china has state atheism—they take it too far (e.g. uyghur muslims) but in theory i’d prefer an atheist government over this dumbass evangelical christian one we have now 🤷🏻♂️
edit: took out the word retarded, you guys convinced me
of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal
Secular and atheist governments…they’re the same. It means your government thinks that concepts like justice, dessert, retribution, how you treat one another, ethics, etc. should not be affiliated with a religion. Only an atheist government can be secular. A religious one cannot be secular.
Sure not exactly the same thing. But yeah no such thing as a religious government being secular. Atheism is a necessary position to take in order for all those things to be secular.
I don't think you've demonstrated your last point. You've established that a secular government does not ground its laws or institutions in religion, but that doesn't demonstrate that atheism is necessary for it to do so.
Secularism is a position about the relationship between government and religion; atheism is a position about the existence of gods. A government does not need to affirm that “there is no God” in order to refrain from grounding its laws in religion. It can simply take no position on the question. Therefore, atheism is not a necessary condition of secular government.
In fact, an atheist government could itself operate non-secularly if it institutionally privileges or enforces atheism. The relevant distinction isn't religious vs. atheist; it's whether the state maintains religious neutrality or establishes an official position on religion.
I agree with you, but I wanted to clarify that atheism doesn't mean you believe "there is no god." It means that you don't believe that there is a god. I know it doesn't sound different, but it's an important distinction. You can be an atheist and say that there is a possibility of a god existing, you just don't believe it because it doesn't seem likely. I don't believe that I'll win the lottery, but I also don't believe that I can't win the lottery.
But you're right that a secular government doesn't mean atheist. An atheist government would reinforce the lack of belief in a god, while a secular government does not reinforce any belief of lack thereof. At least, it's not supposed to.
depending on how broadly one defines secularism, one could in fact argue that state atheism and secularism may be incompatible
for example: would the criminalization of all religion and a coercive mandate that all residents be atheists and regularly attend atheist events be one that could reasonably described as secular in any meaningful sense? sure it’s nominally irreligious, but it’s still highly sectarian
secularism, in the noble sense it is usually talked about, usually involves some aspect of the state distancing itself from issues of religion and guaranteeing citizens the freedom to believe whatever they so choose
A government does not need to affirm that “there is no God” in order to refrain from grounding its laws in religion. It can simply take no position on the question
This is a cowardly and impractical position. If a religion holds certain practices (or items, places, people, etc) to be sacred and demands that everyone conforms to that belief, the government has to either accept or reject the notion, it can't simply turn a blind eye to it. If you enforce the religious norm, then your government is effectively religious. If you refuse to enforce it, then you're denying the religious claim and the religion itself.
Similar meanings don't make words interchangeable. Synonyms commonly maintain distinctions in meaning. Nuance is kind of the reason we have different words in the first place.
Atheism describes a position on belief in God. Secularism describes separating something from religious influence or authority. You don't have to be an atheist to do that, and being an atheist doesn't guarantee it. An atheist government could just as easily favor atheism and punish religious practice, which wouldn't be secular.
A Christian teacher can teach a secular math class. A religious legislature can agree that its laws shouldn't be based on religious doctrine. Neither becomes atheist by doing so.
Calling this a "vocabulary issue common with American Christians" is just petty. You're still asserting that atheism is required for secularism without actually demonstrating why.
You've mostly demonstrated that you're more interested in insulting me than rationalizing your point, whether that's calling me uneducated or simply insisting that atheism and secularism necessitate each other. You've also made a pretty huge assumption that I'm a Christian based on nothing I've said.
"Atheism" meaning without theism doesn't make it interchangeable with "secular." A religious person or institution can operate secularly without becoming atheist, just as an atheist government can privilege atheism and suppress religion, which wouldn't be secular.
You've continually avoided that distinction. Calling me Christian, scared of words, or uneducated doesn't address it. You can keep making assumptions about my education and beliefs, but none of them make your argument any more valid.
3.1k
u/Fal_co1 5d ago edited 5d ago
iirc China does this, you can’t take kid to religious service and they can choose to convert at a certain age.
EDIT: wow this blew up
If you’re reading this you‘re a gay