Secularism and the Filipino Freethinkers

We often hear the term secularism nowadays, but it’s possible that many people take its meaning for granted and fail to appreciated the profundity of the word. The social theorist Harriet Martineau wrote, “The adoption of the term Secularism is justified by its including a large number of persons who are not Atheists, and uniting them for action which has Secularism for its object, and not Atheism. On this ground, and because, by the adoption of a new term, a vast amount of impediment from prejudice is got rid of, the use of the name Secularism is found advantageous.”

An online dictionary has the following definitions of secularism:

1. a view that religion and religious considerations should be ignored or excluded from social and political matters.

2. an ethical system asserting that moral judgments should be made without reference to religious doctrine, as reward or punishment in an afterlife.

The first definition maintains the separation of religion from State and society; the second asserts the separation of religion from morality. But as secularism aims to remove religion from our interactions with fellow human beings, it also proposes to replace it with reason and the test of human experience. The English secularist George Jacob Holyoake defined secularism as “a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life.

On issues involving sex and relationships like the RH Bill, divorce, and same-sex marriage, secularism examines the discussions and points out that religious arguments, particularly those that are based on supposed divine revelation, are not accepted in public discourse. Secularism does not tell religion to shut up; it merely asks religion, when speaking outside the four walls of the church, to speak in a language everyone in a pluralistic society can understand. Dogmas are applicable only to the members of a particular sect since no single church holds a doctrine uncontested by other faiths. Thus, secularism asks religion to defend its moral and truth claims in public with rational explanations and testable evidence.

Secularism does not intend to wipe out religion; it merely asserts that “religion ought never to be anything but a private affair” and not to influence public policy. Secularism envisions a society where toleration exists, meaning there is “conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained.” By toleration, secularism does not expect religion to abandon its sacred beliefs or embrace the diverging philosophies of other schools of thought; rather, it simply asks religion to acknowledge the diversity of beliefs and not necessarily to agree with the opposing beliefs themselves.

In the general concept of toleration,

it is essential…that the tolerated beliefs or practices are considered to be objectionable and in an important sense wrong or bad. If this objection component is missing, we do not speak of “toleration” but of “indifference” or “affirmation.”

This objection component is clearly manifested in a 1990 statement of the CBCP on the matter of family planning:

“The Church reiterates its objections to contraception and sterilization and expresses its reservations about the moral acceptability of certain aspects of the Program.  But in a pluralistic society and recognizing the freedom of those who disagree with Church principles, the Church respects the government’s toleration of other means that the conscience of others may not object to and that the law on abortion does not forbid.  Nonetheless, the Church seeks a greater emphasis on natural family planning as consistent with moral teachings and religious beliefs.”

While it is commendable that “the Church respects the government’s toleration,” technically the government is not being tolerant because in the first place it does not share the Church’s objection component, which is religious in nature, towards contraception. As such, what is expected of the government is not toleration but affirmation of modern family planning methods that are effective, safe, and legal. Moreover, secularism calls on the government to be indifferent towards the doctrines of religions especially since they are in conflict with one another. For example, in the following chart which lists the religious acceptability of certain acts ranging from 1 (condemned) to 5 (totally acceptable), only Roman Catholicism condemns birth control (7th line) while other religions accept it.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 = “condemned” 2 = “morally unacceptable in most cases” 3 = “neutral” or “no clear position” 4 = “morally acceptable in most cases” 5 = “blessed” or “totally acceptable” [source]

With such conflicting religious teachings, it is just appropriate that the government is mandated by no less than the Constitution to give no reverence to any single religion. And while secularism rejects religious claims of divine revelation, it “offers the guidance of observation, investigation, and experience. Instead of taking authority for truth, it takes truth for authority.

At this point it is necessary to reiterate that secularism is not the same as atheism. While atheism rejects the idea of God and denies his existence, secularism merely points out that “no sacred scripture or ancient church can be made a basis of belief, for the obvious reason that their claims always need to be proved, and cannot without absurdity be assumed.” Moreover, Secularism goes beyond the rejection of unproven religious claims. In English Secularism, Holyoake wrote,

The Secularist, is without presumption of an infallible creed, is without the timorous indefiniteness of a creedless believer… The Secularist has a creed as definite as science, and as flexible as progress, increasing as the horizon of truth is enlarged… All believe that God, if he exists, is the God of the honest, and that he respects conscience more than creeds, for all free thinkers have died in this faith.

