• Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    secular humanism is seriously needed as a mainstream social movement everywhere, locally and globally.

    Don’t you realise you basically sound the same as someone saying

    Chrisrian Nationalism is seriously needed as a mainstream social movement everywhere, locally and globally.

    Islamic Sharia is seriously needed as a mainstream social movement everywhere, locally and globally.

    In general, I hope it becomes taboo and outlawed to base rules or laws around mythology-based scripture.

    In a democracy, if there is a sizable Christian population, it makes sense for them to base laws around Christian values. Same if there was a sizable amount of Muslims, Hindus, etc. It doesn’t make sense to give Atheism a special status above all of them as some form of “arbiter of morality”

    • nifty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Secular just means not structured around religion. It makes sense for a democracy to be secular as its constituents come from different religions

      Humanism just means finding morality and ethics based on humanitarian ideals instead of from religious doctrine

      I am not sure how you think Atheism has anything to do with the above, but yes atheists would be the most likely ones to invoke ideas of secular humanism

    • hglman
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The reason it’s even a normalized idea that government should be secular is bc it is a better arbiter of morality. For one it is not dogmatic. More bluntly science and mathematics have validity beyond what any religion can offer.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Secularists have gotten pretty dogmatic about things, claiming that some ideas they disagree with is “religious interference” despite the ideas also having secular justification as well.