What is your argument against secularism?

[Theorist]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

@psyah

Peace Shamraz Khan

Ok here is my response to your points:

1. Secularism means separating religion from government - so in this point you have said

**I think religion is better because it’s religious - logically you are not really saying anything … other than you like religion for religion’s sake … I can use the same reason for not liking religion … that religion is not better because it’s religious … When a factor is given that cannot substantiate what it sets out to achieve then that factor is void of mention … On this basis I reject your first reason … You will need to substantiate why secularism and governance being separate is better and your other points should demonstrate this, for this reason this point is void.

**2) It allows personal and religious freedoms

**It is secularly blind - however if many people of one type who are operating in a religious fashion will subject their own biases to secular minorities … this is what has been happening in (Say USA) … the lack of tolerance for minorities is due to the people imposing their biases on them that they have exercised with their religious powers. If they followed secularism those intolerances would be criminal. Religion itself is an empty shell - it becomes what it’s puppetmasters want it to become. They themselves have no rules that control them apart from one … don’t allow secularism to affect your decisions.

3. Religion actually makes secular people subservient to government and hence secularism itself is bent for the needs of those in power.

4. It is interesting that for a good job we look for capability and credentials, but for public office the same is stated here as though it is some sort of hinderance … besides religion does not set out to achieve this … rather this is a tennet of democracy - and democracy is not necessarily religious- this is because a majority can vote in secularism as what happened in the case of (Say USA). Pure religion will not allow secularism to be voted in by democractic means … !!!

**5) **Secularism allows this too - and since this does not set apart religion from secularism per se - I can’t accept this as a valid plus point that distinguishes it from secularism.
**

**My reason for being against religion is:

The moral qualities required for a balanced state are present in secularism - they are not subject to change, but are subject to interpretation so long as the overall benefits outweigh the harms and off possible harms are reduced to elimination. This quality is not what religion sets out to achieve … it only sets out to achieve one thing … separation … all the other things that people say about it are what they feel religion achieves through practice …

On the other hand secularism - or more specifically Humanism states this:

In the beginning there was nothing and God said, “Let there be light,” and there was still nothing but everybody could see it.
-Dave Thomas

**

NO, I meant it’s more like this.