I like Japan. I would live there. Have they gotten the radiation problem under control?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Printable View
I like Japan. I would live there. Have they gotten the radiation problem under control?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I don't think so. Radiation takes many years to work through the chain. In the meantime, I would just visit, but not stay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
I think that any society where there is secularism in the main (defined as a virtual absence of organized religon or dogmatic belief systems) has much more fertile grounds for Cults to flourish.
It's just natural for humans to search for meaning and higher power. That's why you see so many kids from affluent middle/upper class non religious backgrounds who are visibly spirtually searching gravitating towards Cults.
It's rather depressing to equate nonconformity with cultism, and, by that standard, I imagine a love of poetry and fiction would put many of us in the cult category.
Secularism is a political philosophy, not a faith-based ideology. The comparison ends before it even starts.
Many, many years ago, I had occasion to be in Prague, Czechoslovakia, when that country was communist. It was around Easter time. Store windows were plastered w/ paper bunnies, baskets, eggs, etc.: sure, those were secular, commercial symbols of Easter but symbols of Easter nonetheless. I knew then that communism'd never quite rid its countries of religion: the citizens were not the State.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Here in the US of A, presumably the gov. does not promote a religion; some people prefer that it would. But I'm also convinced that the epistles of Paul have greatly influenced all manner of govs. & regulatory schemes, despite (or, who knows, because of) their being very contradictory, i.e., work, work not.
Is what cacian means things like the Masons, Oddfellows, Hellfire Club, etc? As for cults, any deviation from the so-called "norm" is often termed "cult"
Thank you Pendragon which leads me to think they are similar in ideological sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
From Google define:Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
sec·u·lar/ˈsekyələr/
Adjective:
Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: "secular buildings".
You can't say that all imaginable secular societies must be cult like. Imagine if, in the UK, the monarchy and Church of England were shovelled into the dustbin of history, then we would have a secular society bound only by democratic politics. There would be no one God or monarch to who we were subject, *everyone" would have a potential to be voted into parliament, whatever their beliefs, and no one cult would have final control - that's a secular society, there's nothing cult-like about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtUH2YSFlVU
:party:
Isn't God the reason why the monarchy is?Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
What I mean by cult and securalism is the way they both protracte themselves from socitey?
It is not about what they do it is about the mechanism of how they come to be. They are both similar.
They come to be because some charismatic leader finds followers, who then convince others. The major thing seems to be strict adherence to a given set of values or rules. Breaking the rules can get you blackballed from secular societies, or excommunicated from religious sects. In this cults and secular societies are similar. But the general setup and rules are derived from very different sources. This makes them very different in practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
A secular society is what happens when no one gets to forcibly impose their religious beliefs and superstitions on others. People who prefer to live in a society free of officially sanctioned religion and religious observances need hold no common beliefs whatever. They don't even necessarily have to share the belief that it is wrong to impose one's religious beliefs on others. All that is required is that they prefer to be free of such imposition in their own lives. Now, since cults are defined by shared beliefs, it is clearly absurd to call the happy members of a secular society who share no beliefs whatever, a cult. To do so is like describing the set of people who prefer not to be beaten on a daily basis as a religion. It is sophistry. Those who promote such ideas tend to be members of religious majorities, used to getting their way, who see their group's temporal power over others waning.
Blackballing doesn't apply to societies. Blackballing means that you are not allowed to join a club because others think you are not suitable. But if you are born into a society, and your parents are members of that society, then you are automatically a member of it! If you break the rules you go to prison, but you are still part of society. I guess exile might be looked at as blackballing, but modern, "decent", secular societies don't exile people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
First of all, I know some Masons, and I also know that a monotheistic religious adherence is a requirement for entering, so they are not even secular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
As to the others, those are normally referred to as "secret societies" not secular ones.
I agree. That derogation is ridiculous in my mind. Usually its one religion saying "hey the world is falling apart because not enough people are following OUR religion!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
Spirituality itself will be, at least in my opinion, always vibrant and alive. Philosophy and wisdom in the Platonic sense are not the same as religion but they are pretty darn close and I have trouble distinguishing them from spirituality. Not to sound too new agey.
Secularism is, as has been stated, the separation of church and state. A kind of neutrality. Its not an absence of religion, its a certain detachment from it. And detachment does not equate to destruction.
If some people use the term "secular society" as a derogatory term for "States that are falling apart due to a rejection of God" then they need to make better use of the English language. To me, and I think most people, "secular society" is a value neutral term used to describe one kind of society, falling apart or not.
Platonic spirituality is hardly vibrant and alive. Who believes in the theory of Forms these days? It's the non-spiritual parts of Plato that remain alive - like Socratic questioning and the pursuit of values like Justice and Wisdom. That is, the important parts of Plato live happily in a secular society. The rest, like religion, can be ditched.