We at Filipino Freethinkers aim to promote secularism as a means of improving every Filipino’s quality of life, wishing for everyone to live lives free of ignorance and oppression – in a society where they are able to act and think for themselves, and in a country where religion and governance are clearly and permanently separated. And as we are composed of nonbelievers and progressive believers, we have no consensus on the question of the existence of God. What we do agree about, however, is that all religious authority is self-appointed because God, if he exists, never personally endorsed any religion. Thus, being freethinkers – and secularists – we rely on reason and science to chart morality and uplift humanity.

61 comments

    • “A man is a religious being.” “You cannot exclude spiritual from secular.” You, do realize that Rizal himself fought for the Separation of Church and State among other things? You NEED to separate State and Church, otherwise the Philippines will Continue to be, in m y opinion) A tyrannical theocracy where Churchmen, both Bishops and Priests commit treason by refusing to follow a LAW that was passed, How can you call yourself a freethinker when you are a mindless slave to Organized Religion? And by the way, Man is not a religious being. Far from it. Man is a Free-thinker, naturally. He always wants to explain “Why” Or “where.” Hence came Religion and the idea of gods, because…

      Man at his intellectual and scientific infancy could only make sense of existence through the usage of several deities and other avatars. However, as their mind and bodies evolved, they learned the Scientific Method, they started to prove the religious doctrines wrong and untrue, and that is the next step for man should we learn to advance, we need to accept that religion was a relic of the past, an essence made by man to explain the previously impossible to explain. It is nothing but that, and religious people are now the ad hominem of society, the degrading factor that corrupts people to defy the Scientific Advancement.

  1. am just little bit confused about the correlation between progress and crime rates, according to the some post here that the lower economic status of a country the higher the crime rate but as i browsed the internet (via goggle) it seemed that i found out different thing. For two websites, the richer the counties the higher the crime rates. Am just confused.

  2. basing everything to doctrine won't do anything…
    like what's stated in line in a movie… "The time of heroes is dead, – the Christ God has killed it, leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear, and shame. "

    what we have to do is face what reality is…
    the fact that we Filipinoes have to do something about this on going issue about birth spacing…

  3. "2. an ethical system asserting that moral judgments should be made without reference to religious doctrine, as reward or punishment in an afterlife."

    An impossible task since objective moral values and duties are not warranted on non-theistic world-views. Morality simply cannot be divorced from it's ontological foundations if it's to have any normative force whatsoever.

    • Sorry Tautological Theistic Religious Reasoning does not apply. Just cause you say so does not make things true.

      • Sorry, but I gave no such example of 'Tautological Theistic Religious Reasoning'. I gave a generalized comment based on my understanding of ethics and it's ontology. Very simply, the argument is this: since morality is, on naturalism, ultimately derived from evolution (called Evolutionary Naturalism (EN)), we have no reason to believe that our moral beliefs are warranted. This is because evolution as a system is fitness-aimed, not truth-aimed.

  4. Three news tidbits that got me furious:
    1) "A bishop said that if Pnoy or PCSO want to get back the expensive SUV, they can do so"! What an arrogant dare from a bishop!!!
    2) (in connection with the above) another bishop said that before the government takes it back, they should remember that these expensive SUVs are being used for outreach and charitable work! Aba, nagsinungalin na, nangonsyensya pa!
    3) Manoling Morato claims that during his time, they in the PCSO saved countless lives, whereas the present board is killing people! What an arrogant prick!

  5. When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me.

  6. that's just about right for Buddhism, but why only a "3" for female clergy? I'm pretty sure there are more actively serving female monks here in the Philippines and Taiwan than their male counterparts. The founder of the world's largest Buddhist charity organization is even a female Buddhist monk, Dharma Master Cheng Yen. The philosophy of Buddhism being practiced in south-east asian countries differs greatly from the ones practiced, say in Tibet which are almost all male monks. The chart sub-divides the various Abrahamic factions but lumped all the sub-groups of Buddhism into one category which may lead to a few inaccuracies.

    Also in the case of married clergy, it differs greatly from country to country. Buddhist monks here do not marry, its part of their vow of giving up worldly pleasures. But for countries like Thailand, Japan, or Vietnam where lay-Buddhists enter a monastic life at one point in their life then return to civilian life afterwards, they are still free to have a family of their own.

