We are a distinctly meddlesome species.

Tradition has piggy-backed The Truth up to this point.

Consciousness has always been at odds with itself.
Why not? Or is the question, "How?"

How now brown cow? The horse is now blue.

Surely, every darn thing is connected, so why stymie the realisation by putting up fences? One dern question follows another.......

Dear Syamala

I am not convinced that all those who consider faith as important are against secularism. Like Ed said one question leads to another. When you say faith, do you refer to religion or does faith refer to trust or belief that one system is better or worse than another. Seems to me it is all connected, you can't have one without the other.

Love
Bonnie

I think that notion results from a subscription to fictions.

Faith as defined in Infinite Play, and as I have postulated here:

The knowing through direct experience (experiment and observation) as well as the measurement of statistically significant phenomenal event anomalies using mathematical probability and improbability analysis, that indicate the existence of an all pervading (benevolent) intelligence operating from the Supreme Evolutionary principle as it’s impetus that is working behind the scenes connecting and blending individual intentions resulting in the formulation of a collective intention for which the mechanisms of fulfillment are orchestrated and facilitated.

The secular (non-religious) are not necessarily opposed to faith depending on how “faith” is defined.

The non-religious can be very spiritual as defined in Infinite Play as giving credence to the intangible as primary and the tangible as secondary.

Dear Syamala,

I believe that it is a matter of identification with different planes of consciousness. Those who believe that faith is of importance identify with a reality that surpasses the temporal realm.
Even among those who value faith there is great confusion about concepts of the Creator.

Our own concept in the Western culture is based on the idea of duality: good and evil, heaven and hell. And so our religions tend to be ethical in their accent. Sin and atonement. Right and wrong. In the Vedic culture, Ramakrishna once said that if all you think about are your sins, then you are a sinner. And we can witness this philosophy in the Catholic version of belief which emphasizes a focus on sin. Wouldn't it be great if we could instead focus on the positive and say, "Bless me Father, for I have been great and these are the good things I have done this week"?

A wonderful old Zen philosopher, Dr. D.T. Suzuki, has said, "God against man. Man against God. Man against nature. Nature against man. Nature against God. God against nature - very funny religion!" In the Thomas Gospel that was dug up in Egypt some 60 years ago, Jesus says, "He who drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I shall be he." Now that is exactly Buddhism. We are all manifestations of Buddha Consciousness, or Christ Consciousness, only we don't know it. The word "Buddha" means "the one who waked up". We are all to do that - to wake up to the Christ or Buddha Consciousness within us.

This is blasphemy in the normal way of Christian thinking, but it is the very essence of Christian Gnosticism and of the Thomas Gospel.

There is a plane of consciousness where you can identify yourself with that which transcends pairs of opposites. The Garden of Eden is a metaphor for that innocence that is innocent of time, innocent of opposites, and that is the prime center out of which consciousness then becomes aware of the changes. Adam and Eve have thrown themselves out of the Garden of Timeless Unity, you might say, just by the act of recognizing duality.

There is a Hindu image that shows a tiangle, which is the Mother Goddess, and a dot in the center of the triangle, which is the energy of the Transcendent entering the field of time. And then from this triangle there come pairs of triangles in all directions. Out of one comes two.

All things in the field of time are pairs of opposites. So this is the shift of consciousness from the consciousness of identity to the consciousness of participation in duality. And then you are into the field of time which is a different plane of consciousness.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

Actually I think the opposite is true: Those who consider secularism as important for life are usually against faith.

Why do I say it, because it's said here many times, faith is constantly attacked, especially the Christian varieties Why? people don't like like moral authority or belief systems coming from the outside, they want their truth to come from within. Or from the so-called higher planes of consciousness. If you ask me, that's a faith belief regardless of what people claim for themselves. One must be careful about mood making.

It's also funny to hear arguments against faith when people don't have faith, hard to put oneself in others shoes.

So please consider both sides of the argument.

Steve

So long as we are children we have faith in our earthly father and consider our father to be the best of all fathers.

Then we grow up... become fathers ourselves and come to realise that all fathers are the same. All should be respected. we become 'secularists'.

Similarly, so long as we are children evolutionally and culturally, we (have to)have faith in our heavenly Father also called God, but then we grow up and become sort of father ourselves - become what now-a-days many people call spiritual rather than religious or theists or believers - and come to realise that all spiritually speaking all heavenly fathers are the same. We become secularists.

Harb

Let me try to make this a little clearly Syamala,
Those who consider conservative faith based values as important for life like myself are not against secularism, at least in the traditional sense afterall in America we have a secular government, we are against leftist ideology/values. And that's what you really mean, because traditional secularism is dead, the trend towards the hard left goes against the values that made America great. A leftist does not believe in the following:

In God we Trust
Liberty (for the individual)
Out of Many, One
I'll throw in a free market system, not wealth re-distribution

Foundations of American values

And how come I get the feeling that many here are against what I just said?

Oh well, we still live in a free country , free to express our opinions, at least for now, can't speak for a possible leftist future.

