Secularity is a word whose definition is vague, but which can be summarized by the separation of state and churches (in the plural) and freedom of thought.
But it would be better to specify that it is a separation of State and religions, or, better yet, a separation of State and belief (in the singular), because State cannot be in the belief, but in rationality, even if it has to deal with the belief (belief as mental function, not as religious content).
To sum up, it would be necessary before to define the term of secularity, to know what we want as society, if we want it to be rational and directed by rational representatives, who are not concerned with beliefs but with facts.
What is secular, democrat, or even religious, in fact what is good, just, moral, ethical, and simply intelligent, to force somebody to exist, only to exist, but also to make it undergo life as it is carried out by oneself, and often much worse?
There are three types of freedom that can be envisaged: the first is our motor freedom, the second is social freedom, and the third is a possible mental freedom. Secularity is correlated with freedom, with the freedom of people in a society, therefore with social freedom, but also with freedom of conscience and thought.
But what does this social freedom represent whereas we are all constrained to exist, and therefore paradoxically, forced to be autonomous and relatively free?
And what means freedom of thought, whereas our brain is an organ like the others that produces thought, as well as nerve impulses, or colored sensations, sonorous sensations, painful sensations, etc., like the pancreas produces insulin.
(For believers: if you had a soul it would be of the same ilk as your brain, that is, provided complete turnkey so excluding your responsibility in its nature and functioning, which will not grant you more free will than your nervous system; as for its immateriality, how then could it interact without being material since the material principle is the interaction?)
Freedom of conscience and thought can only be the freedom to express what comes from thought since thought is produced outside our control. But this freedom is already granted to us in Article 19 of the Human Rights, so it is useless to recall it in a definition of Secularity.
What the notion of secularity should cover to correspond with what is expected of it, but in a real world, and not only in human culture that is the result of the evolution of an animal that always lingers to integrate his latest scientific knowledge about the universe and itself.
Secularity which must therefore at least integrate the impossibility of free will and the obligation to exist that each individual has in a world of Right? Since we invented the Right, why not respect it completely?
Secularity is also the separation of the state and the churches, which was necessary because of the previous modes of government where the king was of divine right. This separation is due to a need for rationalism even in governance.
Which means that we (French) admit irrationality, i.e. belief, in individuals, but not at the governmental level. But how far is this governmental rationalism going?
Why not impose rationalism in individuals through strict education, and why not fight this illness of thought that is mental function "belief", because it is a real psychological illness, a psychotic pandemic that runs in almost all humans for millennia?
Teaching its child that the Divine Law is above the law of the nation is clearly illegal, it is a direct incitement to misdemeanor, or even to crime.
Freedom to procreate a being constrained to exist to become autonomous and free (mystery) !!! To procreate without mastery of the manufacture of the existence generated is exactly of the same level as the experimentation of Dr. Frankenstein, it is also monstrous. And it is all the more monstrous because this monstrosity is replicated by tens of billions in beings who dare to qualify themselves intelligent.
The freedom to think while you are constrained to exist and while your brain is an organ like the others, an automaton, that you have no more desired than life, and of which you do not have control, neither over its power, nor of its capacities, nor of the functions of which it is provided or not, nor of knowledge and culture which will be instilled.
At any moment, mental integration takes place outside of your conscious control, awareness being itself a mechanism. The brain functions (thought) results from it, and it is always a mystery at least for those who want to see in it a mystery. But why would the mechanisms of the universe produce mysterious things?
Uncontrolled procreation is initially animal, later our mental abilities have needed to justify it by religion, gods, and paradise. Why this need for justification?
Every believer is for an imaginary theocracy, imagined by him, but he is in fact only a credocrat. He wants to impose his belief on others while thinking that his God (non-existent, because impossible) must be the master.