    • It's noted in the source of the chart that "No single rating will reflect the beliefs of all believers within a faith group, or the beliefs of all of the leadership within the denomination."

      • "It's noted in the source of the chart.."

        And what period was the basis of that chart? 21st century? Would it look the same, say a hundred years ago? A thousand? Some things change, some things don't. Did secularism agree on all things since day one?

        "we rely on reason and science to chart morality and uplift humanity"

        All secularists agree nicely on their reasoning and interpretation of science? I imagine
        you guys in serene kumbaya hand-holding all the time then. You folks think you have
        a monopoly on reason and science? Wait. wasn't Stalin a secularist? How about Lenin? Mao?

        "God, if he exists, never personally endorsed any religion"

        Ows? cmon jong, this is a self-contradicting statement. Questioning the existence of
        God at the same time asserting something on the basis of God's existence. Try another one.

        • The chart was compiled in the 1990s. I don't know if it would look the same a hundred or thousand years ago. As for secularism, I don't think it has agreed or will agree on all things at all. As Holyoake wrote, "the Secularist has a creed as flexible as progress, increasing as the horizon of truth is enlarged."

          Secularists definitely don't agree nicely on their reasoning and interpretation of science, but that's the beauty of it, because since no single person or group can be considered an authority when it comes to science, everyone will have to defend his or her stand.

          As for my statement, "God, if he exists, never personally endorsed any religion," it simply means that while we don't know for sure if there is or there is not a God, what we do know is that no religion has been personally endorsed by a deity, and all claims of divine revelation are hearsay. Where's the contradiction in that?

          • The chart will look differently, I bet my neighbor's house on that. As an example, it is a fact that ALL Christian denominations condemned contraception prior to 1930. But some things never change since day 1. Anyway, how did Holyoake (who's he?) define "progress" though? Did he invent it? It is such a broad term subject to varying perspectives, depending on one's orientation. When Stalin massacred thousands of his own people, he was precisely pushing "progress" and many of his like-minded Soviet secularists/atheists believed him. He moved Russia from a medieval agrarian society into a great industrial power. If he was wrong, how can you say so and what is your basis? Reason? Gad, he believed he was being reasonable and many believed him. If you were born in that era and happened to be indoctrinated into the Bolsheviks, I bet you would have believed him too. Tell me a good reason why not.

            Secularists definitely don't agree nicely on their reasoning and interpretation of science, but that's the beauty of it, because since no single person or group can be considered an authority when it comes to science, everyone will have to defend his or her stand.

            Beauty? or ugly confusion. There is no one secular standard when it comes to interpreting science. Take the subject of life and abortion. Science over 2000+ years have gained a LOT of knowledge about the biology of human life cycle. The body of mankind shares that knowledge, however observe the world as it is now. The US through its Supreme Court says life should be respected at "viability" – roughly 22 weeks. In Canada, it is legal to abort anytime as long as the child is not born yet – life starts once you are born. Here in our shores, we tenaciously debate about fertilization and implantation. Take note that all of us around the world possess the very same, very same knowledge base in the science of embryology and human development, yet we interpret them differently.

            As for my statement, "God, if he exists, never personally endorsed any religion," it simply means that while we don't know for sure if there is or there is not a God, what we do know is that no religion has been personally endorsed by a deity, and all claims of divine revelation are hearsay. Where's the contradiction in that?

            If you don't know God or doubt his existence, how can you assert that God "never personally endorsed any religion"?

          • [When Stalin massacred thousands of his own people, he was precisely pushing "progress" and many of his like-minded Soviet secularists/atheists believed him.]

            Stalin's regime already fails the core tenet of a secular society, which is that it should respect the ability of people to think for themselves, and is tolerant of diverging views. Tell me how having a Commissar putting a bullet through my head is in any way an enforcement of these values.

            [Gad, he believed he was being reasonable and many believed him.]

            Believed, or followed out of fear of being singled out for being a dissenter?

          • "tolerant of diverging views" – ok, I read you. Just how do you folks tolerate private Catholic schools when they say they want to teach their own faith-compatible version of sexuality education, and not some secular sex ed modules prescribed by the state?

          • [ok, I read you. Just how do you folks tolerate private Catholic schools when they say they want to teach their own faith-compatible version of sexuality education, and not some secular sex ed modules prescribed by the state? ]

            And how did we go from your assertion of Stalin being a secularist to the Catholic Church's policy on sex education? Quit attempting to change topics.

