Interfaith Group
Related: About this forumReligious Freedom, Meet Secularism: Your Best Ally
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-krattenmaker/religion-secularism-gay-marriage_b_2944472.htmlTom Krattenmaker
Author, 'The Evangelicals You Don't Know'
Religious Freedom, Meet Secularism: Your Best Ally
Posted: 03/28/2013 11:29 am
In what could go down as one of its most notable reckonings of the era, the Supreme Court heard arguments this week in two major gay marriage cases. As the advocates and justices prepare to spar over California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, important constitutional principles had a much-needed day in the sun.
As are some crucial but underappreciated subplots in this whole story about gay rights in America: the degree to which specific religious teachings -- such as Thou Shalt Not Be Gay -- should be enshrined as the law of the land, and the underlying question about the proper relationship between government and religion.
The moment is ripe for religious Americans, especially those Christian conservatives who have led the resistance against gay rights, to remember the importance of keeping church and state independent of one another. "Secularism" is not the church person's bane as it's often made out to be but the best protection ever devised for religious freedom. Let's hope this principle makes it through this major test intact and healthy.
Certainly, the same-sex marriage cases are about more than religion. But much of the energy fueling the traditional marriage movement is religious. After the announcement by Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, that he's now supporting gay marriage, Newt Gingrich spoke for many Christian conservatives when he said, "I don't think (politicians) have the power to change what is a religiously inspired definition" of marriage. Gingrich and like-minded religious people are entitled to believe this, of course. But that doesn't mean the government should translate this religious belief into the law.
more at link
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And that means everyone.
When religion is put forward as a force for good, as many liberal/progressive believers tend to do, it makes it difficult to dismiss the absurd claims of believers when their religion is put forward in support of a cause, such as "traditional" marriage.
We cannot have it both ways. We either do things because its the right thing to do, or we don't. YMMV.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You posted an op. I responded to it. It wasn't directed AT you, it was my opinion on the OP.
Here in this new group, I am as welcome to post as you are, as long as the SOP of the group is followed. This is not your personal playground, even if it appears that way since most of the OP's are posted by you.
If you don't want to see my responses to your OP's or posts, I politely ask you to put me on ignore.
MADem
(135,425 posts)A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)This is not the same place. We do not tolerate any members that do not read or even attempt to generally follow our SOP. That you would state "dismiss the absurd claims of believers" as if you were still in Religion just shows that you don't understand what this group is about.
However, we are a forgiving bunch, within reason. When a member has a rather well-known history such as yours with regards to stalking and generally dismissing "absurd claims of believers", that tells me more than I need to know. The forgiving part is that, while I will ban you now, we will treat it as temporary, and consider removing the ban in a month or two.
Think of it as a break, a Holiday, maybe even a Sabbatical, from the group
Jim__
(14,456 posts)The editors introduction to the issue:
The essays gathered here suggest that secularism might be part of the answer. Secularism, they argue, is not anti-religious or simply the absence of religion; rather it involves the attempt to create a public realm shaped by respect for others and concern for their rightsa place in which deep differences can coexist. For a secular state is (ideally) one that enforces no one religion; treats people of all religions with equal respect; and preserves a public space for the free exercise and expression of religions. Secularism, in these pages, is thus construed as the friend of all religions, and the foe or champion of none.
What emerges from these pages is actually not one secularism, but rather a range of secularismsFrench, American, Indian, and othersthat can be compared, evaluated, and improved upon. Just as religious pluralization means that we need to think more deeply about particular religions, rather than in the generic category of religion, so we need to think about secularismsactual ways in which states manage the religious diversity in their midst. How can we live together with our deepest differences? How can we live in common purpose with those of different faiths and no faith, building a common world together? These are crucial questions for humanity in the twenty-first century, ones that we avoid at our peril. Unless we arrive at better models of religious pluralism, we will face more and more conflict and violence. The essays gathered here ask us to consider the proposal that religious pluralism requires secularism.
The 4 major articles on the topic are available free of charge. Here's a link to the Table of Contents.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)differences, are interesting and becoming a more important issue as we (hopefully) move away from the damage done by the religious right.