I forgot to mention the lefts' trinity, symbol, and values:

Trinity:

Race
Gender
Class

Symbol:

The flag has been replaced by a tree

Values:

Tolerance
Compassion

Their you have it in a nutshell folks, welcome to the new world, Obama's world, and the current battle

Stee

Hi all,
Thanks for all the thoughtful insights. By "faith" I mean what they mean by it in US politics today, so it is religion. Religious conservatives value faith in the existence of God as essential for life. I find that religious conservatives usually (definitely NOT ALL), do not like secularism and do not respect it for its acceptance of all religions. Even religious leaders (for example, the present Pope and the previous one) talk as though secularism is anti-spiritual and think that it leads to immoral behavior. Is it because they think that secularism is lack of faith in God? but it is NOT! But at the same time it does not condemn atheism. Secularism is for tolerance and harmony irrespective of one's opinions about the so-called God. Are secularists necessarily immoral? No. A secularist can act morally sometimes and immorally other times and the same is true about an atheist and one who claims to be very religious although such a person may deny ever being immoral. (Does anybody believe that Bush did not know that he was misleading people when he was saying Sadam Hussain and 9/11 in the same sentence?)

I agree secularists are against religious fanatics who believe that all those who do not pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ go to hell. Secularists are against those who think that one who does not worship in the name of Allah deserves to be killed. But I do not think that secularists (at least a majority of them) look down upon people for simply believing in and praying to some Almighty the way they want to.

I don´t think they oppose secularism. Those who oppose have the obvious objection in the west from those who fear going back to the middle ages. What I do think is that they oppose pure, -Hellenic/renaissance-rationalism. The reason why, is that it blocks people from comprehending the Absolute, something that requires going beyond reason/logic/culture. Those are just tools.

For more information on the western "faith/rationality divide"(something
I understand is absent in eastern cultures), read "The Celestine
Prophecy"(there´s a film, but I recommend reading before watching it).

Quite interesting how the fights of renaissance/religious
people 500 years ago still are alive today.

Dawkings comes to mind.
And you can even go back in time and think of the fights between early Christians
and Romans.Or even back, and think how Aristotle did humanity a disfavor in separating man from nature because of the use of language. So there´s
plenty of reasons as to why this divide exists in the West.

It is reasonable to expect a divide between faith and rationality because faith itself means to believe without using logic. That is why there is divide between different faiths also; because beliefs of even two individuals may differ. Secularism though,is not confined to rationality because secular spiritualists would indeed say that comprehension of the Absolute is beyond reason. While secularists accept that belief systems may differ and are open to look at other belief systems or rationality without prejudice, the religious would say their way is the only right way. A colleague of mine at work is a Chinese American and a good kind hearted Christian. In one of our lunch time conversations, I said (being born and raised in a secular religion) that God does not mind by what name you address Him and that all religions are good enough for God. He reacted immediately "No, there is nothing like many right answers to a single question, there is only one right answer. Every other answer is wrong." He had a good reason for his belief!

I have tendency to confuse spiritual with religious. But I guess you are right. Nonetheless, although religious people may be intolerant in the hominal/speaking dimension, I have known the most loving, tolerant and accepting people in the heart dimension. They give to charity not caring about the religion of the receivers... None is perfect I guess. Ever since Yôga began to be spread out of India, there has been a tendency in the traditions to grow in sects, which perhaps didn´t loose much of the tribal/fighting characteristics. This time, though, the fight came from the sects.
Perhaps they also haven´t learned to be tolerant with the intolerant.

Humanity still has a long way to go.

[]´s

Rafael

dear Rafael,
There is plenty of religious (and non-religious) spiritual, (and non-spiritual) in the
heart of giving,
to make this a
beautiful world.
amen!
~ Kate

Ôm Kate, Ôm :)

Yes. There are many many Christian organizations who do invaluable service to the hungry, homeless, injured, ill and poor people all over the world. Sometimes they render these services risking their own lives. Their compassion for humanity has no bounds. Often (may be just sometimes), they convert the people they serve to their own faith. It is not wrong because they are not using force for that purpose. Moreover, their intentions are good; they want to help the unfortunate people not only materially but also spiritually. According to their beliefs, people can be helped spiritually only by conversion to their faith. Now I understand why religious leaders known for their generosity and compassion encourage converting people of all other faiths and secularists to their own faith.

Yes, what causes the problem is basically an ignorance that they are "just" in a tradition
that happens to make sense to *them*. They aren´t aware of where this tradition came from, and the fact that it´s just a way to explain something that makes sense in their culture. Since all they know
is "their own tradition and hell", they want to spread it to everyone, genuinely thinking that all else leads to hell.

Ambasteve,
It is nice to hear that you and conservatives like you are not against "traditional" secularism; it is just that I do not quite know what you mean by "traditional". I did not have any leftist ideology in mind when I wrote the question. But I did have an uneasy feeling remembering what conservatives say for example on Fox news, "these secularists do not care for prayer in public schools, they do not care for bringing children up with moral values" etc. It is interesting that my question appeared like a dem question to some. Anyway, I think you have a soft corner for liberals; that is why you post comments on this website.

I do not think that those who consider faith to be important for life are necessarily against secularism. It would be more correct to say that those who want to live, practice and express religion in the public sphere tend to be against secularism.

I am a Turkish Secular but still consider faith to be very important for my life. I just dont take my religious belief to the street. I dont cover my head, even if I pray five times a day, I dont discuss my religious habits with others. I dont try to influence others and cannot accept religious criticism from other Muslims.

One thing I have noticed however is that Seculars tend to be more spiritual rather than religious. This is definitely true in my case.

Burcidi,
Good points. Secularism is respect for other faiths not aversion to all faiths and not atheism.