          • You were the one who brought up "tolerant of diverging views", but you don't want to answer a simple question along that line when challenged.

            Just how do you folks tolerate private Catholic schools when they say they want to teach their own faith-compatible version of sexuality education, and not some secular sex ed modules prescribed by the state?

          • [Just how do you folks tolerate private Catholic schools when they say they want to teach their own faith-compatible version of sexuality education, and not some secular sex ed modules prescribed by the state? ]

            I'm not an authority on this, but from what I do understand from a Catholic friend's recommendation, one compromise would be for the RCC to opt to teach sex education as fitting their religious views.

            On a personal note however, I'd rather not trust them with my child's education with regard to sexuality, on account of their track record for lying and promoting discrimination: https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/03/31/its-nohttp://www.mb.com.ph/articles/220983/unwed-pregnant-and-kicked-out

            Tell us willyj, if a Catholic Church teaches its kids that homosexuality is a mental disorder, despite the fact Psychological associations have already stated this is not the case, will you defend their stance, more so if they claim their bigotry stems from faith?

          • I'm not an authority on this, but from what I do understand from a Catholic friend's recommendation, one compromise would be for the RCC to opt to teach sex education as fitting their religious views.

            This is an acceptable compromise. I wonder why the RH bill authors insist otherwise.

            On a personal note however, I'd rather not trust them with my child's education with regard to sexuality,

            Fine. You can enrol them in good secular schools. Plenty of them around.

            Tell us willyj, if a Catholic Church teaches its kids that homosexuality is a mental disorder, despite the fact Psychological associations have already stated this is not the case, will you defend their stance, more so if they claim their bigotry stems from faith?

            We've gone through this before. The homosexual act is a disordered act – this is what the Church teaches. Again, the Church DOES NOT condemn people who have same-sex attraction tendencies. I already quoted the OFFICIAL Catholic stance before: "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.".

          • [Again, the Church DOES NOT condemn people who have same-sex attraction tendencies. I already quoted the OFFICIAL Catholic stance before: ]

            Their official stance is different from what they actually do Willy.

            http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-11-10/news/171260
            http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.co

            As I said, you're full of shit.

            [The homosexual act is a disordered act – this is what the Church teaches.]

            And modern psychology has already declassified gayness as a mental disorder more than 30 years ago. I guess they didn't get the memo.
            http://www.healthyminds.org/More-Info-For/GayLesb

          • Lets get closer to home. I suppose you have gay friends or acquaintances (I do too). Can you relate their horror stories of discrimination and condemnation here in the Philippines? Have they been forcibly restrained by the Church in living their lifestyles?

          • [Can you relate their horror stories of discrimination and condemnation here in the Philippines?]

            Willy, learn to fucking read the links you're given. I cited this in an earlier comment:
            https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/03/31/its-no

            LGBT killings are also on the rise. http://www.interaksyon.com/article/6916/afraid-ki

            [Have they been forcibly restrained by the Church in living their lifestyles? ]
            http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/18348/catholic-bisho
            http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/18995/bishops-marria

          • [Just how do you folks tolerate private Catholic schools when they say they want to teach their own faith-compatible version of sexuality education, and not some secular sex ed modules prescribed by the state?]

            Let's try another example: If a Muslim school teaches its women that they're second class citizens who must be absolutely obedient to men, and teach this under the guise of faith, would you permit them to opt out of complying with the tenets of the Magna Carta for Women?

          • For one thing, if you equate "second class citizens" to being "absolutely obedient to men" you are assigning your own perception. Maybe the Muslim women believes that being "absolutely obedient to men" does not relegate them to being second-class citizens. There is a certain context in that we do not know of. Have you actually seen Muslim women interact with men assuming they have this belief? I have, and its not what you think. You'd think some of the men were "second-class" 🙂 Anway, we do have women Muslim legislators and leaders in their own right.

            I would say the state can invoke compelling state reasons when repressing religious beliefs. Freedom of religious expression is not absolute with this factor. At any rate, we have allowed exceptions from the law for Muslims in certain cases. Polygamy, divorce, as examples.

          • [Maybe the Muslim women believes that being "absolutely obedient to men" does not relegate them to being second-class citizens.]

