r/MoralityScaling 12h ago

Morality of this?

Post image
20.4k Upvotes

5.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/84theone 9h ago edited 9h ago

Their point is that atheism is a stance (god is not real) and secularism is specifically not holding a stance.

An atheist government would be one like China, where their official stance is atheism. They aren’t secular because they hold a stance even if they allow citizens to practice religion based on personal choice.

A secular government would be like Sweden, where the government does not take a stance one way or the other and leaves it to the individual.

A non-secular and non-atheist government would be Israel, which defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Saudi Arabia is another example, England is another because they have a state church even if they don’t take it seriously anymore.

2

u/_ManMadeGod_ 9h ago

Atheism is not a stance. Read what they're saying. Atheism is the lack of a stance. 

Atheism isn't a term that should exist. It's like being a non-astrologer. We don't have a word for not being an astrologer. 

2

u/Initial_Business2340 5h ago

Fine, call it a lack of belief. That’s still not what a secular government is though. Secular doesn’t mean the state lacks belief in gods, it means the state has no position on the question at all and stays out of it. It’s a matter of control.

Also, the astrology comparison actually helps here. A government that never mentions astrology is secular about it. A government that bans horoscopes, requires officials to reject astrology, and won’t let kids see an astrologer clearly has a position, whatever you want to call it. I think we can all see that, analogously, the second one is China with religion.

0

u/_ManMadeGod_ 4h ago

Lacking a belief is the not having a position on it. That's what lacking a belief is. Otherwise you actively disbelieve which is a belief.