• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Christian secularists

What is your position on confessionalism vs. secularism?

  • I'm a Christian, the government should nominally have Christianity as the official religion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm a Christian, the government should be secular but in practice give preference to Christianity

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm not Christian, the government should support my religion in a meaningful way

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm not Christian, the government should nominally have my religion as the official religion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm not Christian, the government should be secular but in practice give preference to my religion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • tuna sandwich

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27
  • This poll will close: .

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Despite their constituting the majority of Christians, Christian secularists (that is those who are Christians, who believe that the government should be neutral in religious matters) still boggle my mind. Claiming on the one hand that Christianity is the true religion, but on the other that the government should be neutral towards religion. I'm creating this thread as a discussion of confessionalism vs. secularism.

I'm intending this as a discussion which presupposes the existence of religious truth and which is about how that should influence civil government, obviously atheists, agnostics, deists, and the like will support secularism, but that is uninteresting, this discussion should be between confessionalism and Christian secularists, not the irreligious.

As this is to be a general discussion of confessionalism versus secularism, and not of which religion is correct, if you're a Muslim, a Bhuddist, or belong to some other religion which teaches that every person objectively ought to convert, then please feel free to jump in with your opinions either way, although again this is intended as a discussion of confessionalism vs. secularism in general, not of which religion is correct/which religion should be supported by the state. When the poll says "not Christian" it's referring only to those who are members of some type of missionary religion.
 
Last edited:
Confessionalism is the practice of the government having an official religion.
 
People like you are what the founding fathers tried to protect the government from.
 
Last edited:
Be nice to have a government that served we the people again. and not the corporations
 
NOTE: If you're not a member of a missionary religion please vote other or tuna sandwich.

People like you are what the founding fathers tried to protect the government from.

Are you a member of a missionary religion?

Be nice to have a government that served we the people again. and not the corporations

Yes it would. What is your position on the question at hand?
 
NOTE: If you're not a member of a missionary religion please vote other or tuna sandwich.



Are you a member of a missionary religion?



Yes it would. What is your position on the question at hand?

I am a christian, the .gov should serve the people all people regardless of religious beliefs.
 
Despite their constituting the majority of Christians, Christian secularists (that is those who are Christians, who believe that the government should be neutral in religious matters) still boggle my mind. Claiming on the one hand that Christianity is the true religion, but on the other that the government should be neutral towards religion. I'm creating this thread as a discussion of confessionalism vs. secularism.

I'm intending this as a discussion which presupposes the existence of religious truth and which is about how that should influence civil government, obviously atheists, agnostics, deists, and the like will support secularism, but that is uninteresting, this discussion should be between confessionalism and Christian secularists, not the irreligious.

As this is to be a general discussion of confessionalism versus secularism, and not of which religion is correct, if you're a Muslim, a Bhuddist, or belong to some other religion which teaches that every person objectively ought to convert, then please feel free to jump in with your opinions either way, although again this is intended as a discussion of confessionalism vs. secularism in general, not of which religion is correct/which religion should be supported by the state. When the poll says "not Christian" it's referring only to those who are members of some type of missionary religion.

I would like to get involved with this discussion. I always thought the concept of freedom of religion was destined to water down religion in a negative way. That kind of happened. Freedom of religion is the ultimate weapon to destroy the existence of religion.

It is really late and I can't add much to the discussion right now. I did want to comment in order to encourage you that you did catch my interest. I was just unable to understand all of the choices that I have. I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church which is considered an evangelical Christian sect so I think I am allowed to vote something other than tuna sandwich.

I'll be back tomorrow to participate.
 
I would like to get involved with this discussion. I always thought the concept of freedom of religion was destined to water down religion in a negative way. That kind of happened. Freedom of religion is the ultimate weapon to destroy the existence of religion.

It is really late and I can't add much to the discussion right now. I did want to comment in order to encourage you that you did catch my interest. I was just unable to understand all of the choices that I have. I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church which is considered an evangelical Christian sect so I think I am allowed to vote something other than tuna sandwich.

I'll be back tomorrow to participate.

1. Means that you support the government having Christianity as the official religion.

2. Means you support the government having Christianity as the official religion, but only in a nominal way (like in England)

3. Means you believe the government should be secular but in practice give preference to Christianity (many Latin American countries are like this)

4. Means you support the government being strictly secular.

5, 6, 7, and 8 are equivalent to 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively except they're for people who aren't Christian but who belong to some other type of missionary religion (Islam, Bhuddism, etc.).

Freedom of religion is a distinct issue from secularism, although they're related so I'm glad you brought it up, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.
 
