Is European "Secularism" Protecting Europe from Moslem Influence Through Government?

polifrog




... Or do we see the result of mixing an atheocracy with moral relativism in which the "secularists" back down in the face of moral relativism resulting in some religions bearing the brunt of marginalization more so than other "racial" religions?




It seems to me that when a nation decides to turn a deaf ear to religion or any particular group it not only becomes less democratic, but it empties the table of various religions from which consensus on issues may arise, the "table" being the citizenry's conduit through which it informs governance of religious matters. Unfortunately, it is through this broken"forum" that the pet causes of various individual religions are moderated by the others when attempting to inform governance.

As it now stands in Europe, and to a lesser degree here in the US, religion is no longer allowed to inform government, thus the state is less likely to recognize a new religion within its sphere of influence as a religion. Instead, in the case of the Muslim faith, the state sees a new race. How can it see this new force otherwise when no longer informed by religion? In fact, when religions do attempt to inform governance in this matter they are told that as racists they should simply shut up.

The end result is that the table of religion once occupied by all religions informing the state was emptied by the state. However, via moral relativism, the state has allowed the Muslim faith to have the only seat at the table of religion and, thus, the privilege of not just informing governance, but to do so without first having to reach a "consensus" with other religions.

This is the danger of what most call a "secularist" state and what I prefer to call an atheocratic state.

Remove all religion and open the door to one.





out