Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
This woman sounds potentially confused, but different people mean different things by "secularism."
Secularism can mean that politicians are forbidden from having their policies be influenced by religion and religious expression is forbidden in the public sphere. It is possible to oppose that without wanting religious law.
So someone who deems themselves opposed to both could say that
A) Laws should not be based in religion, but
B) Religion can be a influence in supporting or opposing a policy, just as philosophy or income-class can influence those things.
|
Well said, I think you understand her well, although i do not agree,
The problem of secularism is that it gives politicians the freedom to make unmoral laws, thus making the society decent in morals and distance themselves for the nature God made them, so it gives persons the freedom to openly make moral crimes rather than making them in secret, and thus infecting the whole society.
On the other hand, the problem of radical religious persons is that they oppose any other opinion than theirs even if this opinion is also based on respected views from their fellow religious person who embrace the same religion.
The solution in my opinion is the moderates' religious persons in each religion, and particularly Islam as I'm a Muslim.
Persons who can take the moral ethics of their religion, and then they are open minded to other respected opinions that do not contradict with the basics.
And also they are in the good side of their religion respecting the free will of embracing any religion.
In my opinion Islam does not agree with secularism, but equally it does not agree with radical close minded way of understanding religion.
Peace