A believer cannot be secular, one has proof of this in the concordatory regime in Alsace-Moselle (France). Despite the Secularity of France theoretically valid throughout the territory of the Republic, the religious of Alsace-Moselle do not themselves demand that Secularity be respected. They preferred to preserve the prerogatives peculiar to their region.
I am convinced that I am right, necessarily means that I am convinced that you are wrong, since we cannot both be right. So thinks the believer. Conclusion, a believer cannot be secular. Hence the dangers of the belief in a supposedly secular democratic republic.
No believer in the world, whatever his religion, will never admit that the law of his god comes after the human law. How to imagine that a believer can be secular, since he puts in the balance an eternity in paradise against a terrestrial maggot life which he imposes on a person, the child he makes in a Frankensteinian-style, his own child to whom he proposes hell by forcing him to exist for his service?
A person who is not secular is a person who does not care about your own freedom to express your thoughts, your ideas. A believer is infallible with regard to the existence of his god and the validity of his religion. How to talk with such a person?
It must not be forgotten that non-secularity is antisecularity , that is to say, non-respect for others. Non-respect for the thought of others, no more of their bodies, it is the disrespect of people. The non-secularity is, I am right and you are wrong; the only manner to understand the world properly is mine, and only my behavior is correct, yours must be reformed, corrected or eradicated.
Are believers, who participate in democracy, able to differentiate between their beliefs and facts, since they admit the existence of their god (which is only a supposition and not even a theory) as an established fact without demonstration.
How can one qualify omnipotent, a being supposed to be infinite and eternal, but which is only capable of producing something as insignificant (by comparison) as the human being?
For what reason does an omniscient being, who knows everything by definition since an infinite time, takes the fancy to fabricate this gigantic universe for some human microbes that he will decree free in everything, and even make his own misfortune, when he does not cause him this misfortune from birth?
You read the Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads, if you like, I read them too if I decide, and I read the fables of "La Fontaine" or "Charly Hebdo" if I want, and you too.
I am hurt, insulted, by what is found in the writings of the Bible and the Koran that some claim truths, I say it, but I will not explode the propagators of what is for me a huge insult to intelligence, to my intelligence.
Moreover, when I was a child, my educators have inscribed by force in the brain, in my mind (you know this thing that belongs to me supposedly of its own and that would allow if possible to use this famous Freewill), these religious narratives making me believe that they were truths.
I abhor all this trickery on the reality that they wanted me to swallow, whereas my brain belongs to me. I make war on religion only by writing, only by irony. Let the religious who pretend to propagate goodness, justice, and honesty do the same.
You religious, be frank and honest. It is honest to be rational and therefore not to refuse valid arguments. Be honest and frank to deserve your paradise. Our brain is made to be rational. Belief is a mental illness, you must admit it. If paradise existed, I would deserve more to go there, than a believer who spends his time toadying his God to get eternity to paradise.
Merit is obtained by innocent conduct, unconscious of purpose. Knowing (pretending to know) that heaven, hell, and above all, a god, exist does not give you any merit.
Since religious claims that free will exists (without demonstration), it means that I have to keep mine to think and say what I want and I would thus get my due in accordance with my behavior and actions, and if you have your own free will as well as your children, well, my actions should not bother you the least bit, because free will guarantees you not to be influenced.
If not, how can you call free will a mental function that does not serve to keep you free to think and preserve you from the influence of others, and therefore free to act according to your own ideas? Are you free to think? Are your children being imposed to exist with an unwanted body and intellect, unwanted performances, in an unwanted environment?
The gods are infamous creative dictators of weak, suffering, warlike, miserable, and always mortal beings. Capable of creating other gods they only make maggots. But they do not exist and belong only to the believer's imagination. Why, then, would a believer want a secular democracy?
Social freedom is a freedom that is not only positive, because freedom is automatically limited by the freedom of the other that is equal to yours, so it becomes a freedom of type bottle half full or half empty, positive or negative according to a point of view.