            And maybe you are once again making one of your false assumptions. A quick look at the news indicates that Islamic women living under fundie regimes do consider being obligated to men's societal impositions as stiffling to their rights.
            http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcfytde.w6d10a7riw.htm

          • [I have, and its not what you think. You'd think some of the men were "second-class" Anway, we do have women Muslim legislators and leaders in their own right. ] Let me be honest willy. Ever since you ass-pulled Berlinski and WND as sources, I consider you a dishonest asshat.

            Why should I trust your word?

          • [He moved Russia from a medieval agrarian society into a great industrial power. ]

            …Which eventually collapsed because it could not sustain itself.

            Walter Cronkite's memoirs of his visits behind the Iron Curtain during the cold war gives some very depressing glimpses of life as a normal Russian during Stalin's regime.

          • //Take note that all of us around the world possess the very same, very same knowledge base in the science of embryology and human development, yet we interpret them differently. //

            – because science shouldn't be the only determinant in issues like these. you have to take into consideration economic factors as well. If a 1st-world country has excellent social services that will raise orphans abandoned by their parents then it would make more sense not to allow abortion at all because the child has a fighting chance of leading a good life even without good parents. But if you are an impoverished 3rd world country with a high infant mortality rate, it would be a greater crime to force mothers to come to term, only to have many of these babies die later on due to lack of resources.

          • hmm, I suppose we belong to that category "3rd world country with a high infant mortality rate" then that should follow that we allow abortions in the entire country? Roughly 80% of our riches are concentrated on the richest 20% of our population. If I follow your reasoning then we should not allow abortion among the rich 20% of our people but allow it among the poor 80% of our people.

          • [If I follow your reasoning then we should not allow abortion among the rich 20% of our people but allow it among the poor 80% of our people. ] Not an issue with the rich, given they can just fly to a country that legalizes abortions.

          • [it is a fact that ALL Christian denominations condemned contraception prior to 1930.]

            I would just like to remark that not all religions fall under Christianity.

            [Anyway, how did Holyoake (who’s he?) define “progress” though? Did he invent it? It is such a broad term subject to varying perspectives, depending on one’s orientation.]

            You know WillyJ, there’s this new invention called Google and it’s surprisingly helpful in finding information about almost anything, including Holyoake. You should try it. 🙂 As for the word “progress”, I don’t think Holyoake defined/invented it because it was already being used 200 years before he was born.

            [When Stalin massacred thousands of his own people, he was precisely pushing “progress” and many of his like-minded Soviet secularists/atheists believed him. He moved Russia from a medieval agrarian society into a great industrial power. If he was wrong, how can you say so and what is your basis? Reason? Gad, he believed he was being reasonable and many believed him. If you were born in that era and happened to be indoctrinated into the Bolsheviks, I bet you would have believed him too. Tell me a good reason why not.]

            If I was born in that era and happened to be indoctrinated into the Bolsheviks, I wouldn’t have been a secularist because my reason would have been replaced with indoctrination, so I would definitely have believed that Stalin was doing mankind a service.

            [Beauty? or ugly confusion. There is no one secular standard when it comes to interpreting science. Take the subject of life and abortion. Science over 2000+ years have gained a LOT of knowledge about the biology of human life cycle. The body of mankind shares that knowledge, however observe the world as it is now. The US through its Supreme Court says life should be respected at “viability” – roughly 22 weeks. In Canada, it is legal to abort anytime as long as the child is not born yet – life starts once you are born. Here in our shores, we tenaciously debate about fertilization and implantation. Take note that all of us around the world possess the very same, very same knowledge base in the science of embryology and human development, yet we interpret them differently.]

            Let me quote Twin-Skies on this one: “Science thrives on constantly checking and questioning all data put forward by research. If a scientific theory survives the battery of inquiries and tests it is put through, that’s because it works, and it’s a valid observation of the natural world.”

            [If you don’t know God or doubt his existence, how can you assert that God “never personally endorsed any religion”?]

            Because nowhere in recorded history did anything resembling an all-powerful deity come down and tell all the people in the world that a certain religion is the one true religion – unless you consider the Bible a historical book. But even then, the biblical God only showed himself to his own people.

        • [wasn't Stalin a secularist?] Actually, Stalin drew his power base from a personality cult that demanded absolute, unbending obedience to his authority, under the guise of a communist regime for the people.

          Unbending obedience = Religious dogma
          Cult of personality = Religious Worship of Allah, Jesus, etc.
          "For the People" = "Saving People from Hell."

          Did I miss anything?

