Listening to Dogma Debate Radio #47 (Dec 6, 12). Doctor Barry Creamer is really getting on my nerves. When Christians try to argue that secularism is a religion, it makes me faceplam so hard Im in danger of giving myself a concussion. Secularism is, by definition, the absence of -- not opposition to -- religion. A secular state is one that is religiously neutral -- not one that shows favouritism towards atheism. I do not believe for a moment that Doctor Creamer is being sincere when he claims that secularism is, in fact, a religion, thereby making state religious neutrality impossible. On the contrary, I think this is a cheap debating tactic (and Ive seen it before) in order to justify state support for religion. They say that, if every philosophy is a religion, then neutrality is impossible, and you might as well favour Christianity, because Christians are the majority. Utter bull. I think Doctor Creamer knows exactly what David Smalley and other secularists mean when they say religion, and he he is simply being disingenuous to say that he cant see the difference between atheism, which has no dogma, no doctrine, no tenets, no rituals, no worship, no structure, and not even any actual beliefs whatsoever, and Christianity, which is a system of beliefs based upon supposed revelations from a supposed god as described in a series of writings collected together in a single book. Also, on a historical note, Doctor Creamer argues that the Founding Fathers of the United States intended for church and state to mix, because they had worship services in Congress the very day they ratified the Constitution. Well, that may be the case, but something I wish David had been able to respond with during the show is that the Bill of the Rights -- the part of the Constitution that has the establishment clause in it -- was not in the original document. The Constitution was originally ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791. So, it is an invalid argument to claim that what the Founders got up to immediately after ratifying the Constitution justifies modern day American Christians getting shown favouritism by the state, because the establishment clause didnt exist yet. Of course, I also think its incredibly silly to show so much deference to what a bunch of privileged white men envisioned for their country over two centuries ago. The question should not be, What did the Founders want? It should be, What is actually a good idea today? Ironically, I think even the Founders would agree with that, or they wouldnt have made it possible to amend the Constitution at all.
Posted on: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:52:39 +0000