I would like to get involved with this discussion. I always thought the concept of freedom of religion was destined to water down religion in a negative way. That kind of happened. Freedom of religion is the ultimate weapon to destroy the existence of religion.

Then it is a weak religion. Freedom of religion simply means that government is not going to make it a crime to worship in your own way. If a religion fails to thrive because they don't have the backing of government then what does that say about that faith. Judaism was outlawed in many countries and Jews still worshipped as Jews at times under penalty of death.
 
Despite their constituting the majority of Christians, Christian secularists (that is those who are Christians, who believe that the government should be neutral in religious matters) still boggle my mind. Claiming on the one hand that Christianity is the true religion, but on the other that the government should be neutral towards religion. I'm creating this thread as a discussion of confessionalism vs. secularism.

I'm intending this as a discussion which presupposes the existence of religious truth and which is about how that should influence civil government, obviously atheists, agnostics, deists, and the like will support secularism, but that is uninteresting, this discussion should be between confessionalism and Christian secularists, not the irreligious.

As this is to be a general discussion of confessionalism versus secularism, and not of which religion is correct, if you're a Muslim, a Bhuddist, or belong to some other religion which teaches that every person objectively ought to convert, then please feel free to jump in with your opinions either way, although again this is intended as a discussion of confessionalism vs. secularism in general, not of which religion is correct/which religion should be supported by the state. When the poll says "not Christian" it's referring only to those who are members of some type of missionary religion.

all religious governments (with possibly the exception of nepal) trend towards horrible human rights abuses. The two just seem like oil and water.
 
Then it is a weak religion. Freedom of religion simply means that government is not going to make it a crime to worship in your own way. If a religion fails to thrive because they don't have the backing of government then what does that say about that faith. Judaism was outlawed in many countries and Jews still worshipped as Jews at times under penalty of death.

The issue isn't false worship so much as it is proselytization of false religions.
 
all religious governments (with possibly the exception of nepal) trend towards horrible human rights abuses. The two just seem like oil and water.

Malta is a human rights violator?
 
Malta is a human rights violator?

ok, so maybe two counter examples in a sea of problematic governments. (malta may or may not be a good place, i have not studied it). Still, as a person who values humanity as I should, I cannot stand the thought of people being tortured or otherwise harmed for not having a certain set of religious beliefs. There is no respect in that and we are commanded to respect and love humanity.
 
ok, so maybe two counter examples in a sea of problematic governments. (malta may or may not be a good place, i have not studied it). Still, as a person who values humanity as I should, I cannot stand the thought of people being tortured or otherwise harmed for not having a certain set of religious beliefs. There is no respect in that and we are commanded to respect and love humanity.

Liechtenstein, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Monaco. How are any of these countries human rights violators?
 
Despite their constituting the majority of Christians, Christian secularists (that is those who are Christians, who believe that the government should be neutral in religious matters) still boggle my mind. Claiming on the one hand that Christianity is the true religion, but on the other that the government should be neutral towards religion. I'm creating this thread as a discussion of confessionalism vs. secularism.

I'm intending this as a discussion which presupposes the existence of religious truth and which is about how that should influence civil government, obviously atheists, agnostics, deists, and the like will support secularism, but that is uninteresting, this discussion should be between confessionalism and Christian secularists, not the irreligious.

As this is to be a general discussion of confessionalism versus secularism, and not of which religion is correct, if you're a Muslim, a Bhuddist, or belong to some other religion which teaches that every person objectively ought to convert, then please feel free to jump in with your opinions either way, although again this is intended as a discussion of confessionalism vs. secularism in general, not of which religion is correct/which religion should be supported by the state. When the poll says "not Christian" it's referring only to those who are members of some type of missionary religion.

Couldn't god want people to choose their laws themselves with their own reason, and oftentimes get it wrong in his eyes, and still be the one true god? Being a secularist would then be obedience to god, and would still be true to an evangelizing religion.

The god of Christianity could be such a god (if he existed to begin with). He seems to at the very least want people to choose to obey and follow him or not, rather than be forced to do so while on Earth. Surely a confession under force is no confession at all (Pascal's wager is an impossibility, if we insist upon a true confession). Surely obedience for any reason other than choosing to love god is no obedience at all. Surely any law which improves relations between people can be shown to do so through reason, and not through appeals to god's authority.

It comes down, really, to whether you believe in fire and brimstone motivation toward salvation, or whether you believe god is so loving, grand and desirable that he can draw people through sheer amazingness. A confession from a person who feared fire and brimstone would not simply be suspect, but would rather be obviously false, in my estimation. Once a person becomes convinced of that and the implication that follows thereby that god intends us to be free to choose, anything but being a political secularist seems absurd.