        • [All secularists agree nicely on their reasoning and interpretation of science?] Not even close. Science thrives on constantly checking and questioning all data put forward by research. If a scientific theory survives the battery of inquiries and tests it is put through, that's because it works, and it's a valid observation of the natural world.

        • [Mao?]

          He was a secularist? Hard to imagine, given all those scholars, teachers, intellectuals, and FELLOW SECULARISTS he had murdered during the cultural revolution.

          Wasn't Hitler a Christian?

        • wah? resorting to "Godwin's Law" this early in the discussion? WillyJ, I'm disappointed 🙂
          threw in every 2-bit dictator in history… except Hitler… because he happens to be Catholic?

          • Wes, you got me there. I should have included Hitler too. He considered himself a god from all intents and purposes.

          • [He considered himself a god from all intents and purposes. ]

            And once again willy, you prove yourself full of shite.

            //'My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.//
            – Munich, April 12, 1922

            Let's review what else Adolf wrote in Mein Kampf:

            //…we National Socialists must hold unflinchingly to our aim in foreign policy, namely to secure for the German people the land and soil to which they are entitles on this earth. And this action is the only one which, before God and or German posterity, would make any sacrifice of blood seem justified: before God, since we have been put on this earth with the mission of eternal struggle for our daily bread.//

            //The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.//

          • Oh dear … argumentum ad Hitlerum (or Stalin, Mao), this old chestnut again.
            First Hitler was thinking of fulfilling Yahweh’s will and doing his work with the Holocaust, not of being god himself. Hitler was inspired by the Gospel of John and whipping out of the brood of vipers e.g. the Jewish money changers from the planet. Hitler made a joint venture deal (Reichsconcordat ) with the Vatican (negotiated with later pope Pius XII, signed from Pius XI) as his endorsement which was used for his election campaign (I have the support of the Vatican ergo all Catholics elect me !) .
            Second Stalin was educated on a Jesuit college and still attended mass even being dictator.

            But what has this to do with SECULAR ? Possibly you are meaning atheist ? (which both weren’t).

            And secular, democratic and free societies with changing laws following the Zeitgeist are just the opposite from absolutistic societies whether run from
            – some Ayatollah as head of a theocracy declaring some holy scripture as absolute truth
            – or from a dictator who thinks he is doing the work of god
            – or from a dictator who declares some doctrine to be absolute truth.

  7. most progressive nations are actually secular nations.
    Japan, US, Singapore, most of Europe, Austrailia

    How about UE, Iran, Brunei and muslim nations but extremely rich? easy oil

    also the more religious a country is, usually the more violent they are. US, mostly christian, Middle eastern countries islamic, or have high crime rates, most 3rd world catholic nations.

    furthermore most incarcerated criminals are theists, particularly catholics (practicing or not):
    http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
    http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

    • true. its a slap on the face whenever you get into a debate with a religious fundie who claims that without an all-powerful god to give you moral laws, everyone will suddenly devolve into rapists, murderers and thieves. how ironic that secular countries generally have a lower crime rate than deeply devout countries, regardless of religion.

      Go to Italy or Spain, center of Catholicism, and you'll get your wallet stolen in no time (speaking from personal experience). But leave your bag in a park bench in Japan, and chances are it'll still be there when you get back.

      • Had this same experience during the 1970s and 1980s, this devout Catholic Mediterranean countries were/are known for the high crime rates, our bus driver lost even his shoes to theft when he made a short nap under the shadow of a tree. But this seems to be especially rampant in a Catholic settings, as you just have to share 5% of the booty with the priest as tithe and your sin is forgiven, make a 10% donation from the booty and you are a saint.

      • part 2:
        I lost 2 cell-phones in the “so very morally and honest” because devout Catholic R of P in taxis or vans, never to be seen again. On the other hand, my colleague who lost his cell-phone in a German taxi bringing him to the airport got it back as the driver dropped it straight at the reception from where he picked him up. Same in Northern Europe, the taxi driver even don’t wanted money for driving again to the office to bring a lost cell-phone back. And my once forgotten laptop in the commuter train, I just picked up Monday morning from the lost&found counter in the same country.
        Here in the so morally as so very religious R of P, this simple honesty, so common in secular countries would make a headline in the newspapers.

