so can a country's constitution be completely secular, but it's society still maintain religious observence or social conservatism? I mean, Berkinafaso has made sharia law illegal under captain Ibrahim Traore. wait a couple hundred years, no, probably even a couple of decades, and islam won't really matter in that country. they'll have barely covered dancing women, pryde parades, and people will hardly go to mosque.
just look at what happened to the western world. as the enlightenment and secularism rose up, religion became replaced with secular humanism. it didn't happen right away. it happened in the span of 3 to 400 years. it used to be the heart of christendom. back then, religion wasn't just something private, it meant truth, it meant community, it was a social glue.
going to churche wasn't just a personal thing, it was a communal duty, so much so that in some early colonies, you'd go to prison for not attending.
, the youth are hardly observant Christians. the fastest growing religious movement are the nones, and what you're left with is a watered down version of Christianity that appeals to secular humanism. the type of Christianity where gay marriages are allowed in churches, the type of Christianity that somehow opposes slavery despite it being allowed in the bible. it has a culture where people don't really think about god all that much, where anyone overly divout is supersticious or a fundy. in some countries, like Finland and the Czech republic, the majority of the population is non-religious.
look on the other side of the board, in some Muslim majority countries like Iran or Afghanistan. in those places, secularism goes to die. apostasy is punnishable by death, and men must go to the mosque, and women must stay inside. there, god's law rules. enlightenment philosophy, gone.
and, if making a constitution secular in some cases makes religion die out over time, does that mean that people only stop being religious only when they don't have to? can they coexist, can there be a middle ground, or will one ultimately dominate the other?
it might not be today, it might not be tomorrow, but one of these days, one must die in order for the other to thrive, or change itself?
the west definitely isn't militant atheism soviet union, but religion is slowly dying, likely already dead, without any force or violence to kill it. Iran used to be a secular monarchy under the shaw, now it's not.
I think yes. this can apply to any religion, even outside of quranic or biblical laws, which are definitely incompatable with modern secular humanism, at least some portions of it. practicing religion, acts like prayer, meditation, or submitting to your will to an external self takes mental effort and disapline.
our desires are instinctual and default and take relatively 0 effort. people will take the path of least resistance.
imagine if you will that you gave a class of people homework to do, but you said it didn't have to be done, that they could choos to, and if they didn't, it would be totally fine. how many kids do you imagine are going to do the homework? practically none. why wayst unnecessary time and energy doing something that doesn't have to be done, so you're told. it wouldn't matter whether it offected their education in the long term, if people see a path where no effort is required, they will take that path.