And even a fire and brimstone guy could be convinced that it is solely up to god to threaten mankind with cosmic retribution, not any human to threaten with earthly retribution. God could say "Make any laws amongst yourselves which seem to ease your paths together upon the Earth, let me worry about people's salvation". There are many ways in which secularism could be obedience to god.
 
Last edited:
Liechtenstein, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Monaco. How are any of these countries human rights violators?

The very aspect of preferring one religion over another is in itself a human rights violation.
 
Indeed. A well intentioned Christian might be interfering with god's purpose by attempting for force obedience for salvific aims. If god intends for humans to choose obedience to him, then a Christian who is attempting to force obedience from people is interfering with the choice god intends. Of course, the same Christian could at the same time make secular arguments for the benefits of a specific law.
 
I would like to get involved with this discussion. I always thought the concept of freedom of religion was destined to water down religion in a negative way. That kind of happened. Freedom of religion is the ultimate weapon to destroy the existence of religion.

It is really late and I can't add much to the discussion right now. I did want to comment in order to encourage you that you did catch my interest. I was just unable to understand all of the choices that I have. I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church which is considered an evangelical Christian sect so I think I am allowed to vote something other than tuna sandwich.

I'll be back tomorrow to participate.

I cannot believe that people actually believe what you just said, when I think it is quite the opposite. A religion is watered down by the extent to which laws favor it. A true religion should be irresistible, able to draw people to it of its own power, rather than relying upon the laws and policies of the land to favor it.
 
Mark 12:17 would indicate that Christian secularists are the ones who are actually following Jesus.
 
Couldn't god want people to choose their laws themselves with their own reason, and oftentimes get it wrong in his eyes, and still be the one true god? Being a secularist would then be obedience to god, and would still be true to an evangelizing religion.

The god of Christianity could be such a god (if he existed to begin with). He seems to at the very least want people to choose to obey and follow him or not, rather than be forced to do so while on Earth. Surely a confession under force is no confession at all (Pascal's wager is an impossibility, if we insist upon a true confession). Surely obedience for any reason other than choosing to love god is no obedience at all. Surely any law which improves relations between people can be shown to do so through reason, and not through appeals to god's authority.

It comes down, really, to whether you believe in fire and brimstone motivation toward salvation, or whether you believe god is so loving, grand and desirable that he can draw people through sheer amazingness. A confession from a person who feared fire and brimstone would not simply be suspect, but would rather be obviously false, in my estimation. Once a person becomes convinced of that and the implication that follows thereby that god intends us to be free to choose, anything but being a political secularist seems absurd.

And even a fire and brimstone guy could be convinced that it is solely up to god to threaten mankind with cosmic retribution, not any human to threaten with earthly retribution. God could say "Make any laws amongst yourselves which seem to ease your paths together upon the Earth, let me worry about people's salvation". There are many ways in which secularism could be obedience to god.

A confessional state would be run by laypeople and thus would have to choose to be confessional. That's the question, should it?

I've not said anything about forcing people to be good. Actually obedience due to fear of Hell is meritorious, albeit less so, however I'll grant you that a person who obeyed God solely because it was socially acceptable would not be meritorious. However, many who would obey God if it were the socially acceptable thing to do, would not consciously be doing it for that reason. You're assuming that appeals to the authority of God are unreasonable, yet (for purposes of this thread) it is accepted as a premise that God exists.

First, no where in Christian tradition is it stated that conversion due to fear of Hell is insufficient, if it were insufficient then practically no one would be saved. Also, as in toed political confessionalism doesn't require, or even indicate, forced conversion.

This rests on the assumption that God expects us to care zilch about the welfare of our fellow man. And is completely contrary to the notion of evangelism.

The very aspect of preferring one religion over another is in itself a human rights violation.

Logical Fallacies» Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning

Indeed. A well intentioned Christian might be interfering with god's purpose by attempting for force obedience for salvific aims. If god intends for humans to choose obedience to him, then a Christian who is attempting to force obedience from people is interfering with the choice god intends. Of course, the same Christian could at the same time make secular arguments for the benefits of a specific law.

As noted, confessionalism does not entail forced conversions. So no one would be forced to choose to follow God, it would simply be easier to.

I cannot believe that people actually believe what you just said, when I think it is quite the opposite. A religion is watered down by the extent to which laws favor it. A true religion should be irresistible, able to draw people to it of its own power, rather than relying upon the laws and policies of the land to favor it.

