A secular society is one which treats all religion equally. However there is a religion which believes in converting other religions to its faith. Therefore is it true that it is impossible to create a truly secular society ?

  • How does converting a person to another faith impact anyone's treatment due to their faith, it doesn't seem to give anyone any advantage or disadvantages based on their faith? Assuming that no crusades or such are started within the society of course... – Fifth_H0r5eman Sep 11 '18 at 9:15
  • 2
    Secular doesn't mean multi-faith.. it means don't talk about God in council meetings about sewerage systems. People are free to practice whatever religion they like as long as religion isn't a factor in the day to day running of the state. Once more.. secular does not mean atheist. – Richard Sep 11 '18 at 10:30
  • 1
    I'd say a secular society is one whose members have no religion. – user20253 Sep 11 '18 at 11:27
  • Logically impossible? Or just very very much of a challenge? – user34017 Sep 13 '18 at 17:55

With religion, it is impossible. A secular society can be one where there is no religion (like a comment said).

Otherwise, any "religion equally" society would have to accept also that a group of members considers all religions fake and want to be free from religious rule, teachings and interaction (or, another case, as the author mentions - that want to assimilate the others into their own religion, which most of religions actually do), therefore, there can be no true equilibrium there.

Currently, modern 'democracies' are generally self-recognized as secular, but they are actually not. They accept some religions (only in theory equally) but directly reject and/or ban others as sects, evil, unconstitutional or even on criteria as 'not enough members'.

| improve this answer | |
  • We are all thinking the same, as it is the most trivial solution coming to mind. This, though, depends on what religion is. – rus9384 Sep 11 '18 at 14:06
  • 1
    This post is ranting about factual nonsense. Division of state and church is about (religious) institutions and not religion as such, nor is the protection of religion the same as recognising religious groups as having a certain standing in tax law (which is what recognising religious institutions is mostly about). Being unconstitutional is mostly a cultural matter (e.g. polygamy) and it is simply a necessity that certain limits of cultural heterogeneity cannot be exceeded without losing social coherence, which is the main point of mores, morals. See also the paradox of tolerance. – Philip Klöcking Sep 11 '18 at 14:17
  • What William Graham Sumner did write are points of views like many others. Is it moral to tolerate or even allow religions that killed more people that the world wars (ethic cleanses, purges, etc. all that are not connected to a declared war) ? Still, they thrive today and consume state's money. In my country we have over 13k recognized churches and only around 250 functional hospitals. Something is obviously wrong with society. – Overmind Sep 17 '18 at 12:33
  • @Overmind if you don't tag Philip's name (like I did with yours), he will not be notified of your comment. – user34150 Sep 17 '18 at 16:04
  • I usually do that if there have been other replies between the previous one I answer and mine. – Overmind Sep 20 '18 at 7:21

I would recast this as a: "truly liberal society." Religion is a very vague term, is Maoism a religion? Confucianism? Is anything that authoritatively prescribes actions on the basis of a teaching presumed to come from those most qualified to produce a sound teaching a religion? Ergo, also any so-called rational doctrine? Catholicism is the true meaning of "religion" in Western discourse. It was opposed chiefly to political morality or "political virtue" in Montesquieu's phrase, i.e., political virtue thought as in Cicero's On Duties. What it means in this context, the only tangible one, is Universal rather than locally interested prescriptions to right behavior. The world, not this people or this Fatherland.

Now, is Liberalism a religion, the claim everyone can do as they like, think as they like, so long as it does not injure others? Yes, in that it is a universal dogma, if you like. So, either one makes a strict or tyrannical Liberalism, all doctrines that don't agree with our founding principle are outlawed or to be witheringly curtailed, or one does not really live as a Liberal, but only sort of glances at the teaching. This is why liberals in the US are always going about slaughtering people, such as with the crime in Lybia, because there is no half-way house except the old style of political, i.e., locally interested virtue. That path is not open because one constantly hears of the most remote parts of the world, and, a fortiori, does business with every quarter of the globe. If it is thus granted that Liberalism is what's meant by the vague notion of "secularism", and that ideologies are universal and thereby like religion, i.e., like Catholicism, the issues comes clear.

| improve this answer | |

It is possible- if a functioning democracy is secular in character. And the religious ethos is humane.

The separation of religion and state is the foundation of secularism.

It ensures religious groups don't interfere in affairs of state, and the state doesn't interfere in religious affairs. Secularism seeks to ensure and protect freedom of religious belief and practice for all citizens apart from freedoms of thought and conscience to apply equally to all – believers and non-believers alike.

In a secular democracy, all citizens are equal before the law and parliament.

Secularism champions universal human rights above religious demands. It upholds equality laws that protect women, LGBT people and minorities from religious discrimination. Equal access to public services Secularism is not atheism-

it is simply a framework for ensuring equality throughout society – in politics, education, the law and elsewhere – for believers and non-believers alike.

Religious people have the right to express their beliefs publicly but so do those who oppose or question those beliefs.

Secularism is the best chance we have to create a society in which people of all religions or none can live together fairly and peacefully.



| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    But if people are inherently religious or irreligious then same is government consisting of those people. – rus9384 Sep 11 '18 at 14:30
  • @rus9384If the functioning of the state is made 'neutral' with respect to different 'categories' then it may be immaterial 'who' constitutes the government – drvrm Sep 11 '18 at 15:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.