        • yung officemate ko dati nakakita ng wallet sa bus. di nya binalik sa may-ari kahit na may contact number sa loob ng wallet.

          sabi nya "meant to be" daw na sya ang makapulot nun kasi nag pray daw sya kay Lord na tulungan sya makahanap ng pambayad sa tuition ng anak nya. Yun daw ang sagot sa mga panalangin nya at magagalit daw si Lord pag di pa nya tinanggap ang biyayang bigay sa kanya

          • Ahh…your officemate must have heard mass then in one of the churches I visited where a sign was prominently displayed all over and which read: "please don't leave your valuables unattended cause others might think these are the answers to their prayers"…:p

          • ah… and this is why I have my guard up when dealing with ultra-religious folk in everyday life. They're so used to applying super-convoluted reasoning to justify all the inconsistencies in their holy book that its virtually second-nature for them to come up with twisted logic to make even the wrong things they do seem like its OK.

            Even in the highest echelons of Catholicism, we're seeing this twisted logic in how the CBCP is insisting it has done nothing wrong by accepting misappropriated funds from the PCSO.

          • Unless I misread the news, the CBCP, as a collegial body, never requested for and received donations from the PCSO. Rather, it was the individual dioceses of certain bishops that made the requests, in the same vein that it is these individual dioceses that receive donations from other dubious sources. Just clarifying this point only…

      • worse yet, I always hear priests and fundamentalists keep saying over and over. that we are so blessed by the holy spirit, blessed through the ears (was the correct term) we do not need to follow those countries into progression. we just dont see it but we are indeed blessed. bulcrap. me and my mom promptly walked out of that homily.

        and unsurprisingly the richest of all countries with a catholic religion as a state religion is the vatican.

        while other countries with state catholicism as state religion, though quite rich -save for costa rica, all have RH and Divorce.
        Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, Malta & Monaco

      • <div id="idc-comment-msg-div-170890663" class="idc-message"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(170890663)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-[Go to Italy or Spain, center of Catholicism, and you'll get your wallet stolen in no time (speaking from personal experience). But leave your bag in a park bench in Japan, and chances are it'll still be there when you get back.]

        The Vatican among the highest crimes rates in the world btw. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2639777.stm

        Clearly, our bishops are just following the trends set by their leaders.

    • I hope I don't get crucified here for this comment: I believe that criminality, in general, is directly related to how progressive a country is, and not whether it is secular or not. The more affluent a nation is, except for certain areas in it where poverty still exists, the lower the crime rate. Conversely, the poorer the country, the higher the cases of theft and other similar crimes. That's why a person can misplace a cell phone in Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Germany and certain states in the US and for sure, you'll get it back. Now, if you lose it in our country, India, Bangladesh, Mexico, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or other similarly poor countries, I'd bet my $&/@?(;: you won't get it back, no matter how much one prays to all the gods in heaven! In other words, it's simple economics and not religion that drives a person to commit a crime, generally speaking that is…

      • not quite, if you noticed I cited from personal experience the rampant theft in Italy and Spain (you'd get exactly the same advice from travel forums warning travelers to be careful in these places) which are both 1st world countries with very little economic disparity (no urban slum areas, the very rich living beside the very poor…)

        but i'm sure there are also predominantly christian countries with no crime problems. so you are correct in concluding that its not religion per se that drives the crime rate up, but rather religion has no effect whatsoever in influencing a society to become more "moral" that its secular counterparts. "God's chosen people", whichever god that may be, can be just as good or evil as anybody else.

      • As mentioned from Wes below: the example was from two very rich first world countries – and not about stealing food when hungry in a poor country.

        So my point was about the feeling guilty of wrongdoing for theft, which seems to be very underdeveloped (to put it mildly) in >> CATHOLIC << countries. I was working and living in Muslim countries for month and years, where their religion is telling stealing is wrong. And even thieves don’t get their hands cut off any more, theft rates are much smaller even they are poorer than the R of P.

        So just confessing the sin and sharing the booty with your priest as tithe is absolving you – that’s my point.
        Gang raping little altar boys wrecking their young life is just “a sin against God” not against the victim, and praying some rosaries as priest is soothing Yahweh and Jesus and absolving you.

      • Sound observations. it is true there is a direct correlation between progress and crime rates.

        what we are talking about is the fundy belief that without religion society will collapse and without religion we will all devolve to evil, corrupt, self destructing, child-raping people. off course even with religion those are already common-place… in the vatican of all places.

        remember the old fundy addage:
        God is the source of morals, If we do not have God (in government, science and non-theistic subjects) there is no morals.

        quite the fallacy that is. besides, sociologists has already found the source of morality.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here