Do you really think that religious belief is stronger now than in medieval Europe? And Christianity did demonstrate it's ability to draw people without state favor (Ancient Rome), however note that practically as soon as they did so, they began, willingly, to receive the favors of the state, because it simply made sense that the state should support that which is true, just as individuals should.

Mark 12:17 would indicate that Christian secularists are the ones who are actually following Jesus.

No it wouldn't. If it did, you would think someone in the first millennium of Christianity would have noticed.
 
NOTE: If you're not a member of a missionary religion please vote other or tuna sandwich.

I'm not an evangelical, but I am a Christian, and I voted as such.

In the United States we have a Constitutional prohibition against establishment of a state religion. We have a tradition of welcoming people of different faiths, especially those whose faith made them unwelcome in their country of origin. As such, our government should remain on the sidelines of religion. I don't want the government playing favorites among different religions, or different denominations of a religion.
 
A confessional state would be run by laypeople and thus would have to choose to be confessional. That's the question, should it?

I've not said anything about forcing people to be good. Actually obedience due to fear of Hell is meritorious, albeit less so, however I'll grant you that a person who obeyed God solely because it was socially acceptable would not be meritorious. However, many who would obey God if it were the socially acceptable thing to do, would not consciously be doing it for that reason. You're assuming that appeals to the authority of God are unreasonable, yet (for purposes of this thread) it is accepted as a premise that God exists.
Obedience due to fear of Hell is not meritorious from the perspective of a loving god. It is simply something control freak humans have found useful. Logically speaking, the only meritorious choice is the one arrived at through the love of the goodness of god. Anything else is calculating and grudging, no matter the polish and veneer one places upon it. The criminal who is beaten into submission has nothing to recommend him to good standing within my loving inner circle. The criminal who has a change of heart and stops because of new found remorse for harming his fellow man does, however. The criminal who acts like he has had a change of heart, and has not, is actually the worst viper of all. I am sure god (if he would but exist) sees into hearts with greater clarity than I.

I have assumed nothing about the unreasonableness of appeals to the authority of god. I have simply asserted that they are irrelevant toward proving through concrete consequences and logic that a law is good toward smoothing relations among people. They add nothing to the argument. That is quite a different thing than saying the appeals are unreasonable.

First, no where in Christian tradition is it stated that conversion due to fear of Hell is insufficient, if it were insufficient then practically no one would be saved. Also, as in toed political confessionalism doesn't require, or even indicate, forced conversion.
That is so patently untrue. There are many Christian traditions that reject the threat of hell as a motivator toward salvation, and reject its authenticity when it is so motivated. You have to ask yourself, did the New Testament authors share knowledge of Hell for other reasons than to threaten?


Do you really think that religious belief is stronger now than in medieval Europe? And Christianity did demonstrate it's ability to draw people without state favor (Ancient Rome), however note that practically as soon as they did so, they began, willingly, to receive the favors of the state, because it simply made sense that the state should support that which is true, just as individuals should.
.
Stronger? Absolutely No. The strongest, most unshakable believing is done by the most ignorant, and we are certainly less ignorant now. However, the believing that is done is certainly more authentic. More authentic because it is done with greater education and because it is done with less support from the state. Now: Was strength of belief the goal? If so, you will need to get people to go back to being ignorant, and then manipulate them into believing.


Keep in mind that your assumptions about how god wants you to relate to government ultimately leads to room for only ONE theology to be favored. For example, if government should favor the truth, then it should favor the theology that advocates speaking in tongues or the one that rejects it, but it cannot favor the truth and favor both. These assumptions you've made about a Christian's role as political citizen put you logically on a path where you can favor only the one true church, whatever that might be. You THINK you are saving Christendom from Secularism, but what you are REALLY doing, in practical terms, is pitting Christian X against Christian Y against Christian Z. Historically, that has been the result of your assumptions. It may take Christians a while to get back to fighting religious wars, but you are pointing the way there.

If government need not always "favor the truth" as you've put it, only sometimes, then when is it correct for the government not to? Why? It is the truth, after all, isn't it?

I disagree it is the role of government to favor the truth. The government's role is to preserve the liberties, the freedom, to discover truth, and to foster education of the sort that will help people to think for themselves. Full stop. It seems to me that Christian theology can be in accord with this. That, in fact, Christian theology is only logical when it is in accord with it. If god wants genuine choice, then he has provided to mankind the means of that choice, and he doesn't wish for his followers to stunt it. If god does not want genuine choice, then he cannot be the loving god that Christians claim he is.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom