Over the past 40 years we have lived under a “liberalisation” that has abolished the idea of the holy and replaced the dignity and moral status of the person with a merely instrumental definition of that once noble term.

Right. It's called "Freedom".

our children are not brought to a sense of holiness and awe, but are merely taught the meanings of religious terms as sociological descriptions. This deprivation of the spiritual is a form of child abuse.

Quite the opposite. Free children, unchained by the traditions of the past and of their parents can grow spiritually, intellectually, and materially without being "stuck" in the past.

Notice how far behind the ...

Over the past 40 years we have lived under a “liberalisation” that has abolished the idea of the holy and replaced the dignity and moral status of the person with a merely instrumental definition of that once noble term.

Right. It's called "Freedom".

our children are not brought to a sense of holiness and awe, but are merely taught the meanings of religious terms as sociological descriptions. This deprivation of the spiritual is a form of child abuse.

Quite the opposite. Free children, unchained by the traditions of the past and of their parents can grow spiritually, intellectually, and materially without being "stuck" in the past.

Notice how far behind the Muslim is in science. Notice how half the population, its women, are still struggling to gain equal rights with men.

That facet alone keeps the Muslim culture forever behind the child of freedom, because it stifles at least half the brain power!

The highest recorded (standard) I.Q. test scores are by women! And yet the Muslim tradition (fundamental) won't even allow women to educate themselves!

It used to be that way with the Christian tradition, too.

Point being: tradition ain't always good.

So if that's what you're calling "deprivation of the spiritual", it is clear that this particular notion of 'spiritual' is also backward.

The article begins:

"Far worse than the threat from international terrorism is the aggressive process of secularisation that has gripped our country..."

You don't find atheists flying planes into buildings, or suicide bombing. This author starts with a false premise. He could just as well have said "common sense is gripping our country", much to his superstitious dismay.

Yes, the threat of personal freedom, the right to persue one's own happiness is quite threatening to religious dominionism.

But to say secularization is worse than international terrorism is just plain stupid.

AL said:

But to say secularization is worse than international terrorism is just plain stupid.

Indeed. But one should not glorify secularism generally. La Terreur of Jacobinism (France, 1793-94), i.e. the model for changing morally high aspirations (J. J. Rousseau was the teacher of Robespierre!) into a bloodbath, was an excess of secularism, not of religiosity. The crimes against humanity (genocide, holocaust, war crimes) at least in the recent three centuries, inclusively the current terrorism of the US-American and Israeli governments have no base that one could seriously take as a religious one; it is secular nationalism and imperialism, even though the various Hi...

AL said:

But to say secularization is worse than international terrorism is just plain stupid.

Indeed. But one should not glorify secularism generally. La Terreur of Jacobinism (France, 1793-94), i.e. the model for changing morally high aspirations (J. J. Rousseau was the teacher of Robespierre!) into a bloodbath, was an excess of secularism, not of religiosity. The crimes against humanity (genocide, holocaust, war crimes) at least in the recent three centuries, inclusively the current terrorism of the US-American and Israeli governments have no base that one could seriously take as a religious one; it is secular nationalism and imperialism, even though the various Hitlers claimed to act in the name of the Vorsehung and the various Bushs purported to be authorized by the Holy Spirit.

What I am calling for is to be critical of secularism as much as of religion based mindsets.

BTW:

"Notice how far behind the Muslim is in science."

This is an improper generalization. (a) I know an array of scientists who keep on embracing their Islam. And I know some stupid non-Muslim twerps who couldn't even think so far as to embrace any spirituality at all. (b) Tutoring in history: It's been Muslims to whom the cocky Western world owe the tradition regarding numerals, algebra, astronomical and medical knowledge, and Greek philosophy. European culture in its best aspects is a composition of Christian, Jewish, Muslim and secularistic-liberal ideas.

But one should not glorify secularism generally.

Glorify? Not intended, nor necessary. Nor does the mentioning of secular violence (in your example) imply the necessity for religion. I don't care for violence of either kind; do you?

What I am calling for is to be critical of secularism as much as of religion based mindsets.

No. To be critical of secularism is to imply religion is the answer to secularism. Secularism is simply the absence of religion. Secular issues cannot be solved with religious dogmas.

Secular problems are solved by people. It's authority is derived from the people. Wrongs can be appealed to the people.

In religion, "Since there are no obj...

But one should not glorify secularism generally.

Glorify? Not intended, nor necessary. Nor does the mentioning of secular violence (in your example) imply the necessity for religion. I don't care for violence of either kind; do you?

What I am calling for is to be critical of secularism as much as of religion based mindsets.

No. To be critical of secularism is to imply religion is the answer to secularism. Secularism is simply the absence of religion. Secular issues cannot be solved with religious dogmas.

Secular problems are solved by people. It's authority is derived from the people. Wrongs can be appealed to the people.

In religion, "Since there are no objective means to adjudicate unverifiable claims, conflict and violence ensue when counterclaims are made." p.383, Fighting Words, Hector Avalos.

Religious violence is inevitable.

---

"Notice how far behind the Muslim is in science."

This is an improper generalization. (a) I know an array of scientists who keep on embracing their Islam. And I know some stupid non-Muslim twerps who couldn't even think so far as to embrace any spirituality at all. (b) Tutoring in history: It's been Muslims to whom the cocky Western world owe the tradition regarding numerals, algebra, astronomical and medical knowledge, and Greek philosophy.

Right. But this changes nothing I have said. In fact, one might wonder why they aren't far in advance of Western science, given their historical (ancient) contribution.

In fact, if it weren't for the West needing Arab oil, it is doubtful the Arab world would have any modern science or technology at all. From refineries to cell phones, they have "use" of modern technology, but they developed virtually none of it.

