question the meaning of basic words and phrases why don't you just go ahead and define them yourself since I'm sure you're wanting to use them in an atypical way.

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I'm not asking for special rights and privileges for secularists. Secularism is basically just the political stance that the government should not favor any religion over another. It is not a religion in of itself.

Again, you are stitching non-related beliefs onto what you think is secularism. Secularism has no stance on gay marriage or adoption by gay couples. Yes, support for secularism and support for LGBT rights are often correlated but they are still separate issues.

---

Yes it does. It's stance is that they ought to be permitted. Christianity's stance is that it's harmful to society.

---

Secularism holds that Christianity (or any other religion) shouldn't be making those decisions for society. It doesn't say what the final decision will be.

---

Secularism holds that society shouldn't be allowed to make those decisions for themselves provided their decision is in opposition to secular ideals. In 2008 California voted to codify a definition of marriage that would have aligned with the Christian definition. The courts decided to force a completely novel definition of marriage, which aligned with secularist ideals, onto society anyway.

The way you're framing the argument, anthropomorphizing Christianity and turning him into a dictator, is a distortion of the truth.

---

It's always fun to see when people believe in majoritarian rule and when they believe in equal rights for all. Funny how it often aligns with when Christian positions are in the majority or not.

---

Rocag said:

---

You're missing huge chunks of my argument here. I am not describing things as right versus wrong because I don't accept that those terms are objectively meaningful in any way. If it's all subjective then we're just arguing about my definition of right and wrong versus yours. But describing something in terms of legal versus not legal does have clear meaning we are more likely to agree on.

America is an existing country with a defined Constitution and laws. At no point am I implying that the way things are is the way they had to be. The country could have turned out radically different or simply collapsed and been replaced by something else, but that's not the world we currently live in. So yes, discussing things in terms of that existing framework is both valid and useful.

I very clearly explained my preference for stability and order was a personal preference not necessarily shared by everyone else. However, I will say it's a pretty common one. Again and again I've made the point that people (or humans, if you prefer to phrase it that way) all have different wants and needs that often conflict. The formation of any stable society or government requires some way of managing those conflicts. Which isn't to say there is some inherent obligation to form societies or governments, just an observation that humans tend to do so. So again, the argument isn't that things must be some certain way but that "If you want X result, you need Y and Z". Is peace objectively better than chaos and war? Not the term I'd use. Do conflicts have to be resolved? No, but to achieve some goals they need to be.

---

Rocag said:

---

I'd call it wrong, but have no expectation that your standards for right and wrong match mine. That's just opinion. There's always some kick back from that type of answer. People tend to not like the consequences of there not being an objective standard for right and wrong. But not liking the consequences doesn't make one actually existing any more likely.

---

The Banned said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I'd call it wrong, but have no expectation that your standards for right and wrong match mine. That's just opinion. There's always some kick back from that type of answer. People tend to not like the consequences of there not being an objective standard for right and wrong. But not liking the consequences doesn't make one actually existing any more likely.

---

I really find this mindset interesting. Are you one of the folks who thinks that if we rid ourselves of a true objective morality that people would continue to choose to do what we currently consider good over what we consider bad more times than not? And as such, civilization would continue to flourish?

---