Thursday, May 07, 2009

Secular vs secularism

With the now-ended AWARE saga, the anti-Christian liberals with their allies in the Media had been playing the religious card to discredit the ex new exco. A common mantra parroted over and over again was the need to keep religion out of the secular sphere, and that the ex new exco had violated the secular nature of a secular NGO. However, is that really the case?

What exactly do we mean by the word "secular"? According to Dictionary dot com, as based on the Random House Dictionary, a good definition of secular is:

not pertaining to or connected with religion (as opposed to sacred)

To say something is secular means that it has nothing to do with religion; it is blind to religion and does not take religion into consideration. It does not therefore mean that it is anti-religious or opposed to religion. Rather, that describes the philosophy of secularISM, which can be defined in either or both of these two ways:

1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.

2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element. (Dictionary.com)

Secularism is a philosophy which focus on meta-ethical issues as like developed philosophies and religions. As such, it is a partisan philosophy and is not neutral at all. Under the guise of "neutrality", it imposes its view of what is right or wrong even if their values contradict the beliefs and values of other religions. Thus, secularism is NOT secular at all, but a "religion" defined broadly-speaking in the sense of it being a comprehensive worldview (Weltenshauung) for life. (A belief in deity is not necessary for a belief to qualify as a religion, otherwise Buddhism would immediately disqualify as one). As defined in the broadest sense of the term, religion is:

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects (Dictionary.com)

When the idea of not regarding religion is absolutized into a positive censoring of religion, then the line has been crossed from being a virtue in a multi-religious society into a totalitarian anti-religious paradigm, as we can see happened very clearly in the AWARE saga.

Confusing the issues of "secular" and "secularism", the liberals attacked the religious beliefs of the ex new exco, as if that should be an issue in the first place. Being a secular NGO, the religious beliefs of the leaders and members should be of no concern whatsoever. As it has been excellently said:

"Secular" does not mean atheism or "no religion"; it simply means "not religion-conscious", i.e., the individual's competency should not be judged by his religion.

So in a secular organisation like Aware, why should Exco members' religious affiliations matter? But The Straits Times disregarded this and emphasised daily for the 35 days, that 6 (and not even all!) Exco members attend the same church. Try emphasising the religion/race of a particular cabinet minister and see what happens to you in this country where an ISA code is in effect.

The end result of this false neutrality is totalitarianism and fascism, in which the reigning philosophy is Secular Humanism, with all others tolerated as long as they do not violate the tenets of Secular Humanism. With regards to the Christian, what this translates to is persecution under the guise of "tolerance". The results of such secular humanism can be seen as written in this article at the Faith Defenders website:

Modern humanists do not believe in the historic meaning of the freedom of religion. If the humanists have their way, the freedom of religion will be limited to believing what you want but not the freedom to practice it!

As we document in The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom, modern humanists do not believe that Christians have the “freedom” to teach their religion to their children, witness, pass out tracts or show any public signs of religion. The only “freedom” they will allow is freedom from religion.

Modern laws which legalize such things as abortion come from humanists who are legislating their view of morality. They are legalizing their pagan life style while trying to criminalize Christian education, church camps and orphanages, personal evangelism, Christian TV and radio programs, etc. Their understanding of religious freedom is the same as found in the Soviet Union!

God help us before society degenerates into such a state.

9 comments:

Beast_FCD said...

A long post. I will break it down into segments and debunk them systematically on my blog.

Beast FCD

2 weeks ago

Beast_FCD said...

"God help us before society degenerates into such a state."

There is no invisible space deity to help you.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Excuse me? A long post?

2 weeks ago

Beast_FCD said...

Yup. Running short on time now. Need to sleep. I will reply via my blog tomorrow, or on Saturday, since I ain't working on Sat.

Beast FCD

2 weeks ago

Beng said...

Thank you!

I was introduced (for the first time) to this same thought just yesterday evening as I was listening to this sermon by Phil Johnson (how “coincidental”, wouldn't you say?):

http://gracelifepulpit.media.s3.amazonaws.com/GL-2004-02-01-PJ.mp3

(starting from 35:47 onwards)

To summarise your point,

secular = neutral to religion
secularism = “anti-religious” religion

Interesting that the atheists use the same definition of religion to argue that atheism is a religion (which, of course, is absolutely true).

2 weeks ago

Beast_FCD said...

Atheism is not a religion.

Beast FCD

2 weeks ago

PuritanReformed said...

SB:

Thanks. I will listen to it when I have the time. =)

2 weeks ago

Beast_FCD said...

http://atheisthaven.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-secular-humanism-works.html

2 weeks ago

PuritanReformed said...

Is this supposed to be a reply? Because if it is, it misses the point altogether.

1 week ago