are they the same as a cultic religious or none groups of individuals?
in other does secularism finds its root in culticism (cult) and vise versa?
Printable View
are they the same as a cultic religious or none groups of individuals?
in other does secularism finds its root in culticism (cult) and vise versa?
I don't really understand what definition of secularism you're using.
Secularism is broadly the idea that the state should be neutral on the issue of religion. Different states have come to different terms on what this principle means in practice, but broadly speaking it is just a means of building a cohesive state out of a religiously pluralistic population in terms with the basic principles of liberty.
I don't know what a "secular society" as a group is, or why it would derive from cultism.
From Wikipedia:
They have nothing to do with cults, they are just the recognizing of a separation of Church and State.Quote:
In studies of religion, modern Western societies are generally recognized as secular. This is due to the near-complete freedom of religion (beliefs on religion generally are not subject to legal or social sanctions), and the lack of authority of religious leaders over political decisions
Some people use the term "secular society" as a derogatory term for "States that are falling apart due to a rejection of God." But Secular Society is not a cohesive body.
They have nothing to do with each other. All societies are secular. All cults are a variation of a religion.
In agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I am sure that not all cults are religious.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowsCool
I meant a cult and seculare is the same because they both remove themselves from what is considered the norms.
I don't think all societies are secular. There are many that are left strictly religious. If there is one inportant problem we are fighting outside USA, it's precisely that one among a few others like terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowsCool
I'm secular. I'm not part of a cult.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
I would love to live in a nation in which the government were completely free of religious influence. I think many Americans strive to promote that, but I still don't see how that makes us a cult. Avoiding and protecting citizens from cults is cult behavior?
Hi Varenne, not it is not cult behaviour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
The way I see it cultism has more of a negative influence on people lives because it removes them from real life.
secularism is not so much about what it preaches it is the mechanism of how it does it.
to be secular is to reject something that is as powerful if not as influencial as religion which in most socities is part of daily life, the norms if you like. and so secular means the rejection of this influence and by declaring it so it is in a way removing itself from the bigger picture that is society.
In this sense I see secular and cult mechanism the same.
Secularism is not a rejection of religion though. Many secular states actively subsidize religious hospitals and schools. The point of secularism is that it protects freedom of conscious, with the recognition that independence from religious law is a necessary condition for not just freedom of conscious but freedom of religion within a religiously pluralistic society.
Very true. The secular model is in my opinion the best way to avoid all kinds of racist, gender based, and religious inequalities and persecution. Here in the UK the Anglican Church is tearing itself apart about women priests and homosexuality in the church. That's fine - so long as the sensible people can get on and make unbiased laws and run the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
It's not that I dislike religions. It's just very clear that as soon as some politically motivated leader gets their fingers into the state and religion, then little good will come of it.
It seems to me that, in this thread, totally different meanings are being given to the word "secular."
It would be helpful if Cacian gave a definition of "secular society" and a specific example of one.
Japan is pretty close, 70%-80% of them are "non-believers." It's crowded though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Yes that's part of the problem in defining the right answer. I said all society's are secular and in a sense they are. They generally run their affairs free from dogma.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
Now also the term "cult" needs defining. My sense of cult may be different from other bloggers on here.
"I said all society's are secular and in a sense they are."
Maybe it is Cacian's definition of 'society' that is needed for this thread.
To balance against 'cult' I think 'society' must be used in the sense of 'club' or 'association.' So "Tunbridge Wells Horticultural Society" would be a secular society, whereas the "Tunbridge Wells Church of the Holy Flower" might be a religious society. The latter could well be a cult, but would the former also have characteristics of a cult? At least it might be reasonable to compare the two.
I don't think it would make a lot of sense to compare the "Tunbridge Wells Church of the Holy Flower" with, say, the People's Republic of China.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
This.
That's debatable, but it's actually really hard to move there permanently. They're kind of full. Also, there a lot of complicated social rules that are taken pretty seriously, so not only do you have to learn a new language which is completely alien to most Westerners, you have to learn a new culture that's completely alien too. :p It's a lot of work to become a Japanese citizen, I'd just settle for Canada or one of the Nordic countries if I were looking for a nation that's good for the whole seperation-of-church-and-state thing (woot @ frozen countries!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Wisdom is a Platonic form. Plato used the myth of the forms to explain things like truth and justice and wisdom. To say that he actually believed in metaphysical supernatural forms is to, at least in my opinion, misread him.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Platonism is alive and well, it has merely taken on a different guise. In science. But the myth is still alive too. Platonism heavily influenced Christianity. I find the New Testament to be replete with explicitly Platonic phrases and allusions.
Democracy,justice,christianity,ethics,secularism ,islam,judaism,hinduism,buddhism...Platonism for the people.