On the other hand, the freedom of thought and conscience which are internal freedoms, purely mental, are only totally positive liberties in theory, but they have no sense, these freedoms, since they are impossible, the brain being a functioning organ as an automaton, and it is this automaton that makes thought.
No one, mechanically speaking, can claim to be free to think or of consciousness, this claim to be due to the mechanisms of the brain.
Moreover the baby being a person how to grant it the freedom to think and consciousness, whereas its brain is virgin of cultural meanings, and that therefore it requires, to enter society, a culture that must be engraved by its entourage, parents firstly.
In my opinion, and according to the rationalism, it is clear that the child must be educated at birth by competent persons who know how to integrate good information and good social behavior so that the future emancipated associate is able to be free of any influence.
This child must be able “to decide” (result of chance of the integrations of information and inculcated behaviors) by itself so that the multiple “beliefs” do not come to disturb the functioning of this person.
Since free will is impossible and the education of children is indispensable for their insertion in society, how can we speak of genuine secularity since we are all under cultural influence?
How not to fall into the trap of ancient religions and new ones that would try to adapt to current scientific knowledge about the universe and ourselves, for example intelligent design?
The existence of anything is not subject to a belief. The existence of something is a fact or not, it is not by a personal decision that the thing exists.
Anyone can believe in the existence of anything, but should not in any case be able to impose a belief in that existence and everything that flows from it, to anyone. It is not a question of secularity, it is a question of rationality and mental health.
Human rights are the present quintessence of morality extracted from religious books, to which it misses treating the constraint of existence, but obviously one could not find this theme in religion since religion is precisely made to "forget" to ask the question of the constraint of existence.
This is why parallelism is almost perfect between human rights and the "good" part of religions, and it cannot be said that human rights are secular since they do not improve religious morals.
Dare to speak, dare to distribute the discussion about the obligation to exist and the impossibility of free will. There will never be true secularity until these two facts are openly discussed by the whole of humanity. Become truly intelligent please!
My aim is not to proclaim all over the place that free will does not exist, but to take advantage of the fact that it is only a belief, therefore incompatible with Secularity, to fight the death penalty in the world, to improve the conditions in which prisoners are detained, and to raise awareness of the defects of education linked to this belief.
Every mother and father are gurus for their child. The belief comes from this insoluble problem if educators are not intimately convinced of secularity (how to be secular when one is religious?) For by degrees they must teach the child to be mentally independent and critical, That is to say as free as possible by integrating neutral functionalities in its brain.
A small list of professions, not exhaustive, which should not admit believers in their ranks under penalty of direct errors of reasoning incompatible with their activity:
The judges of secular countries
The deputies and senators of secular countries
The leaders of secular countries
The philosophers
All types of scientists
Researchers in Artificial Intelligence
Psychologists and psychoanalysts
The sociologists
Etc.
A secular government must not be left or right. The communist left and the liberal right are ideologies. True secularity forbids ideological beliefs as well as religious beliefs, for a leader.
It is not a question of finding the best way to govern man. The question is what is the best way for man to exist, to constrain him to exist since he is constrained to exist, and to exist on the planet. No one wants to be governed. It is therefore a question of finding this best means and of trying to lead the man towards that best, from the present (deleterious) state, if possible.
Democracy and secularity cannot extend to the freedom to arbitrarily procreate a being that must be proclaimed free. We cannot democratically choose to sabotage humanity by procreating unreasonably, which humanity has done up to now in spite of the general dictatorship it has undergone most of the time over the centuries.
In a secular country, orientation religious, sexual, or other behavior which is practiced privately, must not intervene in the deliberations of the legislators.
As far as marriage is concerned, it is a contract between adults. With regard to each child, there should be a natal contract, for each child, spent with the parents, regardless of the number of people who declare themselves parents, tutors, and society. It is a natal contract per child, between the tutors of the child to come (to conceive), the society, and the witnesses of the contract.
If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:
"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "
Dead end
E. Berlherm (November 2016)