Why is that?

AcesLucky said:

mentioning of secular violence [... does not] imply the necessity for religion

This implication is neither intended, nor necessary.

AcesLucky said:

Johanna_G said:

What I am calling for is to be critical of secularism as much as of religion based mindsets.

No. To be critical of secularism is to imply religion is the answer to secularism.

This false dichotomy is downright ridiculous and indicates stark ideological thinking. Secularism means a lot to me, too much to spare it from criticism. As if secular systems were above all suspicion! Incredible.

AcesLucky said:

Secularism is simply the absence of religion.

Another oversimplifying s...

AcesLucky said:

mentioning of secular violence [... does not] imply the necessity for religion

This implication is neither intended, nor necessary.

AcesLucky said:

Johanna_G said:

What I am calling for is to be critical of secularism as much as of religion based mindsets.

No. To be critical of secularism is to imply religion is the answer to secularism.

This false dichotomy is downright ridiculous and indicates stark ideological thinking. Secularism means a lot to me, too much to spare it from criticism. As if secular systems were above all suspicion! Incredible.

AcesLucky said:

Secularism is simply the absence of religion.

Another oversimplifying statement.

Wikipedia said:

Secularism is generally the assertion that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief. Alternatively, it is a principle of promoting secular ideas or values in either public or private settings. It may also be a synonym for "secularist movement". In the extreme, it is an ideology that holds that religion has no place in public life.
WP

AcesLucky said:

Secular issues cannot be solved with religious dogmas.

Truism.

AcesLucky said:

Secular problems are solved by people. It's authority is derived from the people. Wrongs can be appealed to the people.

Invalidly generalizing thesis. Do you know history?

AcesLucky said:

In religion, "Since there are no objective means to adjudicate unverifiable claims, conflict and violence ensue when counterclaims are made."

Inadequate view on religion in general. Just "Fighting Words". Have you ever heard of Zoroaster, Siddhartha Gautama, Confucius, Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Tenzin Gyatso, ...? Don't you know a bit about that what they taught regarding the righteous attitude in conflicts?
Hence, this is rubbish what

AcesLucky said:

Religious violence is inevitable.

@Rasmus

Secularism means a lot to me, too much to spare it from criticism. As if secular systems were above all suspicion! Incredible.

I apologize, I wasn't clear. Not to spare it from criticism, (it absolutely must be criticized) but to spare it from RELIGIOUS criticism!

And you are exactly right; it IS a false dichotomy. That's why the answer to one does not imply the other.

Also, the Wikipedia definition you gave for secularism is exactly what I meant by saying "the absence of religion." I do not hold the "extreme" view, but the rest of it is perfectly stated and exactly how I meant it.
--

[i]"Secular problems are solved by people. It's authority is d...

@Rasmus

Secularism means a lot to me, too much to spare it from criticism. As if secular systems were above all suspicion! Incredible.

I apologize, I wasn't clear. Not to spare it from criticism, (it absolutely must be criticized) but to spare it from RELIGIOUS criticism!

And you are exactly right; it IS a false dichotomy. That's why the answer to one does not imply the other.

Also, the Wikipedia definition you gave for secularism is exactly what I meant by saying "the absence of religion." I do not hold the "extreme" view, but the rest of it is perfectly stated and exactly how I meant it.
--

"Secular problems are solved by people. It's authority is derived from the people. Wrongs can be appealed to the people."

Invalidly generalizing thesis. Do you know history?

The statement is not from an historical context, but from an adjudication context.

Have you ever heard of Zoroaster, Siddhartha Gautama, Confucius, Jesus,
Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Tenzin Gyatso, ...? Don't you know a bit
about that what they taught regarding the righteous attitude in
conflicts?

Right. That's why the Christian, Baha'i, Jew, etc.. can walk safely in a Muslim land. But the reality paints a different picture... even from a HISTORICAL point of view.

Religions, esp. the Abrahamic religions, have been at each others throats from time immemorial.

Religious violence is inevitable because there is no one to appeal claims made by it. For example: the Palestinians say the land is theirs. The Jews say God gave it to them!

Now, who do we go to, to verify that! ??

Who can verify that God hates gays? Who can verify Allah hates infidels? Who can verify ANYTHING about any god whatsoever? Thus...

"Since there are no objective means to adjudicate unverifiable claims, conflict and violence ensue when counterclaims are made."

Inadequate view on religion, you say? When religions tolerate each other,

AcesLucky, I apologize for some harsh words. I am having the devil ( ) of a toothache, which is dampening my mood and is lowering my concentration.

Contrary to the surface appearance, we are rather close together.
I agree: A tendency to roughshod oppression and conquest inheres in the Abrahamic religions when and if they gain political dominance. It is the very advantage, boon, chance and task of secularism to preclude them from gaining absolutistic power over people.
The questions whether a country can be believed to be divinely assigned land and whether anybody should be aggrieved for the sake or in the name of God, are not a matter of verification but a matter of strict rejection. ...

AcesLucky, I apologize for some harsh words. I am having the devil ( ) of a toothache, which is dampening my mood and is lowering my concentration.

Contrary to the surface appearance, we are rather close together.
I agree: A tendency to roughshod oppression and conquest inheres in the Abrahamic religions when and if they gain political dominance. It is the very advantage, boon, chance and task of secularism to preclude them from gaining absolutistic power over people.
The questions whether a country can be believed to be divinely assigned land and whether anybody should be aggrieved for the sake or in the name of God, are not a matter of verification but a matter of strict rejection. There can't be tolerance towards movements which don't deem the Universal Declaration of Human Rights valid.
Religions failed to construct a bearable world order. I hope